Fork me on GitHub
Math for the people, by the people.

User login

ultra-complex systems

extremely complex systems, highest level of existence in Categorical Ontology
extremely complex systems, the mind
Type of Math Object: 
Major Section: 

Mathematics Subject Classification

00A30 no label found18A40 no label found37B25 no label found93D15 no label found18A05 no label found93D21 no label found37B10 no label found


I see this entry rated twice by the same person, namely the author of the entry (giving top rating in all fields, of course).

Leaving aside the fact that the author is rating his own entry, which doesn't sound appropriate (and happens systematically with all entries by this author that I saw), it seems to me that having two ratings by the same user is a bug in the rating systems, isn't it?

Wow, I didn't know the ratings system had been modified to show the individuals who have rated a particular object...this is really inappropriate; bci1, it appears that you have rated all of your objects with fives across the board at least twice, and one object (with canonical name CategoricalOntology) SIX TIMES! You are abusing the rating system.

I'm confused with your message. Is it directed to me or azdbacks4234?
Because this is my first post referring to you or an entry of yours, and it was completely unrelated to the content of your entries so I don't see why you bring that up.

In my opinion, rating your own entries should not be allowed, and even if the rating system allows it, by common sense the user should abstain from doing it.

FWIW, the hostility you seem to perceive may have to do with the fact that you are new to the site and contributing a lot of new material which does not conform to the standard that other users are used to. And I mean the way in which the material is presented, not the particular topic. People file corrections for that reason.

For example, if a definition entry is supposed to define XXX and its content says "XXX is something useful for YYY", you'll probably receive a correction requesting that you actually define XXX. This correction may come from someone who has no knowledge in "XXX theory", but there is no need to have such knowledge in order to note that the entry is not accomplishing its purpose.
And letting you know that via a correction is not a hostile action. It's how the system is supposed to work.

Have you noticed that the newest 10 or 15 entries were all contributed by you? Isn't it more natural to assume that your entries get a great amount of attention because of this, instead of some obscure plot to prevent your contributions?

I think this happens a lot, I don't want to point fingers. Sometimes it appears that articles have "buddies" who pat each other on the back.
There was even a positive rating for a recent flame article posted!

Rating is complicated and it cannot be "fair". But it is worth mentioning that the abuse can be had in other ways. Some people will underrate a good entry for personal reasons. It is part of the downside to having an open process where corrections are tracked to other users etc.

There is an alternative, we could use an editorial board, blind referee's, and article reviews. However, that would move peoples time away from adding articles. I suspect the minor improvement in "fairness" of ratings isn't worth loosing new articles for. So I think here is a case where we should periodically remind new and old users of the suggested policy of the rating system, explain why we want it (so that it gives a sense of credibility to the site) and hope that from there users will on average comply.

Thanks for bringing it up to a new group of users Koro.

bci1 wrote:
" I could not update my files without clicking on the window as it takes a long time, and this produces every time a new rating. Am looking to find a fix for the problem with the repeated updating my files; I may attempt to do all text fixing off line, but it is not obvious how this is to be done as there are quite a few compiler bugs."

This isn't clear. Please explain why editing an entry requires you to rate it. Thanks.

Subscribe to Comments for "ultra-complex systems"