words to a rushee

on this site are not ridiculous when allowed to settle after a few weeks following "resets". Over time, the cream does rise to the top, and the rankings approximate reality. The flaw in the ranking is that when a house is overrated. For example, I saw that LXA was ranked #1 and I think they are about #10. So when I rated them, I gave them 1s even though I think that 2s and 3s are more accurate. Same with my rating of KA. I gave them 5s because they are a top 10 house even though I think they do some ridiculous stuff. If the site didn't reset and push KA down to #15 and LXA to #1 I could give a more accurate rating, rather than trying to push the overall rankings toward accuracy.

The rankings is never effective, it just spirals into more "fixing" of the ratings. The lists in the discussion are generally far more accurate, whereas the overall ratings tend to briefly, if ever, reflect reality.

But the lists in the discussion are almost always more accurate, and aren't subject to rating bandits.

For instance, currently SAE, Phi Gamm, Pi Kapp and Sigma Chi are all ranked below 15. It's always a safer bet to pay attention to the discussion.

The "rankers" aren't stupid, and the left side approximates reality over time, and for some houses the left-side ranking is more accurate of public perception. KA is the perfect example: old schoolers rank 'em 2 or 3 and a lot of folks think they truly suck. And, voila, they end up between 4 and 6 on the rank list after a couple of weeks.

They may briefly reach an equilibrium, but they don't reliably effect reality long term.

are better reflection than old row homer putting KA #2 and EN Phi Gam 4-5, or Pi Kapp wannabe listing them at #7 or ATO apologist listing them in top 10 on their "list".

You don't like that the masses don't like KA or that they like Pike or moved Beta or DX up too fast for your taste? Then make your rankings -- that's what I do ... and I COMMENT that SAE sucks the last 2 years even though I give them 5s and that DX shouldn't be top 7 even as I give them 4s and that EN and Phi Gam are down while I give them 4's and 5's. The lists don't reflect movement or rationale.

Those have less to do with reality or the consensus than with what fraternities spend the most time self-ranking and down ranking their competition. The lists in the discussion section usually fall closer to the actual consensus.

systematic self/down-ranking, but down ranking (and listing) are integral part of ranking.
I see you think Pi Kapp & EX are underranked currently and am curious to see your list. I also see that you did not ding the inferior houses, and would tell you that I disagree with your decision not to do so.

I up ranked Phi Gamm too. I'd consider all of them to be top 10 houses probably, and they were all sitting north of 15. I'm not really a fan of the ranking game, particularly the down ranking, but I thought those houses were vastly too low. Like I said I feel the discussion is usually more civil and generally comes to a decent consensus.

BUT, considering that the ranking game is reality AND CONSIDERING that most/all visitors check the ranking, I would rather have your opinion - entered judiciously - reflected in that ranking.

P.S. While I agree that your solution is more civil on its appearance, it probably doesn't not sit any better with the houses that are excluded from the listing and/or ranked lower than they think they are (or KNOW that they are lower on the list).

Back in the day moreso perhaps, but ever since they changed the format and defaulted it to alphabetical, and put the discussion at the top, I think the actual ranks have become somewhat less consequential and the discussion has become more central.