💡📝David Howe wrote on Wed, Jun 7, 2006 08:57 PM UTC:
It seems a desirable goal to give more meaning (or weight) to the more extreme ratings. However, the technique you describe might have unintended consequences. It may lead to a rater 'buying' points by rating some large number of entries as 'Okay', not because they want to rate those entries, but because they want to gain points.
Another possible system might involve awarding points over time (everyone gets N points every M days). The points would be of the 'use it or lose it' type, so that point hording would not be possible.
Or perhaps a 'free market' system, where each rater starts out with N points, which the rater uses to 'buy' the right to rate a particular entry from the entry's owner. Eg. Dave has 10 points. He buys the right to rate Peter's Anti-King Chess, which Peter is selling for 3 points. Dave now has 7 points left, and Peter has 13 (assuming he had 10 before the transaction).
The down side to these schemes is that they discourage free expression by putting certain artificial limits on expression.
Another possible system might involve awarding points over time (everyone gets N points every M days). The points would be of the 'use it or lose it' type, so that point hording would not be possible.
Or perhaps a 'free market' system, where each rater starts out with N points, which the rater uses to 'buy' the right to rate a particular entry from the entry's owner. Eg. Dave has 10 points. He buys the right to rate Peter's Anti-King Chess, which Peter is selling for 3 points. Dave now has 7 points left, and Peter has 13 (assuming he had 10 before the transaction).
The down side to these schemes is that they discourage free expression by putting certain artificial limits on expression.