I'm indifferent about this one. This list only serves to exalt RIA's more popular reviewers -- proving that RIA does have its prestigious members.

It would be interesting to see a "most disagreed with" list, but scary at the same time. I and a few others would be towards the top. And all of a sudden, the least will be first.

That should make everything about even.

Original:

I think that some people are delusional enough to think that they could walk into McDonald's World Headquarters and announce to the receptionist that they have come with a better way to make the burgers.

In the case of RIA, I don't think that there are very many frequent contributors who can't...IMMEDIATELY...be recognized by their style and content...

"Let us go then, magellan and I,

When the site is spread out by Ilikepie,

Like numbah etherising Ridge and Genghis,

Let us go through half deserted lists,"

The variants and twists..."

This ain't GrizzChewer08....

Up Date: Has anybody else noticed that ever since pressure has been turned up on ACORN, that many of the regulars, here, have gone missing or have become scarce? Coincidence?

Expect things to return to normal around here when Obi Bar Kenobi releases his $8.1 billion in ACORN funding.

I guess it has its problems, but I generally like the "Most Helpful Reviewers" list.


Originally posted as a comment:

When things are slow on the site, it seems like all it takes to get you on that list is one or two helpfuls. So if someone reads a review left by a hit and run review artist from over a year ago, and gives them a helpful, it stands to reason that if there aren't 10 other people with more than 1 helpful vote in the last few hours (I'm not sure on the time duration of that list, but it appears to be greater than a couple of hours, but less than a full day.), then that reviewer will show up on the list.

It could be someone playing games with the system, but I think it's probably just an indication of a slow day on the site.

Now when it's a regular reviewer staying at the top of the list when they haven't even posted in a couple days, that could be several things. Some people, including myself, will occasionally go to one of their favorite reviewers' page, and read about 40 or 50 of their last reviews, giving out a few helpfuls and agrees along the way. No cheating going one here, but it can easily rocket an inactive reviewer to the top of the list. Of course it could also be one of their friends just trying to keep them at the top, voting helpful and agree on all of their stuff.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!

If I can't be #1, I want this list eliminated!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I suggest shoving the top 50 reviewers down the mouths of great white sharks.

I’m not on the list unless I’m posting, I might get votes from 1, maybe two people on most days. Fit won’t be on line for over a day at times and I’ve seen his name shoot to the top on many occasions, and see it remain near that spot the entire day. Nothing personal against Fit, but if anyone’s name is going to show up on the list without posting, and stay there, we would be talking about Git or Ridge.

So I maintain that Fit has a couple of lefty fans that go out of their way to boost his rank, and to lower others.

Just my observation.

I'm surprised there aren't some folks on here suggesting not that the list be eliminated, but that a selection of the people on it be eliminated.

I suggested that all reviews be marked as anonymous so that every one can actually rate the review based on its content and not on the popularity or lack thereof of the reviewer. The original reviewer would still be credited with the review on his personal review page, and all ratings would be likewise credited. But the ratings of a review would be more objective and truthful. Of course, my suggestion was rejected, because some are here, indeed, for popularity reasons and not for the reviewing or rating. Besides, it came from me, not from a popular reviewer. Go figure.

I, personally, see nothing wrong with the list so long as people don't go overboard with it. It's nice to see that people have noticed you and to see what things they have to say, good or bad. It's one way to grow as a regular reviewer.

I suppose it is a popularity contest of sorts, but it does fill you with a sense of achievement after a year or so of rating to see your name on the list. :D
Besides, if we didn't have the list, we'd have to live with the lingering curiosity of just where we stand in comparison to the other raters, a curiosity which could not be quenched...

Like it or not, you all have looked at this list and been proud of where you were or wished you were a bit higher. I'm not gonna sugarcoat this turd of an idea. People love competition. This list makes for more activity among reviewers and it would be dumb to remove it.

Get rid of it asll it is is a popularity contest.

Leave it. People that take the time and make the effort to rate things, and to write comments (and lets face it, few people seem to comment very often) deserve a certain measure of attention. Sure it's a popularity contest, of a sort, but so what? If you don't care, this list doesn't matter to you, and there's no harm. If you do care, you'll put forth the time and the effort required to be on it.

I'd like to know where you get your information XFactorZ. Because if you knew what I know you would realize that the old guard as you call it are the ones least interested in this list. From the things I've read, the new guard seem the most concerned about it. Those of us who've been around here awhile have long since managed to put it in the back of our minds. You might try giving that a shot for your own peace of mind.

The list should be the raters with the most ratings given so more weblist and weblist items would get rated. It is, like the below poster wrote, a popularity list which seems to appeal only to the old guard.

Its a popularity list, and nothing more.

I would agree that the most helpful reviewers list has its limitations. Often times it seems the helpful votes become a popularity contest as opposed to the reflection of the quality of the specific comment. That's not to say that this is all bad - I think it's natural that people build up trust over time, and in the absence of a more precise way to indicate trust/respect for a person, the only thing to do is to keep clicking helpful when that person posts. But I think there could be ways to better reflect the overall trustworthiness of a reviewer. Some sort of balance between post to post quality and overall repuatation might be interesting.

Don't care either way. I'll be the judge of what I find helpful and what I find unhelpful, regardless of what others think of that person, or their status.

I agree.

Yes! We don't need it. I don't even help the most helpful reviewers. Know wut I'm sayin?

This should not be eliminated.

I don't really see the point to having this around other than it's relationship with the infamous Was the rating helpful? or not helpful?