Re: Plausibility Check


Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
Peter T. Daniels wrote:

What is "kiilrating"? I've been sentenced to google groups for about
three weeks now, and I haven't found any evidence of such a thing.

Sentenced? I like the Google groups. The bugs of the new interface
have been removed, now it works fine. Years ago I tried to read
messages via Netscape. Made me desperate. Once I subscribed
to a mailing list, whereupon my e-mail account was flooded. With
Google I have it easy. I just open the threads I am interested in,
no flooding of my e-mail account, no need to killfile anyone.
The only problem I have with Google is the rating facility in the
scientific groups. Log in, browse sci.lang or another group, place
the cursor on the five empty stars ***** under a message, and you
can see pop up the following explanations (quoted from memory):

* poor quality, I would not recommend this message
to a friend

** below average

*** average

**** above average

***** excellent, I would recommend this message to a friend

When Google installed the rating facility in February or March
of this year, I immediately foresaw what will happen: some
people will downrate every message of mine.

Wow, so you can foretell the future as well as you can travel to the
past!

And it did happen.
Some people follow me everywhere and systematically give
me one star for poor quality.

I've tried, but you post so much of this crap that my 'clickin' finger
gets tired.

Look up the last messages of
my etymological thread (glossary of the new Magdalenian words)
and you know what I mean. Here in this thread someone followed
our heated discussion and gave us 3 stars each. Then one of
my killraters found that I don't deserve three stars for average,
and gave a series of my messages one star each, systematically
bringing down my rating from 3 to only 2 stars. However, he missed
one message, and so I pointed it out to him.

Killrate is an analog of killfile.

I find the rating facility unworthy for a scientific forum, where
people must provide arguments.

I think it works great! Your posts do not belong on a scientific
forum. Although I can give you credit for being so prolific, your
fantasy language has been shot down so many times by competent
linguists that the only resort is to warn people by giving you a poor
rating.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Plausibility Check
    ... I like the Google groups. ... When Google installed the rating facility in February or March ... our heated discussion and gave us 3 stars each. ... my killraters found that I don't deserve three stars for average, ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: X-No-Archive, here we go again ;-)
    ... Only google expires them in a week. ... We all know Google Groups ... Google will honor this header. ... Before 1992, and at my university, posts never expired until disk space ...
    (news.software.readers)
  • Re: just "do you"
    ... it is mainly because Google Groups posters - ... Usenet is an old network of NNTP servers, ... Usenet newsgroups for people whose ISP doesn't offer NNTP as a service ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)
  • Re: Impossible to post questions or replies
    ... Perhaps Google Groups is a lot more efficient than ... Microsoft MVP (Word) ... signature for NG posts and set the display name as you choose. ... I sign in to google groups with on the unpredictable occasions when it ...
    (microsoft.public.word.docmanagement)
  • Re: How to spot sociopaths in the newsgroups
    ... If you scroll down a list of posts using Google Groups ... you'll see a line of five stars near the middle of the screen. ... The "five star" ratings reminded me of when I used to play ...
    (sci.physics)
Quantcast