POST 1 / ORIGINAL POSTEROriginal post
What is the purpose of this function? Some poster are more believeable than others? Assuming there is a valid reason for the rating game what criteria is used in rating someone and how do you go about doing it?
4 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHMember Ratings
1 matching discussions were examined; no attributable action/outcome evidence was detected. No consensus or repair conclusion is claimed.
Source reports, not a diagnosis or a success probability. Counts refer to discussions and can overlap.
Read captured repliesInsufficient extracted evidence does not mean there is no answer in the original discussions.
1 matching discussions · 4 captured posts examined · 0 partial discussions
Coverage and how to read this overview
Counts describe captured discussions, not unique people or a diagnosis. Author identities are not reliably stored. Exact duplicate evidence is counted once across matching discussions; one discussion counts at most once per action/state. Multiple repairs reported together remain a combination. Suggestions and failed attempts do not establish a fix. Matches cover whole discussions and can include related faults, model variants and incomplete threads.
4 eligible posts · 0 unverified posts · 1 discussions match the subject in their title or opening post.
- Rennlist: 1 discussions
0 evidence records excluded for query context · 0 excluded by outcome qualification · 0 adjusted by outcome qualification.
0 acknowledgements have no verified action link; they do not establish a repair result.
Generation: 20261026T222516Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
POST 2Original post
Doing it is easy, hit the "Rate Member" below the member number of the poster. Good question about the purpose. Answer eludes me too. It's always been obvious who helps and who just stirs **** up on this board. There is however a good bit of an "in-crowd" clique on the board which can be intimidating to newcomers. Unfortunatly I think the rating system might support this. I've solicited the help and advice of members on a number of occasions and always got loads of help. There are definitely a few who are a constant wealth of knowledge and good advise. I consider that self-evident and don't see the need to rate these individuals. I might be missing something. Wouldn't be the first time. But truly, good advise is good advise, stars or not. There's a viewpoint fer ya. Best,
POST 3Original post
Well Nick, I tried to rate you but it doesn't look like it's had any affect :-(
POST 4Original post
Well Nick, I tried to rate you but it doesn't look like it's had any affect :-(
This is a source reference. Confirm exact model applicability in the original material.