Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an unofficial archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page or the footnote if you have questions.
Poll
Yes.
5 26%
4 0%
3 13%
2 6%
1 20%
0 33%

Votes: 15

 New rating system for adequacy

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Oct 15, 2001
 Comments:

As my last diary about ratings has so far produced no results, I'll continue to plug away. This time I'm calling for new standards with regard to ratings. The scale will still be from 0-5, but will be modified as follows:
diaries

More diaries by theR
Links for grown-ups
Speechless
Back
Perdida -- read this
Cancelled
Tool
There's not enough meta-whining here.
Untitled
Sweet!
Dear My Diary,

5 - Dumb as a rock. Perfection.
4 - Pretty damn stupid, but not quite perfection. Could be more redundant.
3 - Fairly idiotic and ill-informed, but can spell and/or speak English (or other native language). Work on posting the same thing hundreds of others have already posted and you're well on your way to all '5' ratings.
2 - Just your average member of the sheeple spouting average opinion in an average way. Congratulations!
1 - Dangerously close to understanding sarcasm, irony, and humor.
0 - You are not welcome here. This is where we take a stand. This is where we fight back. You are welcome here. This is where we take a stand. This is where we fight back.

Please note that the descriptions must be included in the drop down list for choosing ratings.

I'm sorry. (none / 0) (#1)
by RobotSlave on Mon Oct 15th, 2001 at 05:27:31 PM PST
Did you really use this assemblage of letters, "sheeple," or did I fail to parse your message correctly?

I await clarification.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

Sheeple (none / 0) (#3)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 15th, 2001 at 07:47:44 PM PST
It's short for "sheep people," I believe. Persons with a so-called "herd mentality" most commonly associated with sheep.

I assume.

What? (none / 0) (#5)
by RobotSlave on Tue Oct 16th, 2001 at 09:29:01 AM PST
Is it too tiring to type "sheep people," then? Or the somewhat tortuous but less ambiguous "sheep-like people?"

Is there, in short, a real problem with the English language that needed to be remedied with that grotesque assemblage of letters, or are we perhaps instead being assaulted with a "term" invented for purely sociological purposes, serving to identify the user as one of the herd?


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

Sometimes, you just need a new word (none / 0) (#7)
by theR on Tue Oct 16th, 2001 at 10:41:36 AM PST
As our good friend Rich Hall is aware, sometimes a new word is the only thing that will due justice rather than a description or phrase. If his sniglets were actively maintained, I can assure you that sheeple would be one.


It's all right to cry,
Crying takes the sad out of you.
-- Rosey Grier

 
Ahem (4.50 / 2) (#2)
by Peter Johnson on Mon Oct 15th, 2001 at 06:08:49 PM PST
On behalf of the editors of Adequacy.org, I'd like to point out that comment ratings are given out by the readers of this site. If you have a problem with the ratings of comments on this site, a plea for improvement to the readership.

The editors feel that the ratings system is fairly self explanatory. Comments that deserve notice should appear at the top of an article (high score), less valuable comments at the bottom (low score). The merit of a comment is judged by our readership although we reserve the right to remove obscene, offensive or inappropriate (read "troll") comments.

your friend,
--Peter
Are you adequate?

My friend Peter, (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by theR on Mon Oct 15th, 2001 at 09:43:45 PM PST
I understand your stance on this issue, and that of the other editors, yet I shall continue to disagree. I have been pondering this rating system more, whilst at the Cosmos Club eating my dinner, and have ironed out a few more details.

Changing the ratings to a defined scale for people to choose from is the simple part. There is no actual work to be done. The hard part (technically speaking) will be assigning the ratings points to people. You see, whoever the comment is replying to shall receive the points awarded to the comment. I think an average for each comment is adequate for these purposes, rather than a sum of all the ratings for each comment. Comments directly responding to an article shall award the points to the author of the article. Of course, to avoid cheating or addition problems, this all must be implemented with scoop and the infallible machines that run it.

To illustrate, I offer this one example. As of this writing, this comment has received an average rating of four. Therefore, the author that the comment replies to would gain four points. This is, of course, assuming the comment would receive the same rating under the new rating guidelines. If not, I am sure we are all capable of having scoop do the math.

If this is not satisfactory, then I shall rethink my recommendations and post a new one shortly. Otherwise, let us start the scoring! It may be easier than Scrabble, but the scores will be much higher!

Your ever so humble user,
theR
XXXOOO


It's all right to cry,
Crying takes the sad out of you.
-- Rosey Grier

 

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.