Several of us have discussed the issue of ratings especially as they are an essential part of the new system for advancement in the agoracom system. This is the message I originally posted on July 12, 2009. Since then I find that the problem has only become more acute since now members can actually be downgraded to a lower category often as the result of only one or two low ratings. Sorry about the repeat but I am still concerned as many of us are with this issure:

I would very much appreciate hearing your opinions concerning the "member contribution to the hub rating system being currently used by Aogaracom. I raise this issue with profound apologies to the fine management and staff of our Aoracom team whom I promised I would not raise this issue with again. However since they have recently appointed me as Hub Leader on the JAGH Hub I started I would like to raise this issue with my fellow Hub Leaders. While teaching both graduate and undergraduate courses in statistics and experimental design as part of my teaching load in the Department of Psychology I had an opportunity to extensively review the psychometric literature in the area of rating scales, particularly as they apply to peer to peer, student to faculty and employee to management performance assessments. The literature is replete with examples of just how problematic these ratings can be due to subjective rating bias and participation ratios. In the case of the Agoracom system the ratings often involve only a few of the board participants and therefore can be greatly influenced by very few members who may disagree with the opinions of another board member. Generally speaking it is the unhappy campers who tend to provide these ratings in greater numbers than the more satisfied ones. I initiated the JAGH board at the end of May, 2009. Since then a number of other Raging Bull members have joined us. However, few ratings of members have occurred with most members being rated by less than three of their fellow board members. Moreover, the new rating system makes these ratings a necessary but not sufficient requirement for advancement to the ranks of Vice President and President. Finally, this new system is retroactive thereby representing an imposition of an ex post facto rule to members whose original ratings were made under the old system. I personally would rather see more emphasis given to the message recommendations made by members of the actual messages being posted than to the ratings themselves. If the ratings are to be the prime criteria for advancement then I would recommend that Agoracom post messages emphasizing the importance of and necessity for members to rate fellow hub members. I wonder if either the general membership or the Hub Leaders alone were ever consulted concerning these changes? I would think that this should have been done at a minimum since the changes affect all participants on all of the hubs.

Agoracom remains the best of breed of all the many message boards I have seen. The rating system is the only part of the otherwise excellent arrangement of the Hubs that I would like to see changed. I also would like to third (3rd.) the recommendation that a minimum level be required to give ratings to fellow members. The Treasurer Level seems very reasonable since it itself requires that an average rating of at least 3.00 be obtained. However, perhaps Agoracom should add that this rating must be based on a minimum number of raters. Someone could come in and post many irrelevant messages, get some points and then be promoted to Treasurer on the basis of only one rating.

Sorry about the length of this message. I am after all a retired college professor.

Thanks for your input.

Doc