• Making Facepunch better - Don't post about ratings
    5,003 replies, posted
[QUOTE=No_Excuses;48151332]Trying to make SH a perfect place is silly. We hadhad Mass Debate for the sterile, level headed discussions of various topics and it's boring as hell. SH is entertaining. It's interesting news with comedy in between.[/QUOTE] Removing ratings will not remove funny posts, I think it's trying to remove threads which are posted purely for maximum ratings, which is most prominent in SH.
I don't get why there's this idea that ratings were the main driving force of SH.
[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] SH is a self fulfilling prophecy of stupidity. The board used to have a much less silly name (it's been so long that I've totally forgotten it mind). When users started pouring in with "news" and news articles, giving them different, more sensationalist titles the subforum got renamed. Now people keep posting sensationalist bullshit because "that's the name tho..." as if it wasn't obvious enough that the name is taking the piss.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;48149836]Ratings have been removed from SH, everybody freak out.[/QUOTE] Oh, I thought my browser was just acting up.
I post almost exclusively in SH outside of one or two specific threads somewhere else and I have been accused of being a rating whore before, and honestly I am happy for the ratings removal. It's definitely a step towards making the place bit more civil and mature (although I hope you guys don't expect we will stop making puns). Maybe I would consider keeping just Agree/Disagree (or maybe just solely agree) because sometimes it's really interesting to watch the opinion of people even when it's a thought below the threshold of what the person thinks is worth posting about. It would hopefully still prevent the most story emotions while keeping some trivial clue to the general opinion. If it's decision between all ratings or no ratings, though, my meaningless vote is for no ratings at all.
what if i get people to pm me what they would rate my post and i edit it in myself HUH? [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/B1LBHdL.png[/IMG] Winner x [B]1 [/B](list): [URL="http://i.imgur.com/NlJ9KTs.png"]Waffle cones. [/URL] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/kBlYZaT.png[/IMG] Agree x [B]1[/B] (list): [URL="http://i.imgur.com/mcdIBGh.png"]gastyne [/URL]👌OK Sign x [B]1 [/B](list): [URL="http://i.imgur.com/JQC29Fb.png"]MilkBagz[/URL]
[QUOTE=Swebonny;48151363]I don't get why there's this idea that ratings were the main driving force of SH.[/QUOTE] Ratings liven up the site. They're not the main driving force but I think people are inclined to be more humorous/clever when they're there. Plus they make it easy to see who's pulling things out of their ass and who knows what they're talking about. Plus it makes me think twice before posting about something I'm uncertain about, or something stupid in general.
[QUOTE=Swebonny;48151363]I don't get why there's this idea that ratings were the main driving force of SH.[/QUOTE] It's not a driving force but a lot of actually very interesting, non-obvious, non-rating-whoring posts get a ton of agrees and you know immediately that's what the general mood is. It's not like you have to bandwagon with the ratings (people can bandwagon with whole posts just as much). It's about opinion that people hold but won't bother posting about it because who wants to write or read "damn, well said" posts all day.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;48151378]SH is a self fulfilling prophecy of stupidity. The board used to have a much less silly name (it's been so long that I've totally forgotten it mind). When users started pouring in with "news" and news articles, giving them different, more sensationalist titles the subforum got renamed. Now people keep posting sensationalist bullshit because "that's the name tho..." as if it wasn't obvious enough that the name is taking the piss.[/QUOTE] It used to be called "In The News." It got pointlessly changed because the "In The News Node" got its current name back around when ratings got re-added to the forums after being totally gone for some time. Calling it "Sensationalist Headlines" just causes more people to make gimmick or misleading titles.
[QUOTE=Swebonny;48151363]I don't get why there's this idea that ratings were the main driving force of SH.[/QUOTE] That's not the point. Ratings were an easy way to give people a reference of a post before fully reading it. How about those times when some guy posts a giant god damn essay as a post about something. For all I know he could be talking about how Jews are controlling the world economy or something, so why should I even waste my time reading it if it's all for naught? However, if there's a bunch of agrees on the post I might second guess it and actually take my time to read it. That's just one example. There's also the fact that Facepunch is quite unique for it's rating system and taking that away from a part of the forms makes you go [i]'why?'[/i] Why would I bother read this rather than something from an actual news site if I wanted bipartisan news. Sensationalist Headlines shouldn't be for formal news discussion, this is a video gaming forum for Christ's sake.
- snip wrong thread-
And as somebody mentioned if you want to unfuck Sensationlist Hedlines then you should start with the obvious faults, like the stupid name which people actually use to justify retarded thread titles with, clarify the rules of what's considered okay or not, maybe finally compile an official and canon list of banned sources, etc. Just outright axing all emotes is amputating a broken leg, of somebody who's got cerebral palsy imho.
[QUOTE=Swebonny;48151363]I don't get why there's this idea that ratings were the main driving force of SH.[/QUOTE] Whether the mods like it or not, there frankly was a very large chunk of SH users who'd just skim threads (especially those past the first page) to find posts worth reading. Having users rate as the thread "evolves" is kind of crucial to those of us who just want a summary of worthwhile posts without having to read through all of them. When a thread is new and short, sure, ratings don't matter because you have the time to read it all. But when it starts getting to 4, 5, 6+ pages, being able to quickly scroll through and find good (or, at least, controversial) posts is kind of critical. Now, I don't really have any inclination to read threads, because it'll just be people commenting the same things, making worthless posts, and just general garbage that I wouldn't have bothered to read before because posts like that were easily identifiable. It's become almost a chore to read through threads now, so much so that there's essentially no motivation to read anything beyond the OP and the first few replies. I can kind of see the angle on removing ratings, but I don't think it will be as helpful to SH as the mods expect. Now we're just going to have to waste time reading every post, even if it's completely worthless to the thread. I'd argue that it makes SH less efficient and more prone to shitposting because now you've got less of a chance of being called out on it. But I'm a stubborn, contrarian asshole, so.
I dunno, all the arguments that I'm seeing for ratings are basically "I'm too lazy to read." or "I need to express that fact that I agree with something publicly".
there's also those people who post about 'why r u guys rating me dumb im not dumb!!' and we should continue distressing those shitposters
[QUOTE=Swebonny;48151464]I dunno, all the arguments that I'm seeing for ratings are basically "I'm too lazy to read." or "I need to express that fact that I agree with something publicly".[/QUOTE] i think a user knowing their argument has support changes things a little bit, for better or worse
[QUOTE=Swebonny;48151464]I dunno, all the arguments that I'm seeing for ratings are basically "I'm too lazy to read." or "I need to express that fact that I agree with something publicly".[/QUOTE] maybe we have lives and we don't have time to read every single post in every single thread and have lives and jobs outside of the internet unlike you edit: i can't tell you how many times i read sensationalist headlines in between classes on my campus. do you expect me to read every single post in the spare ~15 minutes i have?
[QUOTE=Swebonny;48151464]I dunno, all the arguments that I'm seeing for ratings are basically "I'm too lazy to read." or "I need to express that fact that I agree with something publicly".[/QUOTE] But what's wrong with expressing the fact that you agree with something publicly? The forums are a communication platform and SH is about commenting on news articles.
[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;48151474]maybe we have lives and we don't have time to read every single post in every single thread and have lives and jobs outside of the internet unlike you[/QUOTE] you have 15,000 posts
[QUOTE=Swebonny;48151464]I dunno, all the arguments that I'm seeing for ratings are basically "I'm too lazy to read." or "I need to express that fact that I agree with something publicly".[/QUOTE] people care a bit too much about the rating function it must be like a drug, once the first funny comes down...
[QUOTE=Sand Castle;48151487]you have 15,000 posts[/QUOTE] over 5 years. thats like 8 posts a day, omg i make 8 posts a day i must be online 24/7
[QUOTE=Swebonny;48151464]I dunno, all the arguments that I'm seeing for ratings are basically "I'm too lazy to read." or "I need to express that fact that I agree with something publicly".[/QUOTE] And that's a bad thing why? All the arguments [i]against[/i] ratings are equally aimless, like "it'll make SH more inclusive and less bandwagoning". Now, if someone wants to point out how someone is being a fucking moron, they've got to actually [i]post[/i] about it instead of rating dumb. Or, if someone wants to express their support or thank someone for a good post (hypothetically), they've got to [i]post[/i] about it instead of rating agree or informative. It may reduce aimless bandwagoning, but at the expense of clogging up threads with derailment posts. This isn't 2005 on a default phpBB forum where everyone has to reply "LOL" or "Yeah LMAO", because we had ratings. We could just click a button and a tiny icon shows up. What was the harm in that?
[QUOTE=Swebonny;48151363]I don't get why there's this idea that ratings were the main driving force of SH.[/QUOTE] I think they give pretty interesting data. I know they generally don't mean dick, but still sometimes there are quite a lot of 'em. Last time it turned out at least 5% of Facepunchers possibly had a "mixed/negative reaction" to US Supreme court passing the gay marriage thing, for example. Of those who rated anyway, which was about 400 people. Science.
Why can't we keep banning people who whine about votes and remove Dumb and Funny and all the other irrelevant garbage and stick to agree/disagree/winner or whatever? What fault is in [I]that[/I]?
[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;48151474]maybe we have lives and we don't have time to read every single post in every single thread and have lives and jobs outside of the internet unlike you edit: i can't tell you how many times i read sensationalist headlines in between classes on my campus. do you expect me to read every single post in the spare ~15 minutes i have?[/QUOTE] There's something called skimming or just not reading irrelevant thread. It has worked fine for me!
[QUOTE=Swebonny;48151524]There's something called skimming or just not reading irrelevant thread. It has worked fine for me![/QUOTE] that's a great idea! you know what makes skimming a thread really easy? [i]ratings[/i] edit :you know, the colorful little icons that let you know a post is full of content or controversial in some way, shape, or form?
[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;48151530]that's a great idea! you know what makes skimming a thread really easy? [i]ratings[/i][/QUOTE] It's a shame they are gone.
[QUOTE=Swebonny;48151524]There's something called skimming or just not reading irrelevant thread. It has worked fine for me![/QUOTE] Good luck skimming any thread about transgender issues that grew out to five hundred posts overnight (and which you suggest is meant to have even more now if people are meant to make posts when trying to convey trivial opinion).
Removing ratings will do absolutely nothing. I visit another forum quite often, and their "Discussion and Debate" section, the "Political Mudpit" (it's a subsection basically just SH, though exclusively for current politically oriented news things; other topics get covered in different subforums). Basically it's the most toxic part of the site, why? Becuase that's what political discussions of any sort do; turn people into raging assholes.
[QUOTE=Swebonny;48151524]There's something called skimming or just not reading irrelevant thread. It has worked fine for me![/QUOTE] Clearly it doesn't work fine for everyone. You shouldn't be able to just force your opinion about ratings down everyone's throat by removing them.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.