Sorry if this has been suggested before — I just read through the other threads on this forum but didn't see anything like this. I would like to suggest that the ratings module be moved to the bottom of the page, after the article but before the editing options. I have found on several occasions that knowing an article's rating beforehand has caused me to read it either more critically or less critically than I might have if I didn't know what the prevailing opinion was. I'm a new member but long-time lurker, so take this for what it is worth, but it seems like this change could help people review/vote more objectively while still retaining the functionality of the ratings module.
There actually is a rating module at the bottom of the page, next to the Edit button. But I've never felt like knowing the rating of an article beforehand has changed the way I read it.
I do not support this for the very reason reject just mentioned - there already IS a rating module at the bottom of the page, and a lot of people don't want to have to scroll all the way to the bottom to be able to vote if they have already read the article but didn't vote right away.
That said, I WOULD support having the actual rating number be hidden until you have either voted, or at least clicked something to show it. This won't be possible on Wikidot, but it's something I kinda sorta want to have on the new site when we move.
I do not find myself voting one way or another simply because of how others voted, but it affects my thought processes in ways that annoy me. I have upvoted articles that the majority upvoted, downvoted articles the majority upvoted, upvoted articles the majority downvoted, and downvoted articles the majority downvoted.
But in each case seeing the number before I vote has at least affected my thoughts, and I feel that it shouldn't.
I have suggested something like this - specifically, during the 24 hour period an article can't be deleted, its rating should only be visible to the author and people who already voted.
If anything , it'd reduce complaints about dogpiling - i'm sorry but if something is utter shit and I have read it , I will downvote it regardless of the number of upvotes or downvotes there.
Solution in search of a problem. The only thing this would really address is articles that get dogpiled into the -90 range, and most of that happens in the comments anyway. I think articles generally have the ratings they deserve around here.
Yeah that sums up my opinions. The only thing seeing a dramatically positive or dramatically negative rating makes me think is either "Oh I gotta read this before it gets yanked" or "Hm, well this isn't going anywhere, I'll catch up with the rest first."
I definitely think that knowing the rating ahead of time affects one's perception of the article, even if only slightly or subconsciously. But I don't think the issue merits a change in formatting.
I sing of arms and the man
Storm-tossed by Hera's jealousy
I don't feel that seeing the rating beforehand will affect my final vote on an article. If I like something I'm going to upvote, if I don't, I'm going to downvote.
Dogpiling happens because people will see something being bombed either in the recent posts page or on the recently created page. Line of thought there is usually "man I gotta see this", and thus more downvotes accumulate.
I'm inclined to think if an article is truly awful, then it deserves to be downvoted to hell BUT alot of the comments seem to get fairly unpleasant the more an article is dogpiled. Would like to see a bit more regulation on comments in dogpiled articles, because while I've never fathered one of those abominations, it does bother me to see how off-topic and brash alot of the comments are. I know, because I've been one of those people. If an article is bad beyond recovery it should receive all the downvotes, yes. But it doesn't need 100 comments questioning what the author ate to shit out such an abhorrent abortion of writing, or exactly what kind of hallucinogenics they had ingested prior to smashing their heads on the keyboard for five minutes.
Tl;dr - barrels of downvotes are fine, barrels of comments repetitively insulting the writing are not.
I'd just like to say to people saying that knowing the rating doesn't influence your vote: People are terrible at identifying their own biases. There is a reason why double-blind testing exists even when the honesty of the researchers is not in doubt.
Oksbad is right about knowing the rating influencing one's vote. It probably does.
The thing is, I don't see how that's a problem. It also discounts the fact - and it is a fact, we know this statistically thanks to Mackenzie's data mining (<3) - that when an article is not actively terrible, people tend to upvote (or presumably not vote), whether or not the article deserves a downvote. And I'm pretty sure that people would tend to upvote period even if they didn't know the rating.
That said, there's nothing wrong with implementing a version of the module that hides the rating upfront - if possible on the new site, that is. But putting the module at the bottom of the page doesn't have much of a point and doesn't look good in my opinion.