Re: Worst RST posters, acc. to Google

On 19 May, 23:58, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Joe Ramirez" <josephmrami...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:92c8d2cb-0f26-4e6c-b6b1-5122ae2db77d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On May 19, 6:10 pm, Whisper <beaver...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



Joe Ramirez wrote:
On May 19, 2:55 pm, TJT <the...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Joe Ramirez wrote:
On May 19, 2:08 pm, TJT <the...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Joe Ramirez wrote:
On May 19, 1:01 pm, robin <robinson.n...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 19 May, 16:37, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Google Groups has a rating system that allows anyone to rate
newsgroup
posts on a scale of one to five stars. The system displays the
average
rating and total number of ratings for each poster.
It turns out that RST has a lot of posters with the lowest
possible
average rating, one star. The ratings are Usenet-wide and can't be
limited to a single group (as far as I know -- don't want to spend
more than five minutes on this), but most RST members seem to make
this their primary home, so I suppose the averages are still
meaningful. Here's the snapshot, as of today, of the worst
posters. :) All have one-star averages.
1. Whisper -- 4,281 ratings
2. TJT -- 2,733 ratings
3. allr1 -- 1,821 ratings
4. RuPEDski -- 994 ratings
5. Dr. GroundAxe -- 977 ratings
6. Raja -- 864 ratings
I thought 1 star means you're a really really good poster, at least
it
appears so if you look who are leading the list, especially top 2.
You could get a job in the Bush Administration if it weren't on the
way out. :)
guess that most of those ratings are down to vendettas from a small
number of posters.
Some time back I lowered my geekyness to a level of actually using
Google groups occasionally...Was somewhat surprised by my rating. My
first thought was exactly that: Vendetta by very few posters. In fact
my
instant reaction was that "wow that Dave is quite mad" ;)
But then again further looking at who do have low ratings, it's
apparent
that many of those who have low ratings are Nadal fans...Most posters
here are federites and I have no doubt my straightforward comments
have
pissed a few along the road.
I do think that some pro-Federer, or really anti-anti-Federer, bias
affects the ratings. Otherwise, you'd expect Hazelwood to be among the
one-star people.
Dave's not pro-Federer?

However, that's probably not the only factor. Other

factors apparent from the list are routinely putting up dumb,
illogical, or dishonest posts, and/or often being exceptionally
obnoxious or insulting.
Joe Ramirez
Now you're giving those ratings way too much respect. Is this why you
started this topic, you believe there's actually some truth in those
ratings?

I think people who vote must be responding to more than just what
*skriptis delightfully calls the "non-fedfucking" aspect of the many
different posts that get low ratings. Set aside that aspect, and leave
yourself out for the moment as well. What do you see that's left?
allr1 (musclemania), GroundAxe (hates everything), RuPEDski (hates
everyone), Raja (rock lists) -- what's your reaction? No, I don't
think Google ratings convey "truth." But I do think that they provide
interesting information about the way Usenet responds to certain types
of posts and posters, and that the reaction goes beyond a mere bias
against "non-fedfuckers."

Joe Ramirez

It's obvious this ng is infested with biased fedfuckers, & every time
they see my face it's automatic 1 star without judging content
objectively. Completely worthless list.

I've already stated in this thread that I agree that some anti-anti-
Federer bias appears evident. (You, on the other hand, don't seem able
to recognize that the use of the term "fedfucker" indicates a very
strong bias on the part of anyone who uses it.) Exactly how much
impact it has, no one can say. If you want to chalk up *all* your low
ratings to the malicious actions of "fedfuckers," please comfort
yourself. But I think that's probably a delusion.

Yes, the voting down of Whisper etc isn't just from Fedfans, the Sampras
Detractors are obviously out in force too, mind you, can you even get one
without the other?

Yes, if you are a fan of Federer it means that you must hate Sampras.
The idea of someone being a fan of both Federer *and* Sampras is just
an impossibility. Either that, or you are the biggest dumb*** in the
whole newsgroup. I wonder which is more likely?

.

Loading