Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Is the Thanks function really necessary?
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
So to summarise this.....Been so many threads in FeedBack questioning the merit of the Thanks System.
I've posted many a response to each thread and have done so AS someone who actively hates said system... But never said anything bad about it, ironically.
Thanks Whoring? So what - There's little to no benefit from posting something riddled with Thanks apart from maybe the "Most Thanked" or "Thanked By" system on profiles.
Some have made fun claims of the more "Sarcastic" or "Trolling" methods to thanking posts etc etc
Personally I don't give a rats anus who thanked a post, why it was thanked or some such - Seeing a post with an immense eye-sore of an Orange Blob at the bottom of it (1000 Thanks) doesn't draw any added attention from me other than thinking it makes the post look like a right mess.
At the end of the day it stops all the (Admittedly WORSE) "LOL", "+1", "kk", "Agree", "[Insert Other Useless 1-Word Response Here]" posts to something people just agree with... Considering there are new parameters on Boards where post-count may matter (Such as Sigs etc), then putting a stop to, or discouraging, spammy useless responses is beneficial.
Me, personally, I wouldn't bat an eyelid if the system was nuked tomorrow for no worthwhile reason - I simply don't care for it.
I rarely use it, myself, but when I do it is merely to thank someone, beit for posting something I myself was meaning to say (Or couldn't say better), for being helpful - Hell I'll thank a post from someone if they point out a flaw in my Moderation or making valid debate / points against me, regardless of wether I actually like or dislike the poster or the point being made.
It's just 'handy', thats about it.
Now, I estimate it'll be one month before we then get another "Well, why not a 'NO THANKS' Button" thread.
*sigh*
I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's rubbish but it's handy.
Thank my post! sigh0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 22,584 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 21207
It was limited to 20 per day when it was first introduced, that was increased at some point to maybe 50? per day, dunno, was just wondering if there are any current constraints, I'd be hard pressed to read 50 thankworthy posts in a day.pickarooney wrote: »I was trying to figure out the other day if there had ever been a limit on thanks or if I was mixing it up with karma.
It was (and still is afaik) limited to accounts that have more than 10 posts.
0 -
-
slowburner wrote: »A new acronym: ARIV - arguments rendered invalid, void, false (shorter than 'quite ****ing true')
Make up a statement, stick it in quotes, add ARIV to the end - you win the argument, indisputably.
e.g.
'Oliver Cromwell led the Irish navy in the first assault on Hadrian's wall in 1641' ARIV
You're saying your own statement is invalid and void? Or is it like that ultimate mark of the jizzbundle: /thread ? 0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
It was limited to 20 per day when it was first introduced, that was increased at some point to maybe 50? per day, dunno, was just wondering if there are any current constraints, I'd be hard pressed to read 50 thankworthy posts in a day.
It was (and still is afaik) limited to accounts that have more than 10 posts.
There is no thanks limit anymore. You still need 10 posts to thank.
I'm looking at the switch that turns the thanks system off and I'm imagining the angry mob that would descend on feedback if I was to press it.0 -
-
-
-
-
Boards.ie: Paddy wrote: »I'm looking at the switch that turns the thanks system off and I'm imagining the angry mob that would descend on feedback if I was to press it.
0 -
P. Breathnach wrote: »Dernormalised: what's that in my (non-techie) version of English?
It's a rainy Saturday afternoon so I'll give this a go.
Denormalization is a strategy used in database design to make some information quicker to get at. It only make sense when compared to normalization so I'll have to explain that too.
So, take for example your post count. We have a table in the database with columns for things like your userid, your username, your email address and your password. We have another table in the database for storing posts that contains things like the date of the post, the title of the post and very importantly the userid of whoever made the post.
Now when it comes to being able to figure out your post count there are two strategies we can follow. The first one is to look in the post table and count up all of your posts. So if there are 3,000 posts in the post table with your userid that must mean you have 3,000 posts. Simples. This is called normalisation. It is generally considered the most pure way of structuring a database as you avoid redundant data and keep your database as small as possible.
The other strategy is to store your post count in the user table, along with your name, your password and everything else. When you create your account this will be set to 0 and every time you make a post we will add one to this number. This is called denormalisation and is generally a bad thing as it means we are storing data twice and have the added overhead of updating this number every time your make a post.
However these are not hard and fast rules and sometimes denormalising data is a good idea. The reason being that it's a lot faster if we can grab the post count when we're grabbing your username, your email address and your avatar rather than having to look through the whole post table and count all your posts. The post table has somewhere in the region of 30 million rows these days, so for this example the saving is significant.
An example of what can happen when denormalization goes bad can be seen on users like this one:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/member.php?u=480302
Take a look at their posts thanked stats, somewhere along the line something has made a mistake when updating the thanks column. This is the dark side of denormalization and this particular bug is probably going to ruin somebody's week very soon!
I hope that makes some sort of sense, if not there are plenty of articles out there on the subject.
And if any techies want to pick holes in that explanation... well you can feck off 0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement