Making Facepunch better - Don't post about ratings
5,003 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;48150900]The thing is though, what would that entail?[/QUOTE]
Banning for bringing up certain topics (regardless of viewpoint), thread locking the instant something goes wrong, maybe certain users need to have their posts approved by a moderator before they're visible (I'm not sure how much work that would be to set that up on a per-user basis though).
[QUOTE=lavacano;48150934] thread locking the instant something goes wrong[/QUOTE]
Well that's kinda drastic. What if the thread didn't have that sort of outcome originally in mind, and then 4 posts in someone says something stupid and it's locked. Kinda defeats the purpose of threads, idk
I mean, as long as it isn't a way to protect users feelings from being hurt. For example, there are a good few members of the mod team and ~~high profile~~ users who post in every thread about certain topics and get upset about their shitposts being rated dumb time and time again because they're, well, dumb. Because trying to make it a level playing field for shit opinions by blocking out one way for people to disagree or say something is silly seems kinda like it's defeating part of the reason a forum exists.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;48150943]Well that's kinda drastic. What if the thread didn't have that sort of outcome originally in mind, and then 4 posts in someone says something stupid and it's locked. Kinda defeats the purpose of threads, idk[/QUOTE]
FP is about discussion and content, and if your not willing to discuss the topic then you should be lurking. Ratings were intended to prevent people from going off topic by replying to dumb puns, but then people started to reply to dumb puns with a modified dumb pun to get ratings to feel cool I guess
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;48150943]Well that's kinda drastic. What if the thread didn't have that sort of outcome originally in mind, and then 4 posts in someone says something stupid and it's locked. Kinda defeats the purpose of threads, idk[/QUOTE]
This is SH we're talking about, mind. They kind of need "drastic".
I'm not talking about banning the thread's OP, all he did was post an article, not his fault someone else came to shit the place up.
[QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;48150968]FP is about discussion and content, and if your not willing to discuss the topic then you should be lurking. Ratings were intended to prevent people from going off topic by replying to dumb puns, but then people started to reply to dumb puns with a modified dumb pun to get ratings to feel cool I guess[/QUOTE]
Then why not just give those people extended bans and have more people watching SH threads? I don't see why that wasn't an option
[QUOTE=lavacano;48150973]This is SH we're talking about, mind. They kind of need "drastic".
I'm not talking about banning the thread's OP, all he did was post an article, not his fault someone else came to shit the place up.[/QUOTE]
Whatever happened to CMS articles? We should use those again. I think then the focus would be more on the article and discussions then the peanut gallery comments.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;48150986]Then why not just give those people extended bans and have more people watching SH threads? I don't see why that wasn't an option[/QUOTE]
Because when your banned you can't post anywhere else, nor can you even read FP, and clearly, banning wasn't solving anything because people still do it and are still rewarded with ratings.
[QUOTE=HazzaHardie;48150857]they know better than the community[/QUOTE]
The thing to remember is that people on the internet tend to only give their input on something if they feel strongly about it. Either they feel strong about the thing or are heavily tied with whatever that thing is.
Reviews on app stores and Amazon are great examples of this.
A reasonable amount of reviews on any app will be people complaining that something doesn't work. However, depending on the store, you can see that those negative reviews make up very little of the actual downloads of that app. Amazon is a bit different because they pester you to review, but I assure you that on a badly reviewed item there will be more people without problems than with.
Not a ton of people want to go through the hassle of saying "yeah this app is good i guess 4/5" on every app they download.
SH has been a place just for the latest news and the posts were more like comments, not huge discussions, removing ratings there seems pointless
[QUOTE=lavacano;48150934]Banning for bringing up certain topics (regardless of viewpoint), thread locking the instant something goes wrong, maybe certain users need to have their posts approved by a moderator before they're visible (I'm not sure how much work that would be to set that up on a per-user basis though).[/QUOTE]
All awful ideas, tbh. If a topic of conversation naturally flows into something else, we're not going to shut it down unless it's far off topic or somehow breaking another rule (hate speech, racism, flaming, etc). Threads that do go off-topic can be salvaged pretty easily by throwing out a warning to get back to the point and banning the people who ignore that warning, and if a user is so toxic that the only way they can positively contribute to the forum is by having every single post pre-approved by a moderator, then there's really no reason to keep them around anyway. Besides all that, that's a lot of unnecessary extra work, and we're all volunteers. Garry best be writing me a paycheck if I'm gonna have to start manually approving a few hundred posts per day just to keep this place running decently.
[QUOTE=Andre Gomes;48151025]SH has been a place just for the latest news and the posts were more like comments, not huge discussions, removing ratings there seems pointless[/QUOTE]
At least without ratings we will (hopefully) stop getting threads that are purely posted for a bad joke. Let's keep what we actually want to see on the first page and not click-bait titles.
Stuff like farming friendly ratings by saying "this happened near me!!!" is dumb. It's gotten so bad that a guy who murdered another guy in a city, the poster was like "Oh my god my girlfriend passed through that city I hope shes okay!!" non sarcastically/ironically
Speaking of ratings I think a 👌 rating is long overdue.
RATINGS AREN'T WORKING FOR ME
HELP
[QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;48150991]
Because when your banned you can't post anywhere else, nor can you even read FP[/QUOTE]
Iirc I don't think that's actually the case anymore as of a few weeks ago
[QUOTE=meek;48151063]RATINGS AREN'T WORKING FOR ME
HELP[/QUOTE]
Working for me? I just rated someone in SH just now?
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;48151027]If a topic of conversation naturally flows into something else, we're not going to shut it down unless it's far off topic or somehow breaking another rule (hate speech, racism, flaming, etc). Threads that do go off-topic can be salvaged pretty easily by throwing out a warning to get back to the point and banning the people who ignore that warning[/quote]
It's not so much "off-topic" as "derail".
If someone posts an article about Amtrak having some sort of showstopping problem, and the thread naturally becomes "Trains and Railways General", that's one thing. If it however turns into a shitfest of "the US is garbage they can't even maintain rail lines" vs "europeans are always bashing every country but their own for stupid reasons", [b]then[/b] the lock kicks in.
[quote]and if a user is so toxic that the only way they can positively contribute to the forum is by having every single post pre-approved by a moderator, then there's really no reason to keep them around anyway.[/quote]
I forget the permaban exists sometimes, my bad
[quote]All awful ideas, tbh[/QUOTE]
I'm still not clear on why "banning certain topics" is bad, there are clearly certain things that SH is just flat out incapable of handling, and if they universally result in shit posting, why even allow them?
People are always like "lol who cares about ratings they dont mean anything" but now that they've been removed suddenly they did mean something and it's a good thing they're gone??
[QUOTE=Scot;48151139]People are always like "lol who cares about ratings they dont mean anything" but now that they've been removed suddenly they did mean something and it's a good thing they're gone??[/QUOTE]
could be worse
remember when blue members lost their avatars? there was one guy who was demanding that each and every gold member take down their avatar "because if it didn't matter, you wouldn't mind taking it down".
you can't exactly take down ratings, but nobody so far has started saying things of similar caliber of idiocy
To be fair I liked having ratings in SH because it gives an understanding of how people on FP generally think, when feedback is given to an extreme post (only really the disagree and agree ones).
I'm not bothered about losing funnys or dumbs really but it's a shame to not be able to see what people think of peoples opinions... I found it quite interesting.
[QUOTE=The freeman;48151019]The thing to remember is that people on the internet tend to only give their input on something if they feel strongly about it. Either they feel strong about the thing or are heavily tied with whatever that thing is.
Reviews on app stores and Amazon are great examples of this.
A reasonable amount of reviews on any app will be people complaining that something doesn't work. However, depending on the store, you can see that those negative reviews make up very little of the actual downloads of that app. Amazon is a bit different because they pester you to review, but I assure you that on a badly reviewed item there will be more people without problems than with.
Not a ton of people want to go through the hassle of saying "yeah this app is good i guess 4/5" on every app they download.[/QUOTE]
adding to the 'you either don't care or you're fucking furious' examples, I've been apartment/house hunting the past month and guaranteed if you look up even the swankiest of places online, all you'll find on review sites are people shitting on the place, often blatantly from a single person who sounds like an asshole who earned any alleged attitude from their former landlord
and I feel the burn from lacking ratings in SH, I browse a lot myself, but I know the goal and we're watching to see how it works in practice. If it sticks, I WILL miss being utterly confused as to what I said the night before when I see shit like this on the ticker
[img]http://40.media.tumblr.com/c8be48ae436598ca5a85bcf1dbfb7977/tumblr_mw5rp57hFX1rp3ua6o1_1280.png[/img]
Guys, hear me out - I think I may have figured out the problem! It's all in the name of the board - [I][B]Sensationalist[/B][/I] Headlines. Like how conservative viewers are drawn to Fox News like moths to a flame, a board entitled Sensationalist Headlines [I]obviously[/I] attracts a Sensationalist audience, no? We just need to rename the board to "Calm and Levelheaded News Discussion." That'll solve everything, of course!
[I]"News gets more informative the more calm you are by it"[/I]
ultimately you to curb shitposting in SH the best thing to do would be to add some sort of instaban or the rules need to be a lot tighter
also just chuck out the news node, nobody really cares about it
[QUOTE=BlindSniper17;48151227]Guys, hear me out - I think I may have figured out the problem! It's all in the name of the board - [I][B]Sensationalist[/B][/I] Headlines. Like how conservative viewers are drawn to Fox News like moths to a flame, a board entitled Sensationalist Headlines [I]obviously[/I] attracts a Sensationalist audience, no? We just need to rename the board to "Calm and Levelheaded News Discussion." That'll solve everything, of course!
[I]"News gets more informative the more calm you are by it"[/I][/QUOTE]
You joke, but every time someone gets called out for making a thread title with a bad pun or misinformation, they defend themselves by going "BUT ITS SENSATIONALIST HEADLINES" and get away with it. I don't understand why we don't just ban idiots that do this. Shitposting and UTT is bannable in (mostly) every other part of the forum.
People always complain about SH being some sort of shitposting cesspool but I never really see it. I think it's just that people are more exposed to viewpoints they don't like so their opponent is automatically "shitposting."
[QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;48151033]At least without ratings we will (hopefully) stop getting threads that are purely posted for a bad joke. Let's keep what we actually want to see on the first page and not click-bait titles.
Stuff like farming friendly ratings by saying "this happened near me!!!" is dumb. It's gotten so bad that a guy who murdered another guy in a city, the poster was like "Oh my god my girlfriend passed through that city I hope shes okay!!" non sarcastically/ironically[/QUOTE]
Then why not just create/edit rules for those kind of threads instead of removing a feature that no one asked to be removed?
I like sensationalist headlines because even though it can become a shit flinging arena sometimes, it's actually a great place to read the news in a more lighthearted manner instead of browsing a really depressing news site. I like the jokey thread titles.
I just hope getting rid of ratings doesn't backfire and cause even more arguments from people replying to posts they usually wouldn't because they can't rate it disagree or dumb anymore
[QUOTE=Andre Gomes;48151279]Then why not just create/edit rules for those kind of threads instead of removing a feature that no one asked to be removed?[/QUOTE]
They are against the rules. People keep doing it anyways. I assume the thought process was "maybe ratings are giving them reason to do so?" and they are experimenting. It's a very reasonable assumption. It also doesn't help clickbait titles are such a grey area that it's almost entirely up to the moderators discretion, and often, it's a match to see how close you can get out of the grey area before something happens in order to maximize ratings... that's the theory anyways.
now every thread that gets started in sh will be derailed by people asking why there's no ratings for the next 2 days
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;48150548]My only issue with removing ratings from SH is now I don't know if a post is good or not when it tries to explain stuff (I.E if I have a question about the Greek issue), or when it's a fairly polarized issue and I don't really know who's side is best.[/QUOTE]
That's a pretty unreliable way of seeing if a post is good or bad. There's been so many times where bad information gets a tonne of Informative and Agrees.
Trying to make SH a perfect place is silly. We had Mass Debate for the sterile, level headed discussions of various topics and it was boring as hell. SH is entertaining. It's interesting news with comedy in between.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.