That's not what it says on the tin...

[dancing spawn of ungoliant]

I must be blind but I hadn't ever realized that there was a "rate a thread" option. Therefore I have never rated a thread. I had noticed the bones after thread titles, though (I'm not that blind yet).

I think rating a thread is somewhat confusing. For example, does a high rating stand for a good opening post of the thread or rather for interesting discussion it has provoked? In my opinion rating a single post tells more to the poster than rating a whole thread.

Originally Posted by HI

It helps to see 5 bones in judging whether read a thread or not, but thread title does a lot more in attracting/repelling me in my choice of reading

Originally Posted by Eomer

I especially wonder why certain threads have, what seems to me like, bizarre ratings.

It would be ideal for readers, who don't want to scroll through every single topic here if "good" threads would have five bones and duplicates or "bad" threads would have one bone. It doesn't seem to work that way, though, and I'm not entirely sure if it's a bad thing. We all do have different preferences and the current thread ratings tell just what a little minority thinks of them.

A public rating causes prejudices and it doesn't probably feel very nice if your own precious thread receives the lowest rating possible. I'd say the reputation system is much more expressive.

Originally Posted by HI

On the whole, we've grown towards mutual admiration society rather than fighting club

Quite so.