Hear me out...
From what I can tell, (#heteronormative) online dating suffers from a wild disparity in men's versus women's experiences. Men often complain about messaging many women, tweaking their profiles, and crafting careful intros (where those are even an option these days). only to get zero attention or replies from women.
Women complain about men being assholes in large numbers. Seriously, if you don't know about this world, find a woman who does online dating and ask her what it's like. Women sometimes get hundreds or thousands of "likes" or "pings" and many, many intros. Their problem is, I think, filtering #signal from #noise (OK, now I'm imagining a #ROC curve for this LOL).
The signal is men who will ultimately treat them with respect and care, in addition to the more surface things like being sufficiently good-looking, successful, fit, etc. for the particular woman (don't judge; men's shallow judgments are just as shallow).
Women have to judge whether each guy is an asshole--possibly a coercive or even date-rapey asshole--from very little information: a "ping," a "like," or an intro (which might not have many words). The profile... if you're a woman getting, say, 200 engagements a week from men who say they want to date you, do you really go carefully evaluate all 200 profiles? You might not even read all the intros. You're flooded with requests. You know some might be safe and even OK, but you also know the majority won't be.
So what about reputational scoring? The Stack Exchange model seems promising: after help for #Rstats shiftedd from the R-Help mailing list to Stack Overflow, I think it's clear that the usable help offered to people struggling with R increased dramatically, as did the positivity of the help seekers' experience. You get very few #RTFM replies on Stack Overflow, and the highest-rated answer is almost always helpful.
Let people rate each other for kindness, respect, non-misogyny, etc. on #OKCupid. Do not let them rate each other for looks, wealth, sex appeal, or sexual skill; this would only drive away the people the site needs.
The ratings could go both (again, heteronormative, sorry) ways, but I think the greatest power would come from women rating men. If a woman got a message from Bob and could see that a couple of high-reputation women had gone on dates with him and given him the thumbs-up for kindness and respect, versus Charlie, who had no ratings from anyone, or low ratings from high-reputation women, well. That's a very different situation from the flood of Likes with no-shirt pics.
Would this make some men feel bad? Yes. Many of them should feel bad, some would be unjustly painted as unkind. Oh well. They can rate women, too. And dating sites don't suffer from a lack of male users. If those who keep getting bad reviews from women decide to quit the site... good?
This is my very serious proposal.
Just how big is the NFL in America? 18.6 million viewers watched Monday Night Football across ABC, ESPN, and ESPN2. Compare this to Major League Baseball, whose ALCS coverage averaged 5.2 million viewers across Fox, Fox Deportes, and FS1.
It's also worth noting that Monday Night Football viewership was up 57% from last season's game window.
Yeah, I don't know about all that.
ESRB wants to scan kids' faces to enforce game ratings https://www.pcworld.com/article/2007644/esrb-plans-to-scan-kids-faces-to-enforce-ratings-system.html
This is why #MassShootings in the #USA are rampant, because #Mainsteam #MassMedia are depend on #ratings for #advertising and rewarding #StochasticTerrorism in the form of "#AdvancedSuicides" will keep people tuned in on said linear broadcasting "news" channels...
That's why this is basically exclusive to the #US despite it neither having the most [il-]legal weapons per capita in circulation nor having the most relaxed laws by a long shot.
@wakame As massively amusing as that would be for we #neurodivergent folks, it would tank in the #ratings because the #mainstream would wonder what was so funny. It reminds me a bit of the mirror world Brian McNaught would propose to #heterosexuals when trying to help them empathize with the experience of #LGBTQ people coming out. Imagine an ND world where #neurotypical folks were the outcasts… #ActuallyAutistic @ScottSoCal @fidalgo @actuallyautistic
@ScottSoCal yeah, I totally get what you’re saying. I flip between liking it lost my and truly loathing the portrayal. It feels A LOT like how other #marginalized groups are portrayed in media: harmful #stereotypes that the #mainstream finds amusing or familiar. It’s for #ratings really. It’s not to educate or expand minds. #ActuallyAutistic #TheGoodDoctor @fidalgo @actuallyautistic
@juddlegum I. Just. Don’t. Understand.Can someone please explain what the play is here?
I’m unclear on any possible upside for them or what the calculus was behind making this decision.
While it isn't "the determining factor" in my purchase #decisions, it plays a significant role.
If I find that I can purchase something comparable from a company whose #employees seem to love their #employer or from one whose employees are miserable - I'm going to choose the happy making company.
Disappointed to see that The Last of Us Episode 3 is getting review bombed on IMDb. The first two episodes saw ~50k votes with only about 1% of users giving it a 1 out of 10. The third episode has over 67k votes with 24% of users giving it a 1 out of 10. The crosstabs show the majority of these low ratings come from males aged 18-44.
With some sort of "reputation economy," if you share their art without permission, the artist still gets "money" for it, because the guy you share it with gives them a positive rating.