Here's one for the moderators...how does a report that was rated a 4-5 yesterday, get downgraded to a 2 today? Case in point is Beibs Buff report.
Some heavy hand overviewing the numbers?

I was also wondering about that....

I had never noticed the ratings until this post.

Ratings are not controlled by the Moderators.

They reflect what viewers rate that particular thread.

Each member can only rate a specific thread once.

Saeed,

I've noticed this as well. It seems as if hunt reports start off with a 4 or 5, then always tend to go down, hardly ever do they go up, except when they start off for awhile with no rating, then all of a sudden become a 4 or 5 instantly.

Does the software penalize the rating if posters DO NOT rate the thread and therefore this is what causes the number to almost always decline with additional posts?

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Ratings are not controlled by the Moderators.

They reflect what viewers rate that particular thread.

Each member can only rate a specific thread once.

Saeed....thanks for the explanation. But additional questions....is the algorithm a simple averaging of all ratings and that is being displayed over some time period before being updated, or is it a running average, which favors the most recent ratings, that is displayed?

I am not sure what the algorithm is.

I am sort of left scratching my head and asking who cares what the rating is or how the rating system works. If you enjoy a thread, make a post saying so. If not, wander on. Just never much cared or focused on whether a report was a "5 Star" report or a "2 Star" report. Obviously others see it differently.

I too never noticed the star rating system either. Who cares :-)

I always viewed Biebs as kind of the "honey badger" of AR.

When I was trying to figure out the rating system, I clicked on the area and discovered I had given a rating of two stars on a report I really liked. I have since ignored it.

I don't see the point of a rating system for reports. Is this rating system a sort of encouragement for better writing or a higher saturation of over-exemplification?