Seriousness Level. (This might be a mad idea but...)

Rb

DeVore wrote: »

I wasnt specifically talking about Feedback or AH... I was thinking "site wide" kinda.

I gave this less then 120 seconds of thought (elapsed, about 5 seconds of actual concentrated thought ) before posting it but I wanted to get some feedback on this area.

I've been thinking about self-filtered and user-rated posts... ie: users rate a post up or down and you can set a default limit of at least (say) 0+ "thumbs ups" before you want to see the post. Slash Dot does something like this but it also makes it disjointed a bit.

I've very keen on user-filtering as then each user can tailor things to their liking.

There are problems with that idea too, I've just thought of two in fact, but its an area I'm exploring (on holidays, so I have lots of time to think )

DeV.

It'd be good but purely as an option.

However, would it not absolutely destroy the flow of threads?

DeVore

Well if you could set your own "tolerance level" then you could set it waaaay low and enjoy all the "banter" you wanted

I dont get much of a holiday from Boards generally, I look for wifi spots and cafes wherever I am. I'd like to pretend thats because I'm all about the vigilance but partly its because I start to shake after 48 hours without net access

DeV.

Shield

DeVore wrote: »

I start to shake after 48 hours without net access

DeV.

You shake more after 48 straight hours of net access... you'll just have to trust me on that one...

Sparks

+1 for trying it instead of just theorising about how it might or might not work. It's not like it'll trigger the end of the universe if we try stuff y'know...

IRLConor

I dunno, I think it would end up a bit like Slashdot's comment scoring system where if you're reading and you set the threshold too high the fragments of conversation you see are confusing; if you set the threshold too low you see all the crud. Some posters get confused enough when trying to follow the flow of a thread, if some bits were invisible to others but not them it would really complicate things.

I also wouldn't like the level of whining that would come when you delete someone's post and/or hand out a ban/infraction: "But I set it to "not serious at all", that made it OK to post a picture of a dead baby in the Parenting forum". I think it would be just used as an excuse for trying to slide muppetry past under the radar.

AlmightyCushion

Sparks wrote: »

It's not like it'll trigger the end of the universe if we try stuff y'know...

You obviously haven't seen that thread about the lhc in after hours.

Sparks

The lhc can't destroy the universe.
The planet, maybe (as in probability on the order of 1e-40).

Sparks

I think...

Yeah, but we don't know. Hence +1 for trying.

AlmightyCushion

Sparks wrote: »

The lhc can't destroy the universe.
The planet, maybe (as in probability on the order of 1e-40).

But what about the vvvvvvvvvvvvvv(very)lhc we build after the lhc destroys the planet. Surely that one will destroy the universe.

Asiaprod

IRLConor wrote: »

I dunno, I think it would end up a bit like Slashdot's comment scoring system where if you're reading and you set the threshold too high the fragments of conversation you see are confusing; if you set the threshold too low you see all the crud. Some posters get confused enough when trying to follow the flow of a thread, if some bits were invisible to others but not them it would really complicate things.

+1. As a personal option, maybe, but I cringe at the thought of how it could affect threads in for example the Christianity Forum, in particular, the Creation thread:eek: I would imagine I would have to deal with all kinds of stupidity hiding under the now allowable guise of "Well, I did mark the thread not serious."

WhiteWashMan

DeVore wrote: »

Well if you could set your own "tolerance level" then you could set it waaaay low and enjoy all the "banter" you wanted

I dont get much of a holiday from Boards generally, I look for wifi spots and cafes wherever I am. I'd like to pretend thats because I'm all about the vigilance but partly its because I start to shake after 48 hours without net access

DeV.

interestingly, after your last post, my immediate thought was 'how do you set a subjective level', but then i thought, what if you had a 1-10 scale of seriousness?
well, how would that work, im not quite sure, but if we can filter, then perhaps threads can only be seen or written to by posters who havent been infracted, or have some sort of read/write level.

you know me, im not big into mmicro-management or lots of work, i like things simple and easy. less things to break, and less grey areas.
however, if all users start with a level 10, and for every infraction they drop a level, there may be something there.
or instead of banning people on differet forums, they set them to a new level of read/write ability?
and the ability to filter out threads according to seriousness level might work.

for example, i would set Rb to level 1, moron level, in which case he could only read threads started by other morons.

however, someone as sensible as Terry might be able to read all threads, but decide he only wanted to read threads that were level 5 and over?

who knows.

i'll think about it some more. probably after ive watched harry potter.

Simplicity

^^^ Quality stylie.

Rb

WhiteWashMan wrote: »

however, if all users start with a level 10, and for every infraction they drop a level, there may be something there.
or instead of banning people on differet forums, they set them to a new level of read/write ability?
and the ability to filter out threads according to seriousness level might work.

That would destroy the website.

WhiteWashMan wrote:

for example, i would set Rb to level 1, moron level, in which case he could only read threads started by other morons.

Unnecessary but quite amusing coming from you.

Imposter

I think I understand what you are getting at here but I don't think it's as easily solved as people seem to think. In fact I'd go as far as to say that things would be better as they are now than adding ratings to a person, post and/or thread.

What can be annoying for an OP is if the thread gets dragged in a specific direction when in fact the specific posts are of no real use to the OP but interesting/helpful to others. Then the info the OP wants gets ignored. Some way for the OP to 'moderate' the thread would be good - ways to bring the thread back on topic or split a specific conversation off into another thread, things like that.

Perhaps some extra interface for the OP to contact the forums mods to take an action if the mods felt it was justified (ie. not some crazy fight the power thread) - I guess PM's are there already but this is a more obvious way and one that I would think users would use more often.

It might be a bit more work for mods but it may also lead to less work and less hassles for the mods.

randylonghorn

I give fair warning, the following may be somewhat off-topic, depending on your point of view, but this thread / DeV's idea have been rolling around in the back of my head at quiet moments during the day, and an odd thought occurs ...

If the technical capability to filter posts / contributions to websites continues to develop, will we eventually have the option to programme search engines / filter web content so that we can see only posts / sites which agree with our own point of view? Won't that be lovely (horrific!) ?

javaboy

randylonghorn wrote: »

If the technical capability to filter posts / contributions to websites continues to develop, will we eventually have the option to programme search engines / filter web content so that we can see only posts / sites which agree with our own point of view? Won't that be lovely (horrific!) ?

Like your own personal Great Firewall of China?

randylonghorn

javaboy wrote: »

Like your own personal Great Firewall of China?

Lol, kind of! What is so scary is that it sounds like something that could / will become possible.

DublinWriter

...or maybe like on Roller coaster rides where there is a height guage...."you must be *this* serious to reply".

Steve

WhiteWashMan wrote: »

interestingly, after your last post, my immediate thought was 'how do you set a subjective level', but then i thought, what if you had a 1-10 scale of seriousness?
well, how would that work, im not quite sure, but if we can filter, then perhaps threads can only be seen or written to by posters who havent been infracted, or have some sort of read/write level.

you know me, im not big into mmicro-management or lots of work, i like things simple and easy. less things to break, and less grey areas.
however, if all users start with a level 10, and for every infraction they drop a level, there may be something there.
or instead of banning people on differet forums, they set them to a new level of read/write ability?
and the ability to filter out threads according to seriousness level might work.

for example, i would set Rb to level 1, moron level, in which case he could only read threads started by other morons.

however, someone as sensible as Terry might be able to read all threads, but decide he only wanted to read threads that were level 5 and over?

who knows.

i'll think about it some more. probably after ive watched harry potter.

If that happened then we wouldn't get the likes of the Tomangoes (weathercheck) thread, the Jigsawgirl thread, and many others like that. All of which were started with the utmost seriousness in mind and all of which are now the stuff of legend and will be told to our grandchildren and their grandchildren.

R0ot

Sounds like a nice idea.

WhiteWashMan

Rb wrote: »

That would destroy the website.



Unnecessary but quite amusing coming from you.

you do less for this web site that this idea does.

the more i read form you, the more my opinion of you drops.
and its not very high to start with.

WhiteWashMan

SteveC wrote: »

If that happened then we wouldn't get the likes of the Tomangoes (weathercheck) thread, the Jigsawgirl thread, and many others like that. All of which were started with the utmost seriousness in mind and all of which are now the stuff of legend and will be told to our grandchildren and their grandchildren.

i said it was an idea i was tossing around, not something i wnted implemented.

personally, i dont believe in catagorising or pre moderating any threads or reposnses.
as far as im concerned, users get from this web site exactly what they put in.
unfortauntely, the problem is that the rest of us get it as well.

how can we filter out that crap stuff?

i guess one mans mario and anal sex thread is another mans, well, mario and anal sex thread.

Victor

Sounds like karma all over again.

People should have the cop on to post reasonably seriously on threads that are meant to be serious and should have the social skills to pick up on what is a serious thread.

I they need or want to make a less than serious comment in a serious thread then they can preface it with a disclaimer in their post.

Rb

WhiteWashMan wrote: »

you do less for this web site that this idea does.

the more i read form you, the more my opinion of you drops.
and its not very high to start with.

Got a problem then feel free to pm me, otherwise stfu and keep your little gripe to yourself.

Fwiw, and I think it's been pretty evident in the past, I'd do more if I was asked to do more, but I don't and I don't really think it's any of your concern.

Steve

WhiteWashMan wrote: »

how can we filter out that crap stuff?

It would be impossible and unworkable to filter it all out and IMO would remove something that has made boards as popular as it is.

Karoma

DeVore wrote: »

Well if you could set your own "tolerance level" then you could set it waaaay low and enjoy all the "banter" you wanted

Done. I've implemented this system in an off-line, per user system. Users set their own "tolerance level". Ia can be de/activated via HumanCP.







As for the OP moderating their own thread: I thought about this yesterday. I love the idea. I'd love to see a version of Feedback where the OP is the primary active moderator of their thread. Original post: "wer is da free speech you *****?!"; two pages later "ur so banned for wot u posted you ****".

Rb

Karoma wrote: »

Done. I've implemented this system in an off-line, per user system. Users set their own "tolerance level". Ia can be de/activated via HumanCP.







As for the OP moderating their own thread: I thought about this yesterday. I love the idea. I'd love to see a version of Feedback where the OP is the primary active moderator of their thread. Original post: "wer is da free speech you *****?!"; two pages later "ur so banned for wot u posted you ****".

A user moderating their own thread would be very interesting alright, any idea if it's an option on VBulletin as is?

Would that extend to a user being able to ban others from posting in "their" thread? It could be interesting, however from the behaviour we witnessed on April 1st, it could also be a catastrophe.

javaboy

It would eliminate the "you mods always stick together" line in feedback. e.g.

AudaciousGirl: You gay mods all stick together.

Hoghead: Hoghead reckons you are also a gay mod since you moderate your own thread.

rabble....catpics


Would there be enough coke and hookers to go around though?

Sully

Rb wrote: »

Got a problem then feel free to pm me, otherwise stfu and keep your little gripe to yourself.

I think it would be great.. if we could avoid confrontation between two people on Feedback - of all places. PM each other with your gripes! Or... to the Thunderdome.

I find this whole idea a bit weird... but... it could work. I just don't know how, without people rating threads "serious" that are actually "stupid" (not everybody's idea of serious washes) and so on. Then there is general people abusing the system. What purpose would it serve? I rarely look at thread ratings, and im sure others probably don't, so could it be ignored completely by a lot of people?

WhiteWashMan

Rb wrote: »

I'd do more if I was asked to do more,

take the hint...