Post Ratings Now/Post Ratings Feb. 16!

It's hard not to be curious how the ratings for us "old players" will be affected on the 16th. So, for those not afraid to disclose their numbers, I offer this as just a fun way to keep our old numbers permanent, somehow, even if only in the forums.

So, on the left put:

Behavior Positive > (updated numbers)
Appearance Positive > (updated numbers)
Building Positive > (updated numbers)
Given Positive > (updated numbers)

Behavior Negative > (updated numbers)
Appearance Negative > (updated numbers)
Building Negative > (updated numbers)
Given Negative > (updated numbers)


I'll throw my numbers down first.

1034 > 389
775 > 271
451 > 134
1903 > 731

-1 > 0
-1 > 0
-1 > 0
-42 > -21

Don't forget to come back on the 16th to update your ratings changes!

I'm not old, but i'd estimate that 80% of my ratings were given to me in my first four months, when I was a lot more active than I am now.

468>223
523>255
207>105
973>283

0>0
0>0
0>0
0>0

Edit: Well, that wasn't as drastic as I had thought. 50%, not too bad.

i imagine two-thirds of mine will vaporize. i will likely not bother giving them anymore except through the perpetual habit of rating builds using the pie menu. i can't help but reward people whose builds grab my attention.

607
508
352
2220

-1
-1
-1
-0

i will lose my set of negatives. does that mean i won't be feted anymore? who has the rulebook this week? dya know, i never did know who gave me those. oh well...

1>1
1>1
0>0
0>0

0>0
0>0
0>0
0>0

I just went ahead and took a RANDOM guess at how mine will probably turn out.

n00bs = win.

Behavior Positive = 652
Appearance Positive = 607
Building Positive = 655
Given Positive 745

Behavior Negative = -5
Appearance Negative = -4
Building Negative = -5
Given Negative = -12

I could have just typed it out, but it took me ten mins to get the attached pic right

1769 > 1115
1576 > 1022
856 > 573
3688 > 2394

-5 > -2
-5 > -1
-5 > -1
-18 > -9

Here's my ratings:

+647
+591
+357
+1822

-0
-0
-0
-3

I'm sure these will drop like a stone after February 16. Most of the rates I've garnered in the past six months have been from people grateful for the free plant/tree textures I set out, and I haven't received any of those since they raised the cost of rating to L$25 per rate. I'm not necessarily thrilled about losing my ratings; however, I know that some steps have to be taken to ensure that stipend bonus pay-outs are fairer for newer people who just don't have the same chance to earn ratings as easily as I did way back when they were cheap.

Well I dont think this will do it. Plenty of newer people have alot more ratings that many of the older people, which is fine. What LL plans on doing with them is not. What this will do is hurt older players the most.

Its also sad. Its wiping away my history in favor of others.

There is no way to make rating fair, closest to fair would be to remove all economic ties to it.

fen-

Behavior Positive > 691
Appearance Positive > 682
Building Positive > 286
Given Positive > 1640

Behavior Negative > 0
Appearance Negative > 0
Building Negative > 0
Given Negative > 0

I'm sorry but I still believe this is a kick in the ass to oldbies. Most of my ratings came early on when ratings seemed to mean alot more. I don't get out much like I used to..and ratings for my content come here and there. I'm alone alot more now working on content than I used to be. I don't see how this evens the playing field. Look at our leader boards..an oldbie is up there in appearance, who knows how much of her ratings will go out the window. On the other hand in third place is someone who's been here since 9/14/2004..so her ratings aren't going to change. Unless I misunderstand what's about to happen, I'm not jumping for joy.

Behavior Positive > 701
Appearance Positive > 718
Building Positive > 471
Given Positive > 1165

Behavior Negative > 1
Appearance Negative > 1
Building Negative > 1
Given Negative > 1

The new results?

2/16/2005

Behavior Positive > 123
Appearance Positive > 123
Building Positive > 87
Given Positive > 131

heh

That should give linden lab an idea that rateings arent working.. i mean when pituca and some of the others have neg rates.. this system obviously is being abused!!

Behavior Positive > 435
Appearance Positive > 408
Building Positive > 313
Given Positive > 1009

Behavior Negative > 5
Appearance Negative > 3
Building Negative > 3
Given Negative > 12

I absolutely agree. I’m not sure I make much money because of my ratings – I’m not sure I make ANY money, since they ain’t tremendous – but I’d be glad to give it up.

My ratings were not mined. I never went to a rating party. The only time a group of people rated me, it was negative ratings, and I worked hard for those negs! I am proud of them and do NOT want them erased for the convenience of the economic model.

Every one of my ratings are my history. They are my reputation, as feeble as they are as a way to measure it. Why do I have to loose my ratings just because they cost less to give? This just succumbs to the erroneous concept that NO ratings were earned by anyone. Just because clubbers and ethic-less ratings whores didn’t earn theirs, does that mean I haven’t earned mine?

And since when are ratings points worth their dollar price? Next you’ll be melting down birthday gifts and having them appraised against the current gold market. Those points were meant to be a marker of appreciation between two people. And, you know what? Most of the ones I got, and ALL the ones I gave, were exactly that. Why do they have to lose that meaning in favor of an economic model? Were we fooled all along? Were ratings meant only to be the useless, silly frittering away of money as a tool to choke inflation? Is that all they mean now?

This process cheapens both my reputation and my role as audience to the artists I’ve met in Second Life. Just because some residents, and Linden Lab, weren’t party to my exchanges with the people I’ve met, doesn’t mean that those interactions have no meaning.

So far, since the increase, I have refunded 25 lindens to everyone confused enough to rate me. Not because I mind the rating, but because – though I still appreciate the estimation – I feel tremendously uncomfortable when the points have so clearly become economics instead of personal gestures. Starting on the 16th, I think, I will begin NEG rating anyone who is foolish enough to rate me – or anyone else, if I hear about it. I’m sure it doesn’t matter to Linden Lab’s economic model which kind of points I give out, and it shouldn’t matter to the recipient, since it’s just economics – and it’ll all fade away in a few months anyway.

What is going on, LL? What ARE rating points? Really? If they’re a measure of my appreciation for a long ago build by an old friend, then why in the world would you erase them? Just because the price went up?

That sure cheapens all those Mother’s Day cards I gave to my Mom so many years ago, doesn’t it? Imagine if I’d thrown them all away when I found out how much other people were paying for Hallmark.

I’m sure she would have understood how much less they meant – because they were so cheap.

+354
+330
+328
+407

+521 > +179
+501 > +173
+297 > +106
+806 > +280

-1 > -0
-1 > -0
-1 > -0
-9 > -3

Got me so mad I forgot to actually answer feniks’ point.

The way to make it fair is exactly that – to remove the economic quotient. What sense did it make in the first place that my appreciation of your work should be measured by the cost of the card I gave you? And for the monopolistic company that makes the cards – and sets the price – to come along later and say that my gift to you is garbage because they charged less back then?

If ratings were meant to be a permanent gift signifying a premium social interaction – even if it is one that we apparently get taxed for – then it makes no sense to turn it into an ephemeral thing that dies like a houseplant.

I don’t think it’s right to try to equalize the monetary values of past and future ratings. It simply changes the purpose and the real social value of the system. If we are going to have ratings at all, I believe they should be free from cost AND monetary reward. Find some OTHER money sink. Something else to tax.

If you insist on erasing anyone’s ratings, then I insist you erase ALL ratings. Start from zero. I won’t even require that you reimburse me for all the points I “bought” before finding out that they were only temporary.

Then – after everyone is back to zero – the whole program should be voluntary. Opt-in by default. In fact, it would be even better if the Lindens just opened a trophy store – charge whatever you like, change it every day if you like – and let us give a permanent trophy to the people we’re impressed by. One that will not disappear from their shelf a few months later.

It was, in retrospect, an error to tax ratings. It would also be an error to erase them. Cut them free of the economy and they will regain their social value.

If you must adjust the economy, then go back to taxing real resources.

Oh well... here goes...

Behavior 1581 -7

Appearance 1619 -10

Building 986 -8

Given 2993 -6


marilyn

Marilyn is a tough act to follow but:

+733 >
+747 >
+465 >
+2216 >

-2 >
-1 >
-2 >
-6 >

+474
+414
+230
+1214 (wow wish I could get this money back if the ratings are just going to be discarded since most of them are so old .. or better yet give me a $1214 rating credit so I can rate my friends at L$25 )

-0
-0
-0
-3 (to Darko per his request hehe)

I'd say most of my ratings are from my first year. Sucks I'll be losing them if what I read is correct. I haven't been very social with school and work lately so I think I have less than 10 ratings (maybe even under 5) that I can keep if 6+ month old ratings are going away.

Hank Ramos...

February 15, 2005
Behavior +770 -1
Appearance +624 -1
Building +547 -1
Given +1282 -25

February 16, 2005
TBA

77/0
65/0
44/0
390/0

my only complaint is that i'm going to have to go around and find out whose ratings have expired.