From what I've seen of the ratings, it's just people giving their "buddies" good ratings and giving people they argue with bad ones, no matter how well written or poorly written articles are.
What's to keep those with authority from doling out negative ratings and then simply not taking them down if they are seen as unjustified? Or silently deleting good ratings on articles written by people they don't care for?
The system is way too open to abuse. I won't make use of it at all, unless an article is just so grammatically destroyed that not giving it a bad rating would be worse than doing so.
"What's to keep those with authority from doling out negative ratings and then simply not taking them down if they are seen as unjustified? Or silently deleting good ratings on articles written by people they don't care for?"
Our integrity and professionalism are two things that come to mind. And Visitor, all I've seen from you since you've started here are negative comments about the site. No one's forcing you to be here, just in case you missed that.
"And Visitor, all I've seen from you since you've started here are negative comments about the site. No one's forcing you to be here, just in case you missed that."
Then you must've missed my submitting a news, the comments I've made about stories that have nothing to do about Shortnews, and whatever else I've written outside this one post.
From your reply, I guess asking questions is not allowed, since my first comment was directed at what I see USERS doing (which is not a comment about the site), my second comment is a few questions, and my third comment is how I would/would not utilize the ratings system, and one little comment about how it is open (that refers to the possibility) to abuse, not that abuse has taken place.
I get the idea, though: questions are not tolerated. I'm sorry, but "integrity and professionalism" would admit that there is a possibility for abuse, whether or not it happens. It would not cause a person to react with a defensive accusation.
Questions are even welcome here. I wasn't replying to you saying that USERS could abuse the system, of course they can, but that's what the admin team is here for, to police that.
I replied, in kind, to your accusation that we, the admin team, would abuse the system. "Those with authority" - that would be us. You asked what's to stop us, and I told you. Nothing defensive there. And you're right, I did miss your one news summary, I apologise.
In the Shortnews FAQ, if you need to get ahold of a Channel Cop for one reason or another, you are supposed to use Shortnews' IM. In my one instance to contact a Channel Cop, after checking to see who is online, more often than not, there isn't a CC available with a question or comment. Maybe one way to get ahold of CC's or perhaps Administration is to have a main email address set up, perhaps with a form to fill out for the person trying to contact CC's or Administration. I needed to complain about another reporter duplicating a story I wrote earlier, and it took me all day to finally find a CC online. Meanwhile, the other person was getting hits and comments to a story I submmited three days prior. Also racking up points for those hits too.
what i've figured out is that you can always get a message out to a CC or similar authority if you look for them through the HighScores link. JFURY, boolie, etc. are all rather high all-time scorers, so go to the all-time high scores list and click on one of their names to bring up their visitors' card (VC). then use the IM link from the card to send your message. a few CCs also have their e-mail addresses posted on their VCs. at least that way, you won't have to wait for one of them to be online.
also, i've almost always got a browser window open to SN, so feel free to e-mail me any time you have a question and i'll try to help. you're a good new contributor, by the way; keep it up!
The very possibility of "editorial, administrative, or authoritarian" editing negates the idea of the rating system entirely.
I'd rather see the bloody rating be potentially skewed by buddy backpats, or infantile carping, than ANY form of censorship, however well intentioned.
A paralell...eBay gets some ani (anus, plural) who carp about everything, and everybody, in their rating system. It rapidly becomes obvious, by repetition, and content who they are. Thus they're quickly ignored. Perhaps identities attached to ratings could solve the issue, rather than removal.