Minor Board Update 03/19/14

Options
124»

Comments

  • Twysta
    Twysta Posts: 1,597 Chairperson of the Boards
    Options
    Yeah I've used it on MechGouki and Seppe as I really don't want to hear what they have to say most the time.
    It's a handy feature.
  • Spoit
    Spoit Posts: 3,441 Chairperson of the Boards
    Options
    Anyone have a link to a sunk post?
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    Options
    The upvote gained a timer recently? And a big one at that?

    That is not really a good thing, as you upvote stuff as you read right then and there, will not come back later.

    On SO the vote-spam is handled by counter rather than timer, everyone has a daily quote of up and downvotes (IIRC 50/10?) that I think works quite well for practice.
  • IceIX
    IceIX ADMINISTRATORS Posts: 4,313 Site Admin
    Options
    pasa_ wrote:
    The upvote gained a timer recently? And a big one at that?

    That is not really a good thing, as you upvote stuff as you read right then and there, will not come back later.

    On SO the vote-spam is handled by counter rather than timer, everyone has a daily quote of up and downvotes (IIRC 50/10?) that I think works quite well for practice.
    Upvoting hasn't gained a timer at all, but I did put something in that prevents any given user from up/downvoting another user a large number of times. Basically, if your votes represent more than a certain percent of that user's rep, you can't vote them until that changes. There's also a 48 hour cooldown on direct user rep giving, but that's always been there, for similar reasons.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    Options
    IceIX wrote:
    Upvoting hasn't gained a timer at all, but I did put something in that prevents any given user from up/downvoting another user a large number of times. Basically, if your votes represent more than a certain percent of that user's rep, you can't vote them until that changes. There's also a 48 hour cooldown on direct user rep giving, but that's always been there, for similar reasons.

    A-ha, figures. It's quite bad really.

    The up button belongs to the post, not the user. It is a less spamming form to add content of blank "I agree" "I like" "cool" and so on. And indicates out the posts for others that are worth looking at. And preventing addition of the quoted 1-liners too.

    So inhibiting that pretty much defeats the purpose of the bumps. Especially in the initial period when less users jump on using the feature, so too many such pairs form -- and prevents adding others.

    If the aim is to prevent someone's reputation to grow excessively by a single feller or a small group, you shall just go for that: apply discounts on the final numbers.

    I.e Ican still use the +1 on the post and that counts, but on the user rep it is summed as +0. Or +0.1. Or +1 potentially with per-user limit.

    I get that we had some abuse of the system, but please handle those in some manner not ruining a really great feature.

    An easy alternative: in the alliance group make the post +1s not count against reputation at all. These are group chat topics and those bumps are used (or we like them to) as auto-measure on decisions, ideas and so on with least noise possible. While in the general discussion groups other rules apply.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    Options
    IceIX wrote:
    pasa_ wrote:
    The upvote gained a timer recently? And a big one at that?

    That is not really a good thing, as you upvote stuff as you read right then and there, will not come back later.

    On SO the vote-spam is handled by counter rather than timer, everyone has a daily quote of up and downvotes (IIRC 50/10?) that I think works quite well for practice.
    Upvoting hasn't gained a timer at all, but I did put something in that prevents any given user from up/downvoting another user a large number of times. Basically, if your votes represent more than a certain percent of that user's rep, you can't vote them until that changes. There's also a 48 hour cooldown on direct user rep giving, but that's always been there, for similar reasons.

    This was done to counter my systematic down voting of theunwise1's posts. I'm not sure what I did was completely wrong, since that dude's posts are generally worthless, so even out of spite the down vote should be spot on 50% of the time. I added him to the foes list and I get a warning about his posts and they are removed for me. It's like a nonsense filter! A handy forum feature if there ever was any. In any case the edit doesn't really detract from the overall experience. I've lost reputation myself and who's to say the down votes I received weren't done to rep-bomb me? Then it's up to a forum admin to decide, which is kind of arbitrary.
  • IceIX
    IceIX ADMINISTRATORS Posts: 4,313 Site Admin
    Options
    klingsor wrote:
    This was done to counter my systematic down voting of theunwise1's posts. I'm not sure what I did was completely wrong, since that dude's posts are generally worthless, so even out of spite the down vote should be spot on 50% of the time. I added him to the foes list and I get a warning about his posts and they are removed for me. It's like a nonsense filter! A handy forum feature if there ever was any. In any case the edit doesn't really detract from the overall experience. I've lost reputation myself and who's to say the down votes I received weren't done to rep-bomb me? Then it's up to a forum admin to decide, which is kind of arbitrary.
    Well, that was the trigger certainly, but not the sole reason. Without a limit, someone that has a lot of posts can be rep bombed by that number of posts by any other user. That's just not good for anyone.

    As for Pasa's ideas, it's something I'll look into. Not sure how much time I'll have to make those changes since they're not in the mod's immediate purview though, so I'll see what I can do. I could easily make any given forum not have rep enabled, but that's not really too helpful either.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    Options
    IceIX wrote:
    klingsor wrote:
    This was done to counter my systematic down voting of theunwise1's posts. I'm not sure what I did was completely wrong, since that dude's posts are generally worthless, so even out of spite the down vote should be spot on 50% of the time. I added him to the foes list and I get a warning about his posts and they are removed for me. It's like a nonsense filter! A handy forum feature if there ever was any. In any case the edit doesn't really detract from the overall experience. I've lost reputation myself and who's to say the down votes I received weren't done to rep-bomb me? Then it's up to a forum admin to decide, which is kind of arbitrary.
    Well, that was the trigger certainly, but not the sole reason. Without a limit, someone that has a lot of posts can be rep bombed by that number of posts by any other user. That's just not good for anyone.

    As for Pasa's ideas, it's something I'll look into. Not sure how much time I'll have to make those changes since they're not in the mod's immediate purview though, so I'll see what I can do. I could easily make any given forum not have rep enabled, but that's not really too helpful either.

    That's right, I think the system is pretty good right now, and you probably have more lofty things on your plate, like getting the Dev's to add even more awesome Alliance features, like the ability to be demoted! or go AFA (away from alliance, TM) after x length of inactivity.

Categories