Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Would it be difficult or unproductive to add some method of peer review to the site?
I'm envisioning a button where you could rate someone on a scale of 1-10, and their average displayed as a stat.
Ten would stand for "Regularly gives good advice or has something interesting to add to the conversation".
Whereas One would denote "Is regularly a douche, dragging things down into the muck".
Nothing too bulky or noticeable, perhaps another stat below the date and time people joined the site.

My reasoning is that the Gallery has an option to rate paintjob and coolness, why not be able to rate fellow posters?
It could be a feature available only to DCMs, or have other caveats such as only being able to rate any one person once a month (to prevent someone sending a users rating into the toilet for lulz, or skyrocketing a hatemonger)

I dunno. There are a couple of people I've noticed as consistently having nothing to add except malice, and others that consistently go out of their way to take time out and be helpful.

The problem with that sort of system is that it just turns the forum into a popularity contest.

Rate people's contributions on their content, rather than on whether or not people have decided that they like or dislike that poster in the past.

Well, then I would imagine if people wanted to win said popularity contest, it would affect the overall content of their posts in a positive direction.

If there were two answers to a question about... say stripping paint. One answer says SG, dettol, or regional equivalent. The other says put the models in a microwave for 45 seconds. Both answers contain more words than my example and are very well written. What is the person posing the question to do? Which seemingly equally valid solutions do they attempt? Oh, the one suggesting the microwave has a score of 2. Perhaps his advice should be taken with some caution.

By your own content rating criteria, I would have assumed you to be a massive jerk, Insaniak :/ But thats my own experience, since you called me a time wasting troll ten posts into my dakka userhood. I've since read some of your articles, particularly enjoying your greenstuff tutorials, and have come to a different conclusion. But wouldn't it be nice to be able to filter negative comments based on "Oh, that person seems to be generally disliked. I won't weight their criticism of my work as heavily."

People and their offerings are too complicated for simple rankings. Some have bad days, some are jerks but work for days on single amazing threads that blow everyone away, some are consistently interesting but post so infrequently that they would not get noticed without a complex weighting scheme that would by its nature be easily gamed. Not everyone shares the same opinion on what is quality content as well (some hate fiction, there are significant disagreements on the interpretation of rules, the political/religious/etc divisions in any non-wargaming topic, etc).

Rogue accounts, organised trolling and active attacks would easily dismantle almost any potential system too. The complexity involved in making something that would barely work is simply not worth it.

I can definitely see your point, and positively agree with almost all of it.
Looking at the top exhalted threads though, it would seem that more of them would be from companies that provide a product. Free advertising and all that. Instead, I can only make out a few of them by title alone.
Does that receive extra attention to remain that way, or is it largely left to its own devices?

Exalting is weighted but mostly left alone to be natural.

I saw that it was weighted, and am actually considering becoming a DCM so I can get a little weightier myself!

But if that system is mostly left alone, and seems to be doing just fine, why assume that one designed for people would have a different result?
Sure, Warmill is a company that sells its goods, but it and the rest of those threads are pure gold! It doesn't seem that any of the aberrant behavior described above has happened to the exhalt feature, and that is a prominent feature of the site. Gitsplitta, Doomthumbs, and Mechanicum Jon's pages are all phenomenal.

There hasn't been an upvoting of threads that don't deserve it or that are plainly just advertising is the meat of what I'm tying to say. And these rose on a system that is almost be begging for the abuses of rogue accounts, organized trolling, etc. Why would a statline that doesn't even come with recognition so far as being able to click on a "most liked dakkanaut" thread topic be a more prime target for abuse?
Just something to think about, not like I require a response or reasoning past "no".

I refer back to my earlier post in that people are not consistent in their postings, more vocal users would drown out rare but high quality posters, and on the whole the bulk of the benefits are already covered by the exalt/top posts system.

The exalt system is fairly resilient to most forms of abuse due to the superior power weightings of mods and admins, and the ability to spot and override abuse fairly easily as it only applies to a single thread.

Ultimately, the cost to implement such a system would not incur enough benefits to justify it in my opinion.

I would say no. There are flaws with the peer review system, but peer reviewing users is , as mentioned , a populairtiy contests. Also if I'm popular and say the grass is blue then my status is irrelevant. That's why individual papers are peer reviewed (flaws and all) not researchers.