Weblist Changes

There are now nearly 3,000 Weblists that have been created by RateItAll members. Many of these make for compelling reading and have been put together with a lot of time and effort. Some of them haven't.

As more and more Weblists compete for airtime, we felt it was the right time to institute some community controls to allow the RateItAll community to determine which weblists get the most exposure. In addion, we'll be taking advantage of the changes to clarify some of the existing guidelines.

Very soon now (possibly as early as this evening), we're going to be launching a series of tweaks to the Weblist channel of the site. As mentioned in earlier posts, these tweaks are going to:

- Require that every Weblist have a ratings scale in order to be published.
- Ensure that the highest quality Weblists, as determined by the community, get the most airplay.
- Clarify some of the guidelines related to Weblists.

Specific applications of the new Weblist approach will include the following:

- Weblists that have a cumulative rating of 3.00 or higher will be accessible through the main Weblist index. Weblists that have a cumulative rating of a 2.99 or lower will be accessible through the user page of the Weblist creator.
- Weblists that are entirely personal to the reviewer (e.g. "Songs I Play on the Guitar," "Rate My DVD Collection," "A Few Ideas I Have") will be accessible only through the user page of the Weblist creator.
- There will be an administrative override, that in certain cases, will be used to assign a Weblist to "user page only" status.

Initially, it will only take one 3+ rating for a Weblist to show up in the main index. This means that all of us will be able to make an immediate impact in determining which Weblists get airplay, and which don't - as many of the Weblists have not been rated.

To ensure that quality, but as of yet unrated Weblists, don't get lost in the shuffle, any Weblist that is unrated will also show up in the index, until its cumulative rating drops below 3.0.

As always, feedback is welcome....


  1. This won't solve the problem and will probably make it worse by offering a method of validation for crap. So all weblist makers should encourage other users to make use of the weblist community controls to "validate my crap" as it were. And I am sure many will. The problems associated with this method are numerous. The most important being ease to be derelict in duty.

  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  3. Although this change most likely won't prevent poor-quality weblists from appearing...I would hope RateItAll not to be in the practice of letting one person's opinion control all content. That said, I think it's about time something was done about the proliferation of idiotic weblists that are often difficult to rate or redundant. Furthermore, of all the added features to RateItAll, why has the ability of a rater to delete his or her own weblist not been created?

  4. Hi Mr. Political, to delete one of your own Weblists, here's what you do: Click on the "Flag for Administrative Review" link on Weblist page, select the reason you want it deleted, and leave us a short note. We'll get to deleting in within a couple of days.

  5. Wow. Mr. Political gets a response to his post within 30 minutes while my feedback gets nothing. But then again the actual criticism of crap lists for both of us was ignored. Am I supposed to be shivering from the cold shoulder. Hehehe.

  6. Hi PB, I'm certainly not trying to give anyone the cold shoulder. You have given the same feedback repeatedly for the last several months, and I guess you and I are going to have to agree to disagree. You feel that RateItAll should decide what are good weblists and what are bad, and I feel that the community should decide. Not much more to say than that :)

    Over the next couple of months, you will find that we will be moving even farther towards giving RIA users more administrative control over the site. I feel strongly that the future of RIA is in making it a community resource in which the community is responsible for determining user reputations, determining which content is compelling, and even self policing. Much more on this to follow, as it ties in directly for my vision for RateItAll...

  7. Agreeing to disagree is a copout. And the community of RIA is filled with a bunch of ego stroking, chit-chatting nimrods. Almost to a man afraid of criticizing another reviewer. To the point that it has become like congress. The bottom line is RIA should have enough sense to see all those lists that are complete crap and eliminate them. But that requires some amount of intestinal fortitude since it means the risk of pissing off more than a few regulars. I can't imagine what the vision of RIA might be but I had hoped it did not include a bunch of crap. Evidently, if the "community" decides a bunch of crap is worth a weblist that is just the way it is.

    And lest we forget how easy it would be for a clique to push down one list and push up another. A single individual, with a little savvy, could also do that. The inherent problems in such a method are obvious. But it avoids the realistic need for actual quality control.

    Left to their own devices children will not take care of themselves or act responsibly. And if anyone thinks RIA reviewers of late are anything above childlike just go read all the drivel on having an RIA member over for dinner. That is but one example.

    Excuses can't be made for obvious crap. Hell, even the people posting on many of those crap lists admit they are more or less crap. Even the RIA admins have admitted many violate simple guidelines such as ACTUAL RATABILITY. But they are "fun". So there will not actually be a "quality" community control. It will simply be "which do you like".

    Like is different from quality. Common sense and an objective mind can determine quality because they overlook the prejudice of "like". And like would be problematic where USERS who create the lists are concerned. Who REALLY wants to say that Sudiszino made a dumb list?

    So it will be laughable if the term used is quality control.

    "administrative control"? It hardly amounts to administrative control. It will be like all other things on RIA where users are involved. A popularity contest. And only a moron thinks that if something is popular it is also good or quality.

    I am a realist and I try to use common sense and logic. Any minor application of common sense or logic would show that numerous lists to come that are 3.0 ratings above are complete manure. But they will undoubtably be very popular.

    Reality TV is criticized as crap. It remains on because it is popular. Even those who watch it admit it is crap. So this is the same situation. TV executives continue to allow the crap even though many think it is garbage for ratings. Hmmm.... Why does RIA allow it?

    To be fair? To be above the fray? To allow an honest assessment by the "community"? Don't make me laugh. RIAs reasoning is similar to the TV execs and no more honorable.

    If things take a turn for the worse and the "vision" goes into the crapper RIA users can rest assured REAL quality control will be implemented. But unless it becomes a necessity the circus will continue.

  8. And I am positive the lack of response to my last reply in RIA's personal message system is indeed the cold shoulder. 2 Accusations were tossed in my direction. I explained one in full and the other I challenged for evidence. But it appears acceptable to not only send accusations my way but also to ignore the response.

  9. PBeavr, if you are that disappointed with the way things are at RIA, there is a simple solution. Pardon my French, but cessez d'etre une chienne et partez.

    You aren't saying anything now that you haven't already said over and over and over. You are apparently the only person here that has that much of a problem with the way things are going, everyone else seems to like it just fine. You talk about vision, but the problem is the vision isn't yours. Stop being such a baby.

    For the record, no system is going to be perfect, but I think this idea is a good one. At the very least, it's worth trying.

  10. James, shut the hell up. I don't give a crap what you think. And picking an argument with me is a bad idea. If you want to give me advice you'll have to speak english as well. I don't speak french and am not going to learn it anytime soon.

    I am not the only person who sees things a certain way. I am not even the only who says so. I am just not one to be ignored so people have noticed me more. Few do say anything but only because they lack balls.

    As to vision... I didn't bring up that term. I see it as REALLY dumb in the first place. A website and its "vision". Give me a break. No one recognizes more that the control isn't mine. And the point is?

    Are we suppose to allow thoe who do control things to run them as they wish? Ah, the examples of just how pathetically stupid such an idea is are too many to list. So try not to sound like a moron next time.

    And let me just say "master of the obvious", that only a twit thinks anything or any system is going to be perfect. But flawed is different from perfect or even good. The flaws with the chosen path on weblist quality control are many. The potential abuses would be difficult to control without constant supervision. And constant supervision is the exact opposite of what this idea is after.