DUH!!! :P

HUH?!? If you rate AFTER commenting, the rate disappears when you do? That don't make sense! Gonna check it here. I'll rate this after the comment, leave, come back to see if it's gone or not.

Thanks. I am new here and had no idea. :)

YAY! And just after I PM'd you about it. One of us reads minds. (did I rate? Um, I think so...I can always go up, hit the thumb and if the number drops down a notch, hit the thumb again, and THEN post my comment. Here I go....

Well, I don't know. Until I rated it, it said O, but now says 2. I'm guessing that's mine and Dahlia's who I see has now posted too. But don't know for sure. But go ahead and mentally add one for a possible fantom rating from me that ain't maybe there. :)

Henry, you and I must have rated at almost the same time. It went from zero to two when I rated also.

Well, now I've thought of another way of testing it. It now says 3, so somebody else has rated this. And prior experience shows me that if you have rated a post then click on it again, the number drops by one as you have just de-rated it. I just tried that, and it did drop to 2, so I re-rated it again. I think maybe that this is some mistaken info caused by possibly leaving a post then hitting the "back" arrow which returns you to where you were. I also did that first, and it did say 0 after I had gotten it to show 1, so I left again and came back via another route to see that it then said 2, which I suspect was as I said Dahlia's and mine.

That is incredible
I wondered why a rating would jump almost double when I rated it..Its the old rating that dissappeared..Holy vow Lunchlady..thanks
rated with hugs and knowledge..:)

Well, I'll be damned! I didn't know that. (I've already rated you)

Ah. I see Matt had the same idea about de-rating an already rated post to check to see if your rating counted. Well, anyhow, you stirred up some interest and comments. Curiously minds want to know something or other.

I recently had to test this myself. It is easier to do so at one of the older posts, in that the activity has slowed to a halt.

Velly intellestink!

Rated.

If what you say is right PW, then I've had it wrong most of the time! Now I'm going to have to break my habit and go for. ues. the "slightly screwy methodology"!

Wow. I didn't know this either. Thank you Matt and PW for alerting us.

Henry: How'd the experiment go elsewhere?

Dahlia16: And I'd been here over 3 months!

Matt: Either great minds think alike, or I just grew a new brain!
And a happy YAY to you!!!!

Henry: This, I would adjudge, would be due to the frequency of rate buttons being hit simultaneously. Try reading my last comment before this one. See if it may help. If not, maybe neither Matt nor I has got it right. We'll see. New experiment.

Linda: Sweetie, where'd you go? Are you in a timewarp at LL2's, or at my place? ;)

Walter: And I just enjoyed a great read at your place, and already followed The Procedure there. :)

Henry: We could be (ominous music vibrates all of space time continuum) wrong or way off base about this. or, it could be, we are right on.

I'm not sure I'm following you here, PW. My succession is as follows: 1)Read 2)Comment 3)Rate
From what I see is that my browser arrow comes out right to the ratings box, right after I post my comment. Not rating is denying the writer of a way to get the most read numbers accurately.

Well, now I don't know what to think. I just rated it again, and it jumped from 7 to 8. But before when it was at 5, and after I had already rated after first commenting in order to test it, it dropped to 4 as though my rating had counted even though I had left, but now it is as though I had never rated it, or that it has let me rate it twice. You are right! Fun with rating.

Although you and Matt are generally right, I don't think that's the case. There are ways to see ratings etc. - I don't know how, was never interested, but a few people have explained them. I'm thing Rob St. Amant and Kent Pitman - intheir listed archives - have info about it.
I rated before I commented because, as usual, I was going backwards...

Boy, I wonder how many rates I gave disappeared. Thanks for the info!! I rated before my comment, so hopefully the rated stayed!

Eck: Welcome! Thanks for the rate! :)

Little Kate: My experimenting led me to Matt's conclusion as having been sound. But, I'm not the nerd around here, so we could both be as screwy as the method I've given.

fernsy: It would appear Matt's right about his theory.

junk1: Try experimenting with it just a little. If our theory doesn't hold water at your end of things, then the screwiness might be an internal engine thing. I'd like to recommend you take it slowly, find a spot where you've neither rated nor commented, and which is of older origin. Try the old way first, checking back via the back button, and see if we aren't correct. It might be wise also to see if any other OSer might leave a comment while you're there.
Just thought.
PM ME!!!!

How do I make my comments disappear?

I discovered that shortly after getting here. I just figured everyone but me knew it.

Well dang it all no how! I jsut tried your suggestion, going to you 2-2-2 blogs in one! post because there were only a few comments there, none of them mine, so I assumed I never rated it either, and commented, then rated jumping the counter from 5 to 6, then left, then went back and it was back at 5 again sure enough! So I hit it again, jumping it back to 6. Here Be Monsters! Or gremlins, anyway.

Uhmmmmm ... I think this may be an urban myth.

hmm. learn something new everyday.

Double DUH for me ! I always commented and then rated. I am sooo sorry if my ratings haven't counted all this time. Better later than never. Thank you PW and Matt Paust for this valuable OS lesson. Shame on me! R - the right way this time.

Okay I'm am a little dense but sometimes I rate without commenting. what happens to that rating? Please advise.

I can't believe that as a mid-long timer here, I never knew this. When I rated this it went from 14 to 16!!! What's up with this?

Must be having a senior moment, but what does GNS mean?

-R- (maybe double rated)

Oh, yeah, Good News Sunday - how stupid of me!!!

Henry: Oh, boy, oh, boy!

aim: Tho' we are right some of the time, there is still some question as to whether this is correct--or even correct straight across the board. In my memory, I seem to have run across a little problem here or there rating, and even commenting. So this could have been a temporary glitsch Matt and I were noticing, or specific to our blogsites.
Thank you for the possible research tool. A helpful suggestion is always welcome. With an easy find of those two possibles, it may well be I'll have a more definitive answer than I'd previously hoped to have. We'll be on the lookout for said informative content. If you have either of them in favorites, this might be helpful. At my end of things, our Front Page's "Find People" feature cannot take me to their blogs.

libmomrn: I hope it did too! And thanks!

Leepin' Larry: We can't. That is up to the blogger whose comments column you've posted your viewpoint in. (BTW, had any of your stone crabs lately? 1st class party grub!)

Torman: Did you really? I wonder how much else I haven't learned here about this place!!! It'd be a real feather in someone's cap were that individual the author of a blog about the lesser known ways of blogging here. ;)

GabbyAbby: It could well be only SOME of us have this trouble, others not. After all, there are three folks whose PMs disappear into the ethers, only to show up as Spam at my inbox--a day or so late. I guess my point here is, if that kind of screwiness exists here (and btw, no one else's PMs go astray at my box this way), then it might stand to reason it's a semi-mythical gremlinlike beast with a will of its own causing rates to disappear as described. So, go figure!

It makes sense when you go to popularity and see the rate/comment ratio...but wait, no it doesn't. Because posts that really soar because of a theme all care about, (supposedly e.g. the theme), have almost exact numbers of rate and comments.
I want the answer! But all information is great, always, so thanks for this.

Paging Rob and Kent! The find people feature is really bad.

test comment w/o prior rating

son of a gun!
you were right!
well crap, people, i have left WAY more ratings than you ever saw, apparently
sux bunches
i will rate properly in future
thanks for telling, poorwoman

trilogy: It might be more screwiness inherent in the system can be seen here via the various updated experiences people keep sharing. Time will tell. Meanwhile, just to be certain, rate that post before you comment!

Fusun: In my reply to Gabby Abby's comment here, more info might apply. Thanks for commenting!

Bea: Ask Torman. I'm guessing he may know. It could be in how pages change via "Post this comment" changing the look to that page. That's my guess. Yet, I'm no expert here, just a trial learner.

markinjapan: Right now, your best bet is to try it where the blog you're rating is a new one to you, and where traffic is slow. Otherwise, results can seem confused or muddled. Try again!

aim: There's a lot to this place I've yet to explore, being so new myself. Hope I was of use to you!

I get randomly shut down at times, but I tend to blame my computer these days! I lose comments and have written about it recently - writing a huge comment and then having to log in and not be able to?

Anyway, I PM'ed the gentleman in question and expect they will reply, although both are busy, Rob St. Amant having recently published a book and Kent Pitman being a senior professor.

I know there IS a way, besides going through the OS apps, to keep a counter on reads versus comments vs. rates. That always seemed too depressing to me - I like comments. I think that's what most of us are here for.
But rates matter too, especially if we're not doing them right.

aim: (3rd time's a charm) Yes, indeedy! It's screwier than the rate feature! Let's hope one of them shows here shortly. It's a longshot, but what have we got to lose?

dianaani: Thanks for playing along! Screwy, huh?

As nearly as I understand the implementation of the feature (and I've never seen the code, I've just tried to work it out from seeing the weird behavior), it works like this:

When you either comment or rate, you get put in the activity feed. At that point, you do not get a new place in the activity feed until you fall off. So every time thereafter that you comment or rate anything, the note about it replaces your position in the feed. So, for example, I read post A and rate it. Now I'm in the feed saying I rated it. Now I comment on it, so I'm in the same position in the feed but now saying I commented instead. If I move to another post B and rate, I'm no longer rating or commenting on A, I'm only rating on B. It doesn't really matter, in my opinion, whether you're reading or rating in the feed--people will get past that. So I don't think the order matters. But if you care to give someone advertising, you have to delay a bit until you fall off the bottom having advertised their piece before you take an action on another piece or else you won't get additional airtime for the other person, you'll just rob one person's ad for another person's ad.

Ultimately, of course, we're all robbing each other of time since if you do it this way you'll use twice as much time, and if everyone does it and demands twice as much time, the feed will move twice as fast, and nothing will be accomplished. So it may not matter unless at least some people aren't working hard to cater to the nuances.

Where the policy works worst is when you blog something new. Then it says something like “Kent Pitman blogged The Spoils of Libertarianism” (just to shamelessly plug my post from today). But if two seconds later you go and read someone else's post C and rate that, you will miss your chance to see “Kent Pitman blogged The Spoils of Libertarianism” ride down the feed. Now it will be saying something like “Kent Pitman rated Rating on OS can be fun” and the new blog post will be getting even less coverage than it already would be. (I don't think OS technology and editorial policy is doing very much to make generally good choices, in case you can't tell. In fact, I think the activity feed is one of the few things that works pretty well, in spite of the issues I've discussed here.)

By the way, ratings are enduring in that they continue to count, whether they show up in the activity feed or not. I've seen no evidence they stop counting unless you click the rating thing a second time, which can undo the effect. You should always wait and watch to make sure the number went up after you click it. (If it goes down, click again to get it back up where it belonged.)

I'm testing this. I just rated you and you have 18, a hell of a lot more than I've been getting by the way, congrats! Be right back.

Stupid me. I commented after rating.

*runs away*

Well, occasionally a comment of mine will disappear. I guess the blogger just deleted it.

No more Florida stone crabs until October.

Son of a gun! I went over to Kevin Lee's joint where he has a killer series on a political murder and you are right! Who goes back to check to see if their rating is still there?

This sucks! Revolucion!

I've noticed what Kent described so well -- if you rate OR comment twice (or more) in a row quickly, the first action does not appear in the Activity Feed and only the last action you took will appear. (It's especially painful when you try to bump the feed on your own post only to unthinkingly immediate rate someone else's post and lose the bump to the ether!)

I've never noticed a problem with ratings disappearing -- I have had disparity between ratings and comments on my posts but I attribute that to people forgetting to rate, including because they are eager to comment (It seems to happen the most when people are very interested in my post and there are a lot of comments, so it's a mixed blessing.)

I do wonder if people are aware of something several others noted - -which is that you can un-rate (remove your rating) by clicking the "rate" button a 2nd time. This has happened to me many times when I click Rate and it doesn't change fast enough, so I click again. Mistake! It rates and then un-rates. I think you can actually even un-do your Rate long after (days or weeks) you initially rated something. I've done that when I've read an older post thinking I hadn't read it before and try to rate it, only to have the ratings # go down!

And the numbers can change substantially when you click Rate because other people are simultaneously rating (or have rated while you were reading) and the page re-loads with the current # of ratings. If some of them accidentally (or deliberately) un-rate during that time, a number could go down, too.

I also wouldn't rule out the possibility someone gave of it being an issue of how you're navigating and/or your type of browser.

Kent: Thank you so much for educating me in the ways of the Force! I'm particularly interested in finding even better evidence our theory holds water (at least some of the time) and here it is! Wow!
And thank you, aim, for suggesting having you, Kent, join us here would be helpful.
This is a most educational comment you've offered. I may have to give it a reread to make certain I've got it down. Thank you again! (I'll check in on the doings at your place later!)

zuma: Could it be, some of us were "underrated"? *BOO!* *HISS!* *BOO!* (sorry) ;)

Larry: Maybe. Perhaps these people deserve a little boo-ing and hissing from this department of fair play I've soapboxed just now. :)
Until October, then!

zuma: You see my point. I think Matt should be applauded for cluing us in here.

Well, THAT clears it up for me. That has been happening frequently and I just thought the OS software gremlins were up to no good again. Thanks, PW!

Lezlie

Silkstone:Thank you. Some of us may not have noticed before the un-rating feature. this one I can't get my head around, actually, in that it seems superfluous. I'd know if I had already rated an older post by it's not changing for me, but whatever.
As for the browser/navigating idea, I see it as a pretty doubtful idea. In my case, for example, the computer setup's a gem, and fairly new as well. No problems elsewhere. Everything new and up to date. But, I suppose it's an idea may apply elsewhere.
Thank you again for the input.

Lezlie: It's a gremlin-like setup, with quirks and oddities within its internal workings. Most of the time it seems to yield good service. And this is not a complaint, BTW, just a hint. Hope everyone's got that.

haha, is that what your comment was about?
This is such a strange kink in the system and it drives me bananas. ( I had to sing "this sh*t is bananas b.a.n.a.n.a.s) in order to spell that fruit correctly.
I rated this before commenting and after reading! So..um, what I'm trying to say is.... where is my swiss roll?

No duh. It took me a while to get it. R

Hi, Poor Woman. Kent's explanation is exactly my understanding: you appear in the Activity Feed only once, and it gets updated less frequently than a person can make comments or add ratings, so there may be the perception that one of the things you've done has gone away. It does take, though, at least in my experience. There's always the possibility that the OS software malfunctions on some browsers, with some specialized browser settings, of course; just because it never has happened to me (my practice is always to comment first and then rate, for various reasons) doesn't mean that it never happens.

What has happened sometimes is what others have described. I revisit a post, forgetting that I've already rated it, and when I click on the button the number goes down. This is problematic from a usability perspective, as is the sometimes long delay between a click on the rating button and the update of the number--it makes people want to click again. A better design would at least tell you whether you've rated a post before or not.

Amanda: No Swiss Rolls till you clean your footprints off the ceiling in the OS Party Mansion! ;)

Thoth: Thanks for the no duh!

Rob: Thank you for the further explanation. This gives us even more insight into the feed as well as into the other side of the coin, which is how, for some at least (myself included on occasion), our rate doesn't stay in place in others' blogsites. Now, what I mean by that could sound really odd if you're not experiencing it yourself. In my view, it would appear somehow what I rated couldn't stay rated unless I followed the procedure listed here. This has happened for me on further experimentation.
That is to say, we based our findings on empirical evidence, which can be sketchy if there is a paucity of fact. And it did not occur to me that, at your angle, there could be a further explanation.
I did not look at it in quite the same way you do. I was seeing a narrow angle. You've opened up the field. Thank you again!

Hey thanks Rob and Kent for commenting so quickly - I really reccomend anyone who hasn't yetto visit their blogs and go to the left hand field for their blogs about information about OS.
And, they are both brilliant, thinkers and artists.

aim: I certainly plan to. Thank you again for bringing them by!

Ohmigod. I did not know this. Stupid system.

I have also noticed that sometimes it takes a while for the rate to stick.

Yeah, it's that crazy? I just got in the habit of rating, THEN commenting. I suppose that works fine for me - I read only the people I want to read and THEY don't post offensive stuff...so I know I'm safe rating first. :-)

Now, don't slip a dirty joke under the radar and make me rate you!

Actually, It just dawned on me that, in a day or two, it all evens out and all of the rates are counted!

There's also a gap in ratings when we use "open Call" to track our views, vs "most recent", which takes a lot of searching because so many posts are added.

Oh no. My OS world has tilted. I always comment before rating. It just seems more of a logical order of things. Now I'll have to try to remember to comment after I rate, or I'll be a drive by rater.

Is anybody at the helm of this ship? I will rate for informative content, assuming that I have learned something. Right now I'm adrift.

Rated: I think

Okay, I just commented and then rated. Went to my post and the rating #29 was back at #28. This is very informative. I will now rate again and never leave this post. I left my comment again before I rated.
Rated: again, I think

Thanks so much for this tip.

Thanks for the lesson. It finally makes sense to me - this goofy ratings/comments system. Never again will I violate the Rating Rules of Order.

Isn't it counterinuitive to rate at all? If everyone always rates when they comment, then they are the same thing, What do rates mean? Maybe we should all stop rating,
OS can find a different stat, I'm sure.

aim, there are several ways to make it onto the cover. Any activity hits the activity feed but only briefly. The editors pick the middle area—I'm not fond of their judgment a lot of the time, but we have a new editor so I suppose I'll play wait and see. In the right column, there is sometimes “Most Viewed” which I allege is largely an echo of the middle—people view what is advertised and that's the big advertisement. “Most Viewed” should be a private stat that the editors look at but do not thrust on users. It contains zero information about whether what was viewed as enjoyed or would be recommended and basically measures how catchy/salacious a headline was. It's an insult to good writing in many cases, which often eschews such headlines. Sometimes, not always, there is a “Top Rated” board that gives a legitimate additional chance to be on the cover. Although hidden in the Popularity tabs is a “Most Commented”, there is no such module offered automatically on the front page itself. So “Top Rated” is the only chance most people (other than the people consistently featured by the editors as regulars and a mere smattering of others) have of getting re-advertised after the activity feed based on merit. As such, I would not recommend stopping rating. Rating is critically important to authors needing to appear on the cover.

Now, who needs to appear on the cover? For some it's just a nicety and it doesn't matter. I claim that for anyone doing politics or other news analysis, being on the cover is critical. Such people don't write for friends, they right for the possibility of being seen. If they aren't going to be seen, why on earth would they bother. I am presently shopping for another site to host my posts at because I'm tired of fighting for the cover. The lottery is far from fair or honest in that it features regulars clearly more often than would happen by chance or even merit—it's obvious that some people get preferential placement in the lottery. I doubt they intend to bias things, they probably just don't realize the effect of playing favorites. But they should, because it's been complained about many times by many people.

You believe that little green thing? :)......
Just kidding. That's the dumbest crap I've ever heard, but it is what it is. Guess we need to spread the word, huh?

Thanks, Kent.

Sweetfeet: Thanks for joining us here! Every program has at least one bug or gremlin, I suppose. But now we are all aware, at least, thanks to everybody assembled. Comparing notes can be a good way to arrive at a careful conclusion. I think we've done that fairly well.

Kathy: So glad you had time for me here! Thanks for stopping by. The quirks of the system are revealed as we gather to try and discern how things work on OS. I'm glad you've noticed it too.

OM: Why, you little rascal you! *chuckles* Sorry! No "dirty jokes" here this time! ;)

zuma: I don't think I quite got what you're saying here, but will be happy to discuss it further.

Zinnia: (great name, BTW) "A drive by rater!" LOL!!!! I love this!!!! :)

joyonboard: I tend to keep early hours due to my health. Hadn't meant to be remiss about notifying everyone I would soon be offline. A mom's job is never done, and I had a daughter's phone call to enjoy before bed this time. My apologies. your input is always welcome.
Judging from your other commentary here, it would appear we are in agreement regarding the rating system. Am I right?

Algis: Thank you for coming by!

ladyslipper: An eye-opener for me, now I see others had been unaware before today, as had I.

aim: Your point is a valid one. For some, it may not be as favorable as for others.

Kent: There's a lot more for me to learn--that much is certain! Your patient explanations are much appreciated. Thank you again.

Fay: It's what we're working with here. Ain't it special? On the other hand, there are many other things here that work constantly without a hitch. We'll see what the future holds, tho', won't we?

My thanks to everyone who participated.
Now, let's get out there and rate!--and may the Ratings Force be with us!

Now you really rate!
But I knew it all along, PW.

Leon: Thanks! You know, you always have, too!!!! ;)

Every day, another Rate. Yes, I think it works. Rate today, and do it again tomorrow. For this do I deserve the Ignobel Prize?