I don't think every single post needs to be "like"-able, "tweet"-able, or "email"-able.
Please give us a choice so that if we would like, we can disable or hide these options
Edit: You can vote for your own posts *and* you can vote multiple times on a single post? Was the voting system even remotely tested, Wizards?
Question: Suppose this thread gets a 5 star rating, is that a good thing or a bad thing?
It makes the forums crawl, and like reddit, all it will do is let the forum trolls bury things. Get rid of it, Wizards.
I predicted this, half jokingly.
It makes the forums crawl, and like reddit, all it will do is let the forum trolls bury things. Get rid of it, Wizards.
A binary, +1 / -1 system would be far superior than a 1-5 scale. You could even get really crafty and set forum threads to automatically close if the first post gets enough down votes.
Hopefully this will keep that number down.
Ah, crap - you can't even get away from it if you browse the forums while logged out.
i121.photobucket.com/albums/o208/True_RP...
A binary, +1 / -1 system would be far superior than a 1-5 scale. You could even get really crafty and set forum threads to automatically close if the first post gets enough down votes.
And a failsafe to stop trolls from creating 50 alt accounts and force-closing threads they don't like- wait nevermind, that would involve thinking ahead. I mean seriously guys? I try not to be knee-jerk about things and give them a chance (and hell the forums were almost as good as they were in the Gleemax era honestly), but this brings me right back to my "five year old banging on the keyboard with java open" metaphor...
Also we already had a +1/-1 system. They were called quote and report post.
I have another complaint of this change. This forum was already a resource hog and now it is pulling allot more processing power and memory. Over 100,000 KB of memory for my web browser, so I changed my preferences to list only 10 posts per page instead of the previous 40.
Hopefully this will keep that number down.
Wow, something odd's going on there. My browser is running at about half that amount of memory, and I have other tabs open besides the forums.
And a failsafe to stop trolls from creating 50 alt accounts and force-closing threads they don't like- wait nevermind, that would involve thinking ahead. I mean seriously guys? I try not to be knee-jerk about things and give them a chance (and hell the forums were almost as good as they were in the Gleemax era honestly), but this brings me right back to my "five year old banging on the keyboard with java open" metaphor...
Also we already had a +1/-1 system. They were called quote and report post.
It's easy to disregard the +1/-1 of posters with under, say, 10 or 50 posts. And you don't set threads to close after a certain number of votes, you set a threshold with a minimum overall vote count. If you've ever heard of League of Legends, such a system is well implemented on their forums (though I wouldn't try to visit and see for yourself today; the game was patched earlier this afternoon, and the forums tend to break as people, unable to play the game due to server upgrades, flood the forums en masse).
I’ve removed content from this thread because vulgarity is a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code of Conduct here: wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg...
It's easy to disregard the +1/-1 of posters with under, say, 10 or 50 posts. And you don't set threads to close after a certain number of votes, you set a threshold with a minimum overall vote count. If you've ever heard of League of Legends, such a system is well implemented on their forums (though I wouldn't try to visit and see for yourself today; the game was patched earlier this afternoon, and the forums tend to break as people, unable to play the game due to server upgrades, flood the forums en masse).
Yeah, but LoL is generally an all around stellar example of everything (in particular how a free game should be done). Comparatively, these boards are run by a group of people who decided copying facebook and the harbinger of inanity that I refuse to name was a higher priority than fixing the whole "Forum ocasionally goes apeshit and refuses to work" problem (or a profanity filter that doesn't catch "apeshit" because it's too busy watching "****footing").
Hell, compare Magic Tactics' business model to LoL's and you get a pretty good idea of how things stack up.
MAKE IT GO AWAY!
Anything that will make this go away has my support.
MAKE IT GO AWAY!
Anything that will make this go away has my support.
Seconded, so much. Come on, we've got an ORC on this thread, can they at least communicate up the ladder that there is distaste for this move? Or at least, desire for a feature to shut off this new feature. I mean, I can remove almost everything else, change every other sort of view from my profile, why not this?
About 120 seconds later, when Chrome had gotten up to 1 gigabyte of RAM SOLELY FROM THE WOTC WEBSITE, and had COMPLETELY USED ALL MY CPU (3.4 ghz), it crashed without ever showing me one line of text.
... **** this.
I'm not coming back to this site for a while, I hope this will be fixed when I do.
And by "I hope this will be fixed" I mean "I hope whoever the web designer is for the Wizards team gets fired." I'm not even in a charitable mood, I normally try to excuse people and talk about executive meddling. No. This is not good web design. I'm familiar with how to properly design a website for mass consumption, and this is the kind of amateur stuff you find on Geocities. Web Designer, you should have either known better, or when executives told you to do it against your protests, you should have grown some spine. A mechanic doesn't let a cab driver tell him how to fix an engine, an architect doesn't let some white collar office worker tell him how to install a pillar; if you honestly knew this was a mistake, you should have fought harder against it. If you didn't... disappointment.
Wizards of the Coast, you should be ashamed of yourself. There was no communication--again--with your community about a massive negative change to their interaction with you. You caved in and turned what was a simple forum into an in-fashion 'social networking' site.
Why didn't you go all the way? Why didn't you add a "Stumble This!" button and a button to each forum post which lets you "Add This Post to Your Bookmarks!"?
How about a flash intro? That'd be cool too, right? Full screen, Strong Bad style, don't even have to hire a web designer, any high school kid can do it for you.
OOH! How about this! This is a good idea! You know that MySpace page the kids are always talking about? I hear that's super-popular because people can add music to their profiles! How about you allow everyone to add automatically-playing music to their signatures? OOH! How about you require it? That'd be great! Then when I open any forum thread, I can automatically have a blast of forum-medley fill my ears?
That'd show your youngster forum-goers that you're "hip" and "in touch" and "social networking" and stuff!
...
I'm disgusted. You crashed my browser with your unnecessary features. Why was Shockwave loading? SHOCKWAVE SHOULD NEVER LOAD ON A FORUM SITE! "Shockwave has stopped responding."
I'm not coming back to these forums until this is fixed. Because this is just bull**** (which I had to censor myself because that's a feature you haven't finished, a quality censor), unnecessary modifications and feature bloat.
Feature bloat? From Wizards of the Coast, who couldn't be bothered to make sure their paid for products are full-feature anyway? What kind of topsy turvy world are we living in? This is insane.
People who know me on these forums know that I'm generally very forgiving of Wizards; even if I disagree with them, even if I refuse to pay them for a subscription or a book or Fortune Cards because I think they're not worth the money, I always give Wizards a little leeway and understand that their business decisions have validity for some people, and that I simply am not their demographic. "I think the subscription is for a lot of people, but since I don't need the compendium/character builder at my game, and since I only otherwise wanted compiled magazines, it's not for me." "I think this book is good-looking, I just don't want it." or "Fortune cards are good in concept, but I think lame in implementation--Wizards could definitely keep trying if they did better and dont' force it on people."
But this? I don't even have any words of comfort or "Well, it's okay in this case..." No. This is just poor web design. Rule #1 of web design: Never force the user to download enough information to crash their browser through regular use.
Rule #1, Wizards' web designer doesn't know it. To me, that's incompetence at your job. If I didn't know how to spell, I would have to consider an alternate career; if a taxi driver didn't know what the red hexagon meant, he would have to reconsider his career; the web designer for these forums needs to consider his career again.
Wizards, are you stalking me, looking at the few compliments I give you, and deciding to twist the world around until my compliments are ruined?
"Wizards has learned not to lie to their customers, if they say they're having trouble adding Dark Sun content to the builder, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt." LIE CONFIRMED
"The magazines are worth the price of D&DI!" MAGAZINES CANCELED
"These forums are some of the nicest on the internet!" FORUMS RUINED
...I give up. I'll be back when this is fixed. And if it's not fixed, I'll see you guys on Enworld. At least their forever-to-load website doesn't have a major corporation backing it, so they have an excuse.
/rant
P.S. Sorry if I seem a little harsh or reactionary... but goddamn, I've met my tolerance for forgiving Wizards' mistakes and continuing to be a defender of their practices. I'm switching to side that think Wizards' is the devil. I don't want to be on this side of the fence, but Wizards can only push me over there so many times before I start to think I'm not wanted liking Wizards.
Just got back from my night class. Decided to open up five tabs of forum threads, catch up on responses to things I've said and such.
About 120 seconds later, when Chrome had gotten up to 1 gigabyte of RAM SOLELY FROM THE WOTC WEBSITE, and had COMPLETELY USED ALL MY CPU (3.4 ghz), it crashed without ever showing me one line of text.
This is the second person I've seen make claims like this and it leads me to think that I truly must have the most awesome computer in the world. I just tested this running 6 tabs all open to various random threads. My memory usage for Chrome never got anywhere near a gigabyte, and my CPU (dual core 2.66 GHz) usage topped out at 3%, and I had media player open in the background.
This is the second person I've seen make claims like this and it leads me to think that I truly must have the most awesome computer in the world. I just tested this running 6 tabs all open to various random threads. My memory usage for Chrome never got anywhere near a gigabyte, and my CPU (dual core 2.66 GHz) usage topped out at 3%, and I had media player open in the background.
Are you only displaying 10 posts per page?
I've seen the occasional oddity as well, although not regularly: one of my first visits after this Facebook/Twitter/etc stuff was added had the forums trying to redirect the browser to another site (although I don't know which one, since I have that blocked by default), but I haven't seen that happen since.
Are you only displaying 10 posts per page?
Can you change this to more then? Where?
Can you change this to more then? Where?
Click "Home", "forums", "forum preferences".
Note that setting it higher now will probably kill your machine. I'm displaying 40 posts per page and my work machine is not amused. I tried opening FireBug and the whole page just stopped working.
Hell I can't even make a GreaseMonkey script to kill all unnecessary options because it's that slow.
Please, please, please take it away.
Somebody must like this nonsense. All negative posts have been rated once and for one star. Heh. This is awesome, dudes!
I want to thank you for the feedback, but I'm having a hard time with that on some of these posts. Most people explained their frustration with the features, the slow downs, and the lack of news about this update with respect, even though it was clear that those people were upset - I want to thank those people.
But filling a post with vitriol, hate-filled comments, like "these people should be fired", swearing at us or other ambiguous members of the company - there really is no reason for that. Please share your feedback respectfully, and consider how you would share your ideas if this were a face to face conversation between real people, not faceless names on a screen.
Hey all, so we've at least temporarily disabled most of these features. We're still working out what exactly is best, what you guys want, and how much they're contributing to the slow downs we've been experiencing.
I want to thank you for the feedback, but I'm having a hard time with that on some of these posts. Most people explained their frustration with the features, the slow downs, and the lack of news about this update with respect, even though it was clear that those people were upset - I want to thank those people.
But filling a post with vitriol, hate-filled comments, like "these people should be fired", swearing at us or other ambiguous members of the company - there really is no reason for that. Please share your feedback respectfully, and consider how you would share your ideas if this were a face to face conversation between real people, not faceless names on a screen.
I gotta say, I wish the rating system was still here now, just so I could rate this post 5 stars for that last paragraph.
EDIT: To be constructive, I'll go ahead and say what I've been seein'. In the Tavern, I'd say that the vast majority would prefer that there be no buttons for FB or Twitter and no rating system (though the rating thing is of least concern). Really, I don't see many people using it for anything and it does seem to cause some slowdown issues. And that is annoying. I've seen it voiced that if all of the share options were contained under that one symbol (and, of course, any slowdown issues were resolved) it wouldn't be all that bad. As it is, theres excessive clutter with the buttons and the stars and, as there doesn't seem to be a whole lot in the way of expected usage, this is a negative with no balancing positive qualities.
To sum up, from what I've seen where I hang the most - and it's the opinion I share as well - it would be best if this was just not implemented at all. If, however, that decision has been made and we're going to get it whether we want it or not (or, obviously, if we're simply the minority and the majority would like this feature), then please implement it in the most streamlined fashion as possible. Make it as unobtrusive as you can and verify that it won't cause any slowdown issues. Thanks for poppin' in, Trevor. It does make a big difference.
EDIT: Or at least, I tried but it didn't stick.
I'm just saying, that last paragraph of Trevor's is good enough to go in my Quotes box in my sig.
EDIT: Or at least, I tried but it didn't stick.
Yeah, it was good and, IMO, needed. I took your spirit to heart and edited my post to include what I believe to be good, constructive content.
I'm just saying, that last paragraph of Trevor's is good enough to go in my Quotes box in my sig.
EDIT: Or at least, I tried but it didn't stick.
Yeah, it was good and, IMO, needed. I took your spirit to heart and edited my post to include what I believe to be good, constructive content.
Once again ZB, you show why you're one of my favorite people on here.
Hey all, so we've at least temporarily disabled most of these features. We're still working out what exactly is best, what you guys want, and how much they're contributing to the slow downs we've been experiencing.
I want to thank you for the feedback, but I'm having a hard time with that on some of these posts. Most people explained their frustration with the features, the slow downs, and the lack of news about this update with respect, even though it was clear that those people were upset - I want to thank those people.
But filling a post with vitriol, hate-filled comments, like "these people should be fired", swearing at us or other ambiguous members of the company - there really is no reason for that. Please share your feedback respectfully, and consider how you would share your ideas if this were a face to face conversation between real people, not faceless names on a screen.
I apologize for my harsh reaction, hurtful comments, etc. etc.
However, there's one important fact I'd like to point out. I've noticed it on other forums, I've noticed it here, and you yourself just confirmed it fairly hard.
Being civil and gently discussing things never gets any acknowledgement from the company, ever, but being loud and obnoxious does.
Like, I see it time and time again--if people are having a polite, meaningful discussion, begging loudly (but not being rude) for a Wizards employee (or any other employee, depending on the forum) to contribute their thoughts, there will be just silence which will anger people because they're trying very hard to be polite and reasonable.
But the moment someone starts freaking out, cursing, being insulting... almost instantly an employee will show up, start communicating with customers, and then chastise the person who got angry.
I can handle chastisement for getting mad if it actually gets someone to communicate with us.
Same thing with customer service. There are a huge number of companies out there (I don't believe Wizards is one of them, thankfully) that seem to have different response policies depending on how their angry customers act.
A polite "I'm having this problem, can I get a refund or some sort of resolution?" will get a "No."
An angry "GIVE ME A SOLUTION OR I'M NOT BUYING FROM YOU AGAIN! THIS SUCKS! WHAT THE HELL!" will get, if not some sort of "We like your money, please don't leave us..." response, will get a more wordy reply than just "No." which actually explains the problem.
At the very least, my school acts like that. Politely ask for information, they'll turn you down or give you bad information. Ask for help, they'll mislead you and tell you to do the wrong thing. Show up rip**** pissed and tell them that you're going to transfer if they don't help you solve your problem, you'll get an essay on exactly what the problem followed by the vice-head of the relevant department sitting down in his or her office personally resolving the issue.
What I'm trying to say is... while I feel bad I got so angry and personally attacked WotC employees, and sincerely apologize, I do not at all feel bad that it got results. And if you were to tell me "Due to the overwhelming negative response, I would've responded to the thread and given people actual information anyway" I will laugh heartily, because that has never been the reaction I've seen from any other employee. Far too many threads on this forum have been universally polite but negative towards a sudden, undesired Wizards decision, and have gotten 100% radio silence from Wizards after hundreds of posts.
Polite threads == ignore
Angry threads == respond with information and chastisement.
But who knows, maybe this is the exception and I was misplaced in trying to draw attention to the matter.
* * * *
In any case, I'm glad to see the features removed. Please, just don't return them at all, don't reconsider how best to implement them... or if you do implement them, give us an off switch
Frankly, I'm still not happy because I see a facebook "Like this!" button, which is annoying, and unwanted, and I don't even have my facebook account attached to these forums anymore after yesterday so it serves no purpose in hovering there on every single post.
But at least I can open threads in under a minute. Even if I still get irritated seeing "Waiting for facebook.com" for quite a while each time I click 'next page' on a thread.
Hey all, so we've at least temporarily disabled most of these features. We're still working out what exactly is best, what you guys want, and how much they're contributing to the slow downs we've been experiencing.
I want to thank you for the feedback, but I'm having a hard time with that on some of these posts. Most people explained their frustration with the features, the slow downs, and the lack of news about this update with respect, even though it was clear that those people were upset - I want to thank those people.
But filling a post with vitriol, hate-filled comments, like "these people should be fired", swearing at us or other ambiguous members of the company - there really is no reason for that. Please share your feedback respectfully, and consider how you would share your ideas if this were a face to face conversation between real people, not faceless names on a screen.
POINT FINGERS! POINT FINGERS!
Kidding.
Don't change anything. Ever. We fear change. What is this new fangled spacebook anyway? Sounds foreign.
Being civil and gently discussing things never gets any acknowledgement from the company, ever, but being loud and obnoxious does.
This actually isn't the case from what I've seen. Lately in our D&D community, when news is shared/discovered or speculation starts, there is an almost immediate response that crosses that respectful line - it's not like days pass and then that first insulting/baiting/flaming/harassing comment is made - it's happening in the first round of replies generally. So saying that the civil discussions arne't working is a bit disengenuous - some people aren't even trying to wait until they rip into someone or something.
Also, this particular issue got a response because of how quickly all the feedback - mostly negative - popped up, not because of the few comments that were "loud and obnoxious."
I think such a system would be simpler, less image heavy (only have to display a single integer rather than x/5 stars, etc.), and more intuitive than a 1-5 rating: It's much easier to decide "was this post useful / unhelpful" rather than "was this post a 4 useful, a 3 useful, or a 5 useful".
My polite inquiries received EVERY single time a cut and paste email response that more often than not is not even relevant to my issue. When I become angry in my inquiries I actually get a response where they've taken the time to read and understand my issue.
As for this, I'd rather that the time that was spent to add this social networking 'stuff' to the forums and site had been better spent working on the Online tools process and generating game based products. If, for some reason, WotC is hell bent on forcing such social networking additions upon us then set it up in the preferences where we can opt out and have zero memory resources used by this "feature".
If this star rating or, as other forum members have suggested, +/- rating system is WotC attempt to get some control on trolls and posters that consistently walk the edge and drape themselves in the flag of the CoC, then I'm all for it. I highly doubt it is that however and such a rating system will just allow more of the cyber bullying to continue unchecked by your company.
As for this, I'd rather that the time that was spent to add this social networking 'stuff' to the forums and site had been better spent working on the Online tools process and generating game based products.
Michelle detailed in another post how this whole rating/like/tweet thing went down so I'll just point over to that post. But to sum up: those sharing/liking/rating features were something the vendor turned on for everybody, and we didn't see a down side in sharing it. The fact that people didn't like what they saw and the slowdowns caused us to bring it back down. No internal resources were used/redirected to make this happen.
But filling a post with vitriol, hate-filled comments, like "these people should be fired", swearing at us or other ambiguous members of the company - there really is no reason for that. Please share your feedback respectfully, and consider how you would share your ideas if this were a face to face conversation between real people, not faceless names on a screen.
To be fair, even good changes are bound to be met with vitriol initially, especially when they appear out of nowhere, and honestly vitriol is a pretty good word to describe my feelings toward the change in question. Personal attacks are a bit much, but you can thank the monkeysphere for that.
That being said, I want to thank you guys for listening and responding to our feedback. Definitely gained several levels of respect from me for that.
Personal attacks are a bit much, but you can thank the monkeysphere for that.
"So how many monkeys would it take before you stopped caring?" Isn't the answer 1 monkey is enough to stop caring?
Edit: After finishing the article, the answer is 1 monkey is enough for me to stop caring. And the idea that I think of 'them' as faceless government employees or corporate employees is silly to me. I think of people as the gormless stupid individuals that we all are. Not that I hate people for it, we can't help that we're human. And getting to know another person doesn't make me change my mind about that.
Edit: After finishing the article, the answer is 1 monkey is enough for me to stop caring. And the idea that I think of 'them' as faceless government employees or corporate employees is silly to me. I think of people as the gormless stupid individuals that we all are. Not that I hate people for it, we can't help that we're human. And getting to know another person doesn't make me change my mind about that.
Something about this made me cringe for some reason. But then I'm one of those people who rejects the monkeysphere idea anyway. I don't care who a person is, what they've done, or even how much they've pissed me off. I still care, at least to an extent. (That said, I'm not one of those types that will go crazy and give up everything I own just because people are starving in Africa. That won't help the problem.)
Michelle detailed in another post how this whole rating/like/tweet thing went down so I'll just point over to that post. But to sum up: those sharing/liking/rating features were something the vendor turned on for everybody, and we didn't see a down side in sharing it. The fact that people didn't like what they saw and the slowdowns caused us to bring it back down. No internal resources were used/redirected to make this happen.
Thank you for this. This is the kind of information that we need to hear on a regular basis from WotC. Simply hiding all of the widgets behind a link would make the forums load 10x faster. If you need more information I will gladly explain the way this works, have someone in the relevant department give me a PM if your interested.
As to flash and everything else loading with the forums. I'm just not seeing why it does that. I don't see a flash intro or any flash components. I don't see any facebook embeds, all I see are links (or they should be links). Are you feeding facebook usage information or something...nothing should load unless its actively being used. If you have too many components. Link to another page to contain these components...
As for this, I'd rather that the time that was spent to add this social networking 'stuff' to the forums and site had been better spent working on the Online tools process and generating game based products.
Michelle detailed in another post how this whole rating/like/tweet thing went down so I'll just point over to that post. But to sum up: those sharing/liking/rating features were something the vendor turned on for everybody, and we didn't see a down side in sharing it. The fact that people didn't like what they saw and the slowdowns caused us to bring it back down. No internal resources were used/redirected to make this happen.
Just for reference, this is the sort of communication (and action) I'd dearly like to see from WOTC in general - a timely acknowledgement of something which went wrong, a quick fix, and that quick fix being communicated to the customers.
Please keep doing this sort of thing.
Something about this made me cringe for some reason.
God I hope so, I spent some time figuring out what to say that was incredibly cringeworthy.
I actually completely agree with the idea from the article, and I've been saying so for a while. I assume, with what appears from paying any attention to events to be completely justified, that the nameless and faceless human strangers are grade-A morons ... but upon interacting in a meaningful fashion with individuals (virtually or IRL) I am usually pleasantly surprised to find they aren't. Similarly I don't care at all what happens to people who I haven't met. I do care (a bit) when people I know run into life problems, even if it's only to the degree of 'that sucks bro'.
So 'I don't know you' combined with anonymous interaction sounds like pretty much the perfect combination for rudeness to prosper to me.
So 'I don't know you' combined with anonymous interaction sounds like pretty much the perfect combination for rudeness to prosper to me.
I'll agree with that part. Although I tend to see it as an unfortunate side effect of human self-absorption that I try to fight against, at least for my own part.
Here's a tip I try to live by (I don't always succeed but nobody's perfect): Just assume people are decent normal human beings until they prove otherwise. The world gets to be a better place and you will be generally happier as a result.
One of the things that has made our species great is our ability to cooperate.
Is genuine empathy really that rare a thing in this world, though?
Here's a tip I try to live by (I don't always succeed but nobody's perfect): Just assume people are decent normal human beings until they prove otherwise. The world gets to be a better place and you will be generally happier as a result.
One of the things that has made our species great is our ability to cooperate.
And to back up that tip: Even if you're having the kind of bad day where you just can't assume people are decent, treat them like they are anyway. Hell, even if you know better about a specific person, treat them like they're decent anyway. You'd be surprised at the difference in how they react to and treat you.
Here's a tip I try to live by (I don't always succeed but nobody's perfect): Just assume people are decent normal human beings until they prove otherwise. The world gets to be a better place and you will be generally happier as a result.
I've tried that, but I seem to attract exactly the wrong sort of people for that outlook, though it does seem to have gotten somewhat better in college. That being said, I seem to get along pretty well with most people so whatevs.
Just assume people are decent normal human beings until they prove otherwise.
I've never seen anything to indicate to me that decent and normal go together where human beings are in question. I seem to know plently of abnormal individual human beings that are decent, but the majority of the faceless masses seem to want to prove themselves to be normal undecent human beings to me. Of course, that could just be media brainwashing.
Yes, yes. By normal I meant "unaligned"
Y'know, though, I still think we need some kind of rating/favorite system. I've got this great "My Favorites" panel on my admin page with no way to fill it, and my "Subscribed Threads" panel is getting clogged trying to substitute. Ratings are great as a more public form of recognition, although I can understand how they might slow down the forum.
I'm not sure that a +- 1 system is better than a 5* one, though; should a moderately good post in a popular forum really get a higher score than a great post in a less-visited one? A 3* system might work better... or perhaps something similar to what ENWorld does, with one-line comments instead of per-post ratings?
Either way, a 5-star system generally just ends up with people rating everything 1 or 5, so a +/- option has about the same effect.
As for a rating system, I like the Steam forum system. They have a positive reputation system for posters (you can only add to someone's rep, you can't subtract; it's different for the community leads, as they can give you negative reputation points if they want, and quite a few if they feel it necessary) so if you see someone with, say, as many posts as they have reputation points, you can usually be sure they're a decent poster.
For rating threads, also I prefer the Steam forum system; everyone get's one vote on the thread rating, 5-star system, and it takes like 5 or so votes before it will even display what the thread rating is. It's extremely quick (both to load, kind of important, and to actually do the voting), and for the most part it's very self-balancing: if a thread has 1 star and it's a good thread, people will automatically give it 5 stars to counteract the bad votes. If a thread has no votes and people really like it, they'll vote to get it attention, etc. etc.
The less awkward and clunky the system (with no load times), the more likely it will serve its purpose of being a quick, accurate judge of the community's opinion on something.
* * * *
Can I opt out of this Facebook plugin now? Please?
Can I opt out of this Facebook plugin now? Please?
I don't know if that's possible, but you can block it with AdBlock. Doesn't seem to improve the page loading time, but at least you don't have to look at it.
Well, I didn't stay gone for a week, but it seems like they eliminated most of the offending social networking stuff. Good.Can I opt out of this Facebook plugin now? Please?
I don't know if that's possible, but you can block it with AdBlock. Doesn't seem to improve the page loading time, but at least you don't have to look at it.
Hm. Well, you're right--adblock did remove the icon rather cleanly, but didn't remove the constant loading of it. Oh well.
I hope Wizards gets to this soon and actually removes this unwanted feature...
Being civil and gently discussing things never gets any acknowledgement from the company, ever, but being loud and obnoxious does.
This actually isn't the case from what I've seen. Lately in our D&D community, when news is shared/discovered or speculation starts, there is an almost immediate response that crosses that respectful line - it's not like days pass and then that first insulting/baiting/flaming/harassing comment is made - it's happening in the first round of replies generally. So saying that the civil discussions arne't working is a bit disengenuous - some people aren't even trying to wait until they rip into someone or something.
Also, this particular issue got a response because of how quickly all the feedback - mostly negative - popped up, not because of the few comments that were "loud and obnoxious."
Trevor, have to say this. My personal experience has been mixed, but on the whole I find that yes loud and obnoxious edges out civil. I'm sure this issue got attention because of the feedback over the loud and obnoxious.
There have been several times that you've had to say something about the number of posts on a particular subject being overly rude and obnoxious and violations of the CoC.
If such posts were the exception to how most people are posting, then you would just over look them, or delete them or whatever. But the fact that you feel you need to say something, means that yes, there are a large number of rude and obnoxious posts.
So that means several things. 1. There are some really upset people. 2. People feel they can get away with acting like that on the forums, because it's faceless and safe. And, sometimes they get personal attention. What they certainly never get told is to knock it off. At least not publicly.
I can attest, I've been stalked on these forums by a couple posters, who have admitted it openly, other posters have noticed it and commented on. And all attempts to try and work out a truce didn't work. It took forever to get anyone to intervene directly. Reporting them only gets posts edited or removed, and only really extreme violations gets a one day ban. All that would happen is the moment their ban was over, they would go on a marathon of baiting on any posts I had made, hoping to get me banned as a revenge for them getting banned.
One was even encouraging others to harass me and bait me into responding, in hopes I would get banned. The same also used a different account to continue his attack after a ban. That person is still on the forums.
They still give little attempts to bait and flame, because they can't let it go. But it's clear, they are not ever going to get perma banned from the forums, even though they are continually harassing another poster.
There is a difference between having negative comments about WoTC and DnD. And there I can attest that I've spoken my mind when I felt WoTC has screwed up, or made a bad choice, or is failing me as a customer. But all without insults and being obnoxious, but clearly frustrated and upset as a customer. WoTC does listen, I won't say they don't.
But the bottom line is there is no real penalty for being rude and obnoxious towards anyone on this forum. A one day ban does nothing for the worst offenders, other then make them try and find new ways around the CoC, and make them think they are the victims. People that abuse never see themselves as the cause of why they got censored.
So yes, being civil gets heard, but it's clear, being rude and obnoxious gets heard more, and gets more attention, otherwise, you wouldn't have to always ask people to stop it.
So yes, being civil gets heard, but it's clear, being rude and obnoxious gets heard more, and gets more attention, otherwise, you wouldn't have to always ask people to stop it.
This sounds like a bit of odd logic to me. Because I come on here and ask people to speak to each other respectfully from time to time, that means that the people who are doing so are being heard less? That's just not the case, and I'm sorry if I've led you to that conclusion somehow.
I'm actually way more struck/impressed when someone shares a well-written, supported opinion than I am when someone says "This sucks, I don't like it" and posts it up - and I try to make sure that when I see one of those posts I either call it out here in the forums or, at the very least, post it around to everyone involved in the building.
As to no real consequences for those people who clearly step over that respectful line - I want to work on that. I want communication between us to be good first, and I want to reorg these forums to consolidate things a bit - but I definitely want to get to the point where we hold people to a more personable standard.
___________________
Now back on topic. Since people like the "+1" thing we're already doing, what do people think about just having that as an option on a post? A button you can push that just has that "+1" on it that tracks how many times a post has plus oned. Why would you want this - simply because it's a feature that mimics the behavior you're already doing. Why do I want it - because I can easily track (and possibly reward in the future somehow) popular posts and posters. It's a great way for you guys to promote a response you like, and I can track it on the back end to make sure we're on the same page. Does that sound like something you would use?
Now back on topic. Since people like the "+1" thing we're already doing, what do people think about just having that as an option on a post? A button you can push that just has that "+1" on it that tracks how many times a post has pluss oned. Why would you want this - simply because it's a feature that mimics the behavior you're already doing. Why do I want it - because I can easily track (and possibly reward in the future somehow) popular posts and posters. It's a great way for you guys to promote a response you like, and I can track it on the back end to make sure we're on the same page. Does that sound like something you would use?
I much prefer a +1 and -1 option. If you want to see a really effective use of the system, check out the comments system in the wowhead database. Only people who are logged in can vote, and you can only vote once. The best part of this system is that any post that drops below a certain negative value becomes hidden, although you can make it viewable by clicking on a button. You can also select a thread and then filter by highest rated which makes it extremely useful to get to the good stuff quickly. Although many people claim the WoW community to be juvenile and obnoxious, they are actually very good at self policing and as a whole the system works quite well. Check it out.
So yes, being civil gets heard, but it's clear, being rude and obnoxious gets heard more, and gets more attention, otherwise, you wouldn't have to always ask people to stop it.
This sounds like a bit of odd logic to me. Because I come on here and ask people to speak to each other respectfully from time to time, that means that the people who are doing so are being heard less? That's just not the case, and I'm sorry if I've led you to that conclusion somehow.
I'm actually way more struck/impressed when someone shares a well-written, supported opinion than I am when someone says "This sucks, I don't like it" and posts it up - and I try to make sure that when I see one of those posts I either call it out here in the forums or, at the very least, post it around to everyone involved in the building.
As to no real consequences for those people who clearly step over that respectful line - I want to work on that. I want communication between us to be good first, and I want to reorg these forums to consolidate things a bit - but I definitely want to get to the point where we hold people to a more personable standard.
No, it means that people who are respectful, loose out to people that are rude. You and other WoTC staff have only so much time to respond in a given day. If you have to spend part of that time, telling people, even in general, to be respectful, that's less time to respond to someone that is, well more deserving of getting a direct answer.
The fact we have threads about the very subject, which stick around for some time, says yes, there is a general problem with behavior in the forums.
And people are also more likely to remember the drama! then the respectful.
On subject, I would like a +1 to like. I would not want a dislike button. I think that if people don't hit like, that's the same as not liking something.
Please make it so you can only like something once.
Please make it so you can only like something once.
And please make it so you can't Like your own posts.
It would be cool if you could highlight a posts rating and see who voted on it as well. If you make clever use of AJAX you can even do that without screwing up page loading times.
A karma system works decently enough as well. Everyone starts out with 10 (abstract) karma points. You can give posts +1 to +3 karma, from your own pool, which are then added to the poster's pool. Your pool of 10 is refreshed every week or so you never completely run out. You then can monitor how much karma people have given out as well as received.
I also say, just make it +1 like. Simple.
I agree, simple is best.
Of course you agree.
Make it Karma +1 then. No varying degrees. It's not overly-complicated. It's no different than Like + 1. But it's also important to see who is actively giving as well as receiving, thus karma systems work VERY well.
Now back on topic. Since people like the "+1" thing we're already doing, what do people think about just having that as an option on a post? A button you can push that just has that "+1" on it that tracks how many times a post has plus oned.
This is what I want, only with the -1 option too.
I do think it is worthwhile seeing the ratio of + to -. I use this ratio much more than the raw numbers to evaluate the content of long posts on other forums before dedicating the time to read them because my experience with the content of such posts has consistently been that I do find the negative ratio to be very much in line with my own evaluation. Once I establish that on a forum, I can save time.
Now back on topic. Since people like the "+1" thing we're already doing, what do people think about just having that as an option on a post? A button you can push that just has that "+1" on it that tracks how many times a post has plus oned.
This is what I want, only with the -1 option too.
I do think it is worthwhile seeing the ratio of + to -. I use this ratio much more than the raw numbers to evaluate the content of long posts on other forums before dedicating the time to read them because my experience with the content of such posts has consistently been that I do find the negative ratio to be very much in line with my own evaluation. Once I establish that on a forum, I can save time.
Well, here's the thing. There are some very petty people on the forums. Who would clearly use the dislike feature to put people down, and show how their idea isn't valid. More so, I wouldn't put it past them to try and flood a post of someone they don't like with people going to that post just to dislike.
If your only option is being able to like a post once, bad posts won't get any likes, and it will be evident that people didn't care for the idea.
There is enough bad feelings on the forums, without adding something people would most certainly use to trash each other with.
So although an individual with a petty streak can affect all of my posts, it would take either a lot of petty folks to affect the reputation of the individual post. And if that many people getting petty is higher than the number of people that like the post, either I am very good at making enemies or my post really is not worth much. I'm okay with that.
Yes, legacy term. "Karma" is a well known internet voting system similar to the Like system. But let's not get into the semantics of the name.
The only thing it offers is additional provision of data to see how much people vote. It's no less simple than any other simple voting system.
The important thing, IMO (and if we're going with this - not something I'm after personally), is that we do not allow posts to become hidden due to low ratings. The simplest way to accomplish this, of course, is to only allow positive ratings. If we're dead set on that vindictive -1, then allow that but do not allow negatively rated posts to be hidden. The last thing we need is power granted to the people that love to dogpile posters they don't like. That's not right. As someone who's experienced a stalker harrassing them here through the report button, I understand all too well how something like this could be used negatively. A friend of mine is also experiencing some stalking right now and I just can't condone giving these sort of people an additional tool to attack their target with.
It would be used like how people often used thier higher post count to put down others who have a low post count. The old, "My post count is higher then your's so I'm right and you are wrong!"
What they really need to do is something that helps cut down on the stalkers.
There are vindictive people everywhere. However I’ve seen what ZB is referring to; by people in this thread.On topic; If we are going to do this +1 / -1 system, make it so, the people who click on it can never rate that post ever again wither they clicked + or-.
I think that there needs to be a distinction made between people having a genuine dislike for each other and stalking. The former is normal behavior, the latter is not. "Stalking" is a rather serious term and should not be tossed about so haphazardly as it tends to be.
Maybe when people take it to the extremes by sending vindictive, beligerant, and threatening private messages, they begin to evolve into that stage. But simply venting and arguing (and sometimes flaming) in public forums does not constitute stalking.
I could get behind a +1/-1 as well, however there are a couple of caveats that get attached to this idea. First, it would have to be set up so that you need to be logged in to vote, and you can only vote once per each post. In addition, I would say some sort of algorithm that prevented someone from going through one persons posts and un-liking (or liking) all of their posts. You need to spread it around or wait a given length of time (a day??) before you +/-1 to another post from the same person. Finally, should one have the option to hide from view posts that have a large negative rating, posts from WotC staff members and ORCs (and possibly VCLs??) should not be able to be hidden.
I definitely like the idea of just a +1.
I could get behind a +1/-1 as well, however there are a couple of caveats that get attached to this idea. First, it would have to be set up so that you need to be logged in to vote, and you can only vote once per each post. In addition, I would say some sort of algorithm that prevented someone from going through one persons posts and un-liking (or liking) all of their posts. You need to spread it around or wait a given length of time (a day??) before you +/-1 to another post from the same person. Finally, should one have the option to hide from view posts that have a large negative rating, posts from WotC staff members and ORCs (and possibly VCLs??) should not be able to be hidden.
See, if you offer a way to -1, or dislike, you have to do extra work to make sure it doesn't get abused. And I think it's pretty clear there are people that would go about marking others posts -1 just to harass them. It's no different then someone going around and reporting someone's posts, just in hopes of getting those posts deleted. We all know that already happens.
When I was dealing with CS about my very real stalkers, I was told by CS that they don't like to put to much ability to hide posts from people, because it's just not possible to do so without causing many others posts to be effected. Because they are connected when people quote threads. Which is often why a reasonable post quoting a bad post gets deleted by one post being deleted.
Frankly, if I don't like an idea, then I won't be clicking +1 like. If it's a wildly unpopular idea, it's going to have very little +1.
Not to mention, there are lots of posts that have very little reason to be liked or disliked. Won't having every thread rated in some way going to toss in a lot of useless data?
See, if you offer a way to -1, or dislike, you have to do extra work to make sure it doesn't get abused.
I think the extra work is worth it.
On one site I frequent, there are a number of posts from a few specific individuals that get fairly high +1 ratings simply because there are so many people on the boards. But the -1 value is almost always two to three times higher. These folks +1 each other, but the rest of the community knows that nearly every post they submit includes spam and or flame. It is the ratio of +1 to -1 that indicates the community's estimated value of the post. Not the raw number of +1 or -1 votes.
See, if you offer a way to -1, or dislike, you have to do extra work to make sure it doesn't get abused.
I think the extra work is worth it.
On one site I frequent, there are a number of posts from a few specific individuals that get fairly high +1 ratings simply because there are so many people on the boards. But the -1 value is almost always two to three times higher. These folks +1 each other, but the rest of the community knows that nearly every post they submit includes spam and or flame. It is the ratio of +1 to -1 that indicates the community's estimated value of the post. Not the raw number of +1 or -1 votes.
So, then instead of being more about the ideas, and letting WoTC be able to know when people like something, it becomes a popularity game. And once that happens, then it's using popularity to put people down (post counts all over again) and then rigging the popularity count.
Like the boards need that.
It would be used like how people often used thier higher post count to put down others who have a low post count. The old, "My post count is higher then your's so I'm right and you are wrong!"
What they really need to do is something that helps cut down on the stalkers.
Agreed - target the people that are actually doing something wrong. In the meantime, don't offer them another method of doing wrong.
There are no stalkers here. Just some over-inflated egos and some people that don't get along.
There most certainly are stalkers here. Not 'peek in your window creepy' but 'do their level best to ruin your forum experience' style. I had someone follow me around to report literally everything I wrote and, in the times they were on and I wasn't, dig through all of my thousands of past posts looking for anything they could take out of context to report. I confirmed this sad state of affairs when I was temped for a post that was over three months old, was obviously a joke between a friend of mine and myself and that came from a thread that hadn't seen a recent post in over two months and was buried several pages back on the forum. Through PMs, I was able to determine that a certain individual I and others had had arguments with did this to them and myself. He also sent nasty PMs to them (not me, though, for unknown reasons). I had to monitor everything I said and basically ensure there was no way anything I wrote could be misinterpreted. I couldn't participate in any conversations on topics this person would frequent, either. Luckily I was able to get help by contacting a couple VCLs here and explaining, in detail, what was going on. Whatever they did - and I don't know what it was - worked. Soon after I explained my situation and asked for help, the problems stopped.
Right now at this moment a friend of mine is temped because of exactly the same situation. He pissed off the wrong person and that person is reporting every post they make and digging through their old stuff to find things to take out of context. He's so frustrated he may be done with the boards. All because someone gets their jollies doing crap like that.
So I'm afraid D&D Forums stalkers do exist and they do have a lasting, negative impact on the boards. Obviously I don't mean to diminish th actual, real danger posed by those that are real life stalkers, but I honestly can't think of a better way to describe the action these people take. If you can think of a better word, though, I'm all for it.
Sorry about your friend's experience. When people are willing to go to those extremes, it's really hard to address, particularly in a public internet forum. I've tried to address that type of personality through the moderators, but the privacy issue always comes into play. So I have tried to take to the forums themselves, but that only results in flame wars and receiving highly offensive PM's.
I don't know if "stalker" is appropriate or not, though. It never extends beyond these forums, I would hope... Ie. emails, other forums, etc. But what you describe sounds more like a griefer more than anything. It's not civil behavior, at any rate.
But let's face it, a +1/-1 system is not going to affect that behavior at all. But at least you can determine some pattern behavior if you track -1's.
EDIT: It won't afffect the behavior, no, but it does offer another outlet for said behavior. With what little a -1 has to add (especially if a +1 is already there), I just don't think it's worth it. But, as I said, so long as the -1 has no real power (negatively rated posts are not hidden), it's not really that big of a deal to me.
So, then instead of being more about the ideas, and letting WoTC be able to know when people like something, it becomes a popularity game. And once that happens, then it's using popularity to put people down (post counts all over again) and then rigging the popularity count.
I'm not sure you're answering the post you quoted.
A ratio is not a popularity game. A ratio offsets the popularity game because a post total doesn't go up just because you get your friends to like it.
- Posts with a high +1 and a low -1 are good content posts. People like them.
- Posts with a high -1 and a low +1 are bad content posts. Most people do not like them.
- Posts with an even mix of +1 and -1 are controversial content posts, usually with strong feelings on both sides of the issue.
Yeah, luckily it stayed here. And griefer certainly fits.
EDIT: It won't afffect the behavior, no, but it does offer another outlet for said behavior. With what little a -1 has to add (especially if a +1 is already there), I just don't think it's worth it. But, as I said, so long as the -1 has no real power (negatively rated posts are not hidden), it's not really that big of a deal to me.
Just so you know, ZB, I'm not trying to diminish or minimize the experience... I know how distressing it can be. I'm just overly cautious about the connotations that labels carry. When I hear the word "stalker," there are some pretty invasive, disturbing images that come into play.
There are some major DB's in this world. The worst of the worst know how to toe that line to get away with uncivil behavior, but I still don't put them in that category. They just haven't crossed that line yet, even though you know they would if they could get away with it.
So, then instead of being more about the ideas, and letting WoTC be able to know when people like something, it becomes a popularity game. And once that happens, then it's using popularity to put people down (post counts all over again) and then rigging the popularity count.
I'm not sure you're answering the post you quoted.
A ratio is not a popularity game. A ratio offsets the popularity game because a post total doesn't go up just because you get your friends to like it.
- Posts with a high +1 and a low -1 are good content posts. People like them.
- Posts with a high -1 and a low +1 are bad content posts. Most people do not like them.
- Posts with an even mix of +1 and -1 are controversial content posts, usually with strong feelings on both sides of the issue.
No I did.
These folks +1 each other, but the rest of the community knows that nearly every post they submit includes spam and or flame.
The fact that people are going to +1 each other and going around -1 those they don't like as groups is enough to let me think it's a bad idea. People will do just that.
I don't think people are going to spend longer than a few weeks (at most) following others around and -1ing their posts. If anything, that's why it would be good to be able to see who voted on a specific post.
I think to avoid popularity contest stuff you simply have to relegate the voting to posts and not posters. If someone "Likes" a post it stays on that post. If someone gives a user "+1" karma it follows them wherever they post.
I don't think people are going to spend longer than a few weeks (at most) following others around and -1ing their posts. If anything, that's why it would be good to be able to see who voted on a specific post.
I really dont need someone giving me Karma or Rep. Nor do I care to give them out to people. And the idea of it following anyone around to whatever they post, isn't not good either. That's even more open to abuse. Want a larger pool of Karma/Rep points to dump negative ones on someone you hate, just make a whole bunch of accounts! Since it's tied to your email and not your IP, you can simply load up on the Yahoo/Gmail accounts.
Spend your day, spreading the misery. No thanks. The whole idea of this was to help give WoTC a better idea of what people on the forums like, not rate other posters.
Since my real stakers are still stalking me, trying to start flame wars, and it's been going on for months, I disagree. Angry, bitter people seeking revenge, making statements about how they want to get other posters kicked off the forums, and encouraging others to attack other posters...don't give up after a few weeks. They end up thinking they aren't being watched anymore, and get bolder.
I like the Steam forums method a lot. You can +rep someone, and between their posts count and their date joined lists, it has the number of people who have ever +rep'd them. You cannot -rep someone, so there is no way for anyone to abuse the system to, for example, make Dane_McArdy's total reputation -1,000 or something.
Not having negative reputation/karma/sneetch stars/whatever makes it so people can't abuse that.
And for the Steam forums, it works rather well. If I see someone trolling, I can be assured when I look at their reputation vs. posts counts (and since it's a pair of small-print numbers, I will only look after reading their post, and not pre-judge the post based on their reputation), it'll be something like 1 rep for every 100 posts. But if I see someone being genuinely helpful, it'll look more like 1 rep for every 1 or 2 posts. It's a generally very accurate system, in spite of the seething anger that flows beneath the Steam forums.
But since the reputation system on that forum is so small and requires actual reading and math to derive any information from, there isn't really any negative influence from it. I can't read a post and see that the poster only has 1.5 stars out of 5, nor can I quickly skim a page of posts and find the 'quality' posters to read up on or the 'bad' posters to flame without bothering to read their posts.
It's destruction of the popularity contest through obfuscation.
But frankly? I don't even want to see a system for rating posts/individual posters come to the Wizards forums. I don't think we need it: we already have avatars, and the people who actively frequent these forums and attend most of the major posts are a very small collective of people who can probably recognize most of each other.
Having a rating on Dane or Salla or whoever, will not benefit the people who already are on these boards every day, because more or less there's a lot of familiar faces and recognition. However, it will prove detrimental as the nasty little trolls and stalkers who frequent these boards will swamp ratings with negative reviews for one reason or another, and then whenever we're trying to speak to a newbie about a topic (answering questions about 4E or something) there will be the stigma of a big bold "HUGE NUMBER OF NEGATIVE REVIEWS" attached to your name.
So again. I don't think these boards need a review system, I don't particularly desire one nor can I predict the quality of these boards going up from one (especially if it increases my load times significantly, or makes Shockwave crash), but if they did happen, I definitely do not believe a negative and a positive reputation system would be useful.
There have been a lot of good thoughts one way or another, but I figured I'd throw my two cents in again.
* * * *
I don't mind thread review systems, though, as a whole. I've noticed that forums which have them tend to be self-correcting: if a thread has 1 star, people will flock to it to see how bad it is, and if they feel like it's not that bad, they'll counter-vote to correct it. Or, if it has 5 stars, they'll do the same in reverse.
But that's a thread; people care about threads. They don't care enough about individual posters to, say, counter-vote a huge flood of negative rep.
And I don't think individual posts on a thread should get votes for quality either... that's just extremely unnecessary, and I don't see the point. Even if you set it up to auto-hide posts with under a certain score, I've never felt like "Man, what this board needs is an auto-censoring system for posts that it decides I don't want to read!". Even if it was opt-out of the auto-censor system (which... like, it wasn't opt-out when the system first came out, nor is the facebook-load-time-killer opt-out, so why would they bother to program in an opt-out feature in the future?), I can't imagine letting the computer/other trolling posters on the forums decide what I should read for me, I'd rather do it myself. And if it wasn't opt-out, well, that's even worse.
Given that they seem mostly to have downsides, and I don't perceive an outweighing upside, my vote (heh) would go to not implementing any sort of Like, +/-, or rating system in these forums.
You hate some faceless poster on a forums? Yeah, I can't see how some karma system wouldn't be abused into trying to harass another poster if people are going around admitting they really don't like someone else on the forums.
I don't see the word "hate" anywhere. But hey, exaggerate for impact to try to prove a point. Drama has much more flare when you use emotionally charged words like "hate" and "stalker."
Someone doesn't like someone else? And admits to it? Big deal. It's much better than hiding behind a keyboard and anonymity, sniping backwards, poorly hidden insults at people just to duck moderation. Yeah, that is the mature solution. If maturity equated to cowardly, uncivil behavior.
At least the +1/-1 will let people provide positive and negative feedback without having to resort to the incessant trolling and flaming.
Still, I think it's legitimate to be concerned about the potential for abuse, and to see that potential as a reason to doubt the value of such a system.
You hate some faceless poster on a forums?
This is why a post rating system is a good idea. With such a system I could very easily give a -1 to the quoted post, rather than succumbing to the urge to bring up in a separate post that Tybber's comment in no way, shape, or form reflects what Jharii said.
You hate some faceless poster on a forums?
This is why a post rating system is a good idea. With such a system I could very easily give a -1 to the quoted post, rather than succumbing to the urge to bring up in a separate post that Tybber's comment in no way, shape, or form reflects what Jharii said.
A post rating system is could be good. However, a reputation or karma system is not.
Also, how is being able to rate a post like that negative going to help WoTC know what players like or don't like? It has nothing to really do with the game, does it?
And how soon do we get to the point were after have a system were we can say we don't like a persons post, will some posters go and try and stuff the box, so to speak with negative counts. And then come around and say, This person has the most negative posts then everyone else in the forums! They should be kicked off, because everyone hates them! We already have people trying to do that others, without a system that they can try and use to prove how right they are.
You know that's why some people are keen for this. They think it's a way to get others kicked off the forums. Because you know, that's not a form of hate, that's just really not liking someone.
A post rating system is could be good. However, a reputation or karma system is not.
This is pretty much exactly what I was saying.
Contrary to your belief, the majority of the people here have much more important things to do than to go around clicking -1 just out of spite. And even if someone did, it would have little to no impact. Now, if the posts are just outright bad, then that single -1 becomes only one of many -1's.
Besides, I think it's best to worry about one's own actions than the actions of others.
A post rating system is could be good. However, a reputation or karma system is not.
I have never advocated for a karma or rep system. Just a post rating +1/-1.
Also, how is being able to rate a post like that negative going to help WoTC know what players like or don't like?
The same way my bullets above indicated:
- Posts (and by extension, threads) with high positive to negative ratios are examples of things players on these Boards like. WotC can use this to identify content worth pursuing.
- Posts Posts (and by extension, threads) with low positive to negative ratios are examples of things players on these Boards explicitly do not like. WotC can use this to identify content worth avoiding.
- Posts (and by extension, threads) with relatively even ratios (but high raw numbers) are examples of things that divide the community passionately. WotC can use this to identify content that might require either a point:counterpoint approach or avoiding altogether (or staying the course), knowing it will be met with some degree of conflicting feedback.
Posts (and by extension, threads) with high positive to negative ratios are examples of things players on these Boards like. WotC can use this to identify content worth pursuing.
A post rating system is could be good. However, a reputation or karma system is not.
This is pretty much exactly what I was saying.
Then, I agree with you!
Then by that logic, a karma/rep systems goes agaisnt that idea. Because trying to give posters a rep is worring about someone else's action.
Liking a not liking an idea or post is one thing. Trying to force your feelings about a particular poster in the form of karma or reputation is another thing. And certianly doesn't give wotc any useful feedback.
LOL. All I did was make a suggestion based upon past experience. I'm not on some bandwagon for the karma system. It's a good system. It may not be the best fit for here. I'm okay with that. My feelings aren't going to be hurt. This thread is about discussing the ratings systems, after all.
And no, it does not go against it. On the contrary, it actually benefits it. If you worry about your own actions and keeping it civil, then you shouldn't be worried about what others think about you, thus you only benefit with more +1s. If you do worry about what others think about you, you will be on better behavior. Clicking +1/-1 is hardly "worrying" about others. It's simply providing feedback.
I also would not presume to make "factual" statements on what is or is not useful for WotC. Some posters think they know best as well, but it's best to leave those determinations up to Wizards.
If you are being reported by one person and it seems to pop up out of nowhere and after reports and talking to CS/VCL's or whatever it goes away, that's a cyber-stalker. If you are constantly reported all the time with no real gaps, you might want to go read the ToC/CoC because its probably a good part of the community using the report button as intended. It may be that you are rude, abrasive, and you are violating the rules...
Ultimately, I'd rather not have any such system on the forums. If someone likes or dislikes a post then they can write one of their own explaining why. If someone has a good or bad reputation then that will quickly become apparent in the way that others interact with them during discussions.
Since nothing really prohibits someone from creating multiple accounts in practice (yes, it's against the ToU; no that doesn't mean it stops people), a rating system based on the number of people who vote + or - won't prevent someone from abusing it. Ultimately, I'd rather not have any such system on the forums. If someone likes or dislikes a post then they can write one of their own explaining why. If someone has a good or bad reputation then that will quickly become apparent in the way that others interact with them during discussions.
That is pretty obvious.
As to the rest... The number of accounts someone would have to employ to effectively abuse the system would be ludicrous. If someone was willing to go to those lengths, a rating system is the least of the forum's worries, but the moderators would be able to spot that behavior a mile away.
Of course, I think some people don't want a rating system because that may actually shed some light on their actual posts and their personality, so it's important to discuss these caveats to provide them with excuses as to why they drop to -25 so consistently. Which alludes to Loki's post in some way as well in that some people just want to try to cover up (or are just oblivious to) the fact that the issue might just actually be with them by pointing the finger at multiple people and calling them stalkers.
The dramatic is much more interesting than the rational, obvious reason, after all. And that self-imposed self-worth remains intact. Look how important I am, I have stalkers!
Please...
It's a simple rating system in a game forum. They're used all over the internet without the issues you are worried about. I don't understand why people want to dig into the deepest, darkest depths of the human psyche about all of this. I think everyone could stand to lighten up a bit.
Since nothing really prohibits someone from creating multiple accounts in practice (yes, it's against the ToU; no that doesn't mean it stops people), a rating system based on the number of people who vote + or - won't prevent someone from abusing it. Ultimately, I'd rather not have any such system on the forums. If someone likes or dislikes a post then they can write one of their own explaining why. If someone has a good or bad reputation then that will quickly become apparent in the way that others interact with them during discussions.
I can attest, one of my stalkers either has multiple accounts or uses someone's account. When they would get temp bans, they would switch accounts so they could continue to harass. Not only that, they actively tried to get other posters to help them in their harassment. At one point one openly declared he was doing this.
So yes, there are going to be people who do this. Because they have the time to. I'm on the forums a lot because my current work has a lot of sitting around time, as I have to check in and out files, which can take up to ten minutes either way, depending on the size of the file. There are many people that can be at work and on the forums all day long. I know my stalker is one of them.
What's is scary about these people, is that even though they are getting temp banned for harassment, others point out their stalking behavior, or even being told directly by WoTC they need to stop, still blame the person they are stalking. It's the whole, abuser blaming the victim.
Giving them one more way to harass someone, not a good idea. That doesn't mean a rating system can't be used, it just needs to be done in a way that can't give stalkers/abusers more ways to harass.
The dramatic is much more interesting than the rational, obvious reason, after all. And that self-imposed self-worth remains intact. Look how important I am, I have stalkers!
I don't care about any of the interpersonal hoohah that might go on here; mostly I'm curious: what end do the rating systems serve? What do they actually do? That's why I am mostly negative on it - they have potential downsides, and I don't know what the counterbalancing upside is.
I've seen them all over the place, so clearly they do something, but...what is that thing?
I've seen them all over the place, so clearly they do something, but...what is that thing?
I, beaing a relatively normal, generally rational human being, would no longer feel compelled to click the Quote button on posts that all I really mean is to say "I agree" or "I really like this" or "This is excellent" or "+1". As it currently stands, that is exactly what I do, as do many others.
Similarly, I would no longer feel compelled to quote a post with which I disagree just to voice my disagreement. I would be able to quickly, easily, and satisfactorily click "-1" and call my duty done. The urge to respond to such posts would be fulfilled.
A +1/-1 system would decrease the number of posts I make (not a bad thing) because it would give me the one-click shortcut to voicing my approval or disapproval with a post. Nothing more, and nothing less. And for me, that is sufficient.
^^^ This. Imagine all the +1 style posts (and ironically "this" posts) were gone and their functionality replaced with a single number at the bottom of the post. It is a glorious future because these posts rarely add anything to the discussion in and of themselves.
Except when they keep a thread from getting buried because there are no replies. Or when the entire point of a thread is to get as many people publicaly agreeing to something to get Wizards' attention, yet a +1 system wouldn't quite do that.
Except when they keep a thread from getting buried because there are no replies.
That is a hypothetical objection looking for Board space. Rare is the thread that generates interest that does not generate feedback beyond the +1/-1 click.
Or when the entire point of a thread is to get as many people publicaly agreeing to something to get Wizards' attention, yet a +1 system wouldn't quite do that.
I suspect the WotC tech folks can monitor the +1/-1 count/ratio much easier than the individual comments.
I suspect the WotC tech folks can monitor the +1/-1 count/ratio much easier than the individual comments.
Much easier + far less vitriol.
Yeah, if 'This' or '+1' posts don't add anything, what would a +1 option add? Nothing.
Your premise ("if 'This' or '+1' posts don't add anything") is faulty. Therefore, the conclusion you draw from it is faulty.
The 'This' or '+1' posts" add nothing to the conversation, but they do add a sense of community agreement or unity. And that does have value. I know I like having folks agree with me, and I assume other people do as well. But these posts can be replaced with a +1/-1 icon click and still retain the sense of community agreement and unity without taking up space, scroll time, and quote wading to get to the "nothing more to add" segment of a lot of posts. The posts that remain are more likely to be contributory to the conversation.
Your premise (the "if 'This' or '+1' posts don't add anything" is faulty. Therefore, the conclusion you draw from it is faulty.
The "'This' or '+1' posts" add nothing to the conversation, but they do add a sense of community agreement or unity. And that does have value. But these posts can be replaced with a +1/-1 icon click and still retain the sense of community agreement and unity without taking up space, scroll time, and quote wading to get to the "nothing more to add" segment of a lot of posts. The posts that remain are more likely to be contributory to the conversation.
Ok. I don't feel they really add much of anything myself, to tell you the truth, but if you do that's fine. And if it's a community support feel we're after, I can't see how an anonymous +1 would demonstrate that better than a named +1 post. After all, if the nameless masses support you, it's quite a different feel from when the named, respected, known members of the forum do, isn't it?
I still also feel that these '+1' clutter posts will just be largely replaced by the 'I just gave you a +1' post. Hell, we saw it (often jokingly, I admit) during the short period of time we had the star option available. '5 stars', '5 star post, man', etc. In other words, I don't see it working quite as well as you envision. But hey, there's no way for me to know that for certain.
But it's no matter to me. I've said what I needed to already: I don't care about a +1, I'd rather not see a -1. So long as the boards are not slowed by implementation, I can live with both if that's the decision made.
Otherwise, there are to many posts/threads that have nothing to actually do with the game, that is going to flood WoTC with useless information.
If someone thinks they have a good idea, the let people rate it. WoTC gets the information, good or bad, and doesn't have to worry about having to sort through posts.
If it's meant as a means to warn people about other posters, No. It's very clear, that serves no purpose and is ripe with abuse potential. Such a system is also subjective. The forums aren't a popularity contest.
And such a system of allowing you to check to allow your post to be rated might help encourage people to actually talk more about the game, knowing that WoTC will be getting that information directly.
Your premise (the "if 'This' or '+1' posts don't add anything" is faulty. Therefore, the conclusion you draw from it is faulty.
The "'This' or '+1' posts" add nothing to the conversation, but they do add a sense of community agreement or unity. And that does have value. But these posts can be replaced with a +1/-1 icon click and still retain the sense of community agreement and unity without taking up space, scroll time, and quote wading to get to the "nothing more to add" segment of a lot of posts. The posts that remain are more likely to be contributory to the conversation.
Ok. I don't feel they really add much of anything myself, to tell you the truth, but if you do that's fine. And if it's a community support feel we're after, I can't see how an anonymous +1 would demonstrate that better than a named +1 post. After all, if the nameless masses support you, it's quite a different feel from when the named, respected, known members of the forum do, isn't it?
I still also feel that these '+1' clutter posts will just be largely replaced by the 'I just gave you a +1' post. Hell, we saw it (often jokingly, I admit) during the short period of time we had the star option available. '5 stars', '5 star post, man', etc. In other words, I don't see it working quite as well as you envision. But hey, there's no way for me to know that for certain.
But it's no matter to me. I've said what I needed to already: I don't care about a +1, I'd rather not see a -1. So long as the boards are not slowed by implementation, I can live with both if that's the decision made.
It could be as simple as hiding the -1 results from public view. Still vote +1/-1, but only Wizards can view the -1 data. Then the "popularity" issue goes away, but Wizards still gets their feedback.
It could be as simple as hiding the -1 results from public view. Still vote +1/-1, but only Wizards can view the -1 data. Then the "popularity" issue goes away, but Wizards still gets their feedback.
I'm under the impression (perhaps incorrectly) that WotC really doesn't have a whole lot of staff monitoring the goings on here. The VCLs pass things up that they feel the staff should see or if they are asked to, but that level of interaction with staff is not something typically available to the average poster. To my knowledge, there's no WotC group that exists that could even look at this feedback. If there currently is or if one were created in the future, there's also the massive problem of posts that have nothing whatsoever to do with the game, the forums, etc. I frequent the Tavern. We don't talk about D&D a whole lot (that's not what it's for, after all). So, any posts rated there would be completely useless as feedback to WotC - unless it's feedback about community members you're looking for. And, if that's the case, it comes back to the whole 'people can dogpile people they don't like to get an official action taken against them' thing. Which isn't good.
I'm sorry to those advocating a -1 option but I just can't see you demonstrating a potential benefit that would outweigh the potential negatives. And I don't see a way to mitigate the potential negatives, either.
EDIT: A +1 option, though, while certainly not something I'm really for, I can't be against other than potential impact to board performance. It has the potential to reduce some clutter (though I'm skeptical as to how much) while still allowing those that want to voice support to do so. Hell, the anonymous nature of it may actually be a benefit to those that want to support a controversial position without drawing the flames. So yeah, +1 is ok so long as it doesn't break the boards. Cuz there's potential benefits that can be demonstrated to outweigh potential negatives. For the -1, I do not feel that's the case as of yet.
I'm under the impression (perhaps incorrectly) that WotC really doesn't have a whole lot of staff monitoring the goings on here. The VCLs pass things up that they feel the staff should see or if they are asked to, but that level of interaction with staff is not something typically available to the average poster.
To my knowledge, there's no WotC group that exists that could even look at this feedback. If there currently is or if one were created in the future, there's also the massive problem of posts that have nothing whatsoever to do with the game, the forums, etc. I frequent the Tavern. We don't talk about D&D a whole lot (that's not what it's for, after all). So, any posts rated there would be completely useless as feedback to WotC - unless it's feedback about community members you're looking for. And, if that's the case, it comes back to the whole 'people can dogpile people they don't like to get an official action taken against them' thing. Which isn't good.
To be fair, Wizards were the one's that tried to initiate this entire thing. This discussion is a result of all of that. They must want it in for a reason. We are just responding in kind.
I'm sorry to those advocating a -1 option but I just can't see you demonstrating a potential benefit that would outweigh the potential negatives. And I don't see a way to mitigate the potential negatives, either.
That is all dependant on how you view the negatives and positives. I don't see them as an issue. Haters hate. Let those that hate click -1. It's far superior to the trolling and harassment. If that even mitigates 1 troll/flame post per day, it's cleaning the place up. As a matter of fact, this would really allow the moderators to initiate a zero-tolerance policy regarding that behavior.
To be fair, Wizards were the one's that tried to initiate this entire thing. This discussion is a result of all of that. They must want it in for a reason. We are just responding in kind.
Actually, I believe Trevor broached the topic only aftert the 5 star/etc fiasco and some posters' comments on how a +1 system would be superior. I think their interest is simply perceived interest on our part. They're trying to make us happy, not learn about us.
That is all dependant on how you view the negatives and positives. I don't see them as an issue. Haters hate. Let those that hate click -1. It's far superior to the trolling and harassment. If that even mitigates 1 troll/flame post per day, it's cleaning the place up. As a matter of fact, this would really allow the moderators to initiate a zero-tolerance policy regarding that behavior.
I can't see someone that's out to troll a specific poster or half dozen being satisfied with clicking a -1 when there's still an option to post. To effectively bait, it helps when the target can see you baiting them. Plus it just wouldn't have the same pop. They don't say awful things to offer criticism and anonymous is not what they wanna be. They do it for attention and they want you to know who's doing it. That's the point of the endeavor. A -1 isn't going to fix that. It just isn't.
To be fair, Wizards were the one's that tried to initiate this entire thing. This discussion is a result of all of that. They must want it in for a reason. We are just responding in kind.
Are you talking about this discussion (+/- 1 or just a +1) or the whole Social network connectivity thing that kicked this off?? The former is a discussion pushed out by Trevor. The latter was done by the company that provides the forums software.
Since nothing really prohibits someone from creating multiple accounts in practice (yes, it's against the ToU; no that doesn't mean it stops people), a rating system based on the number of people who vote + or - won't prevent someone from abusing it.
There are sever ways to hamper (though not really stop) such behavior.
1) Having to sign up for new accounts each time isn't the quickest process.
2) Limiting the number of +/-'s you can give in some sort of way.
**per day
**need to be active (e.g. post)
**need to recive positive ratings of your own
**must give out a near equal number of each (thus you can't go all negitive/positive).
**can only rate a person so often (prevents stalking / building rep).
Though likely the best is some combination of them. Like limiting to 5pluses, 5minuses, 3/person/day...
Though personally i like a 4 star rating better then the binary rating. Being able to say "AWSOME", "GOOD", (you don't really comment on nutral stuff), "DISAGREE", and "HORRIBLE" (e.g. +5/+1/-1/-5) gives more variety then just +1/-1. Probably a limit the +/-5 to once per week or something.
I can't see someone that's out to troll a specific poster or half dozen being satisfied with clicking a -1 when there's still an option to post. To effectively bait, it helps when the target can see you baiting them. Plus it just wouldn't have the same pop. They don't say awful things to offer criticism and anonymous is not what they wanna be. They do it for attention and they want you to know who's doing it. That's the point of the endeavor. A -1 isn't going to fix that. It just isn't.
Then it sure isn't going to hurt to include it, and your negatives regarding it tend to be a bit minimized by your own admission.
I'm just messing with you a bit... I respect your opinion. We can agree to disagree on it. Like I said before, I'm not on some bandwagon about this. I'm just stating my opinion on the topic based upon my experience.
Since nothing really prohibits someone from creating multiple accounts in practice (yes, it's against the ToU; no that doesn't mean it stops people), a rating system based on the number of people who vote + or - won't prevent someone from abusing it.
There are sever ways to hamper (though not really stop) such behavior.
1) Having to sign up for new accounts each time isn't the quickest process.
2) Limiting the number of +/-'s you can give in some sort of way.
**per day
**need to be active (e.g. post)
**need to recive positive ratings of your own
**must give out a near equal number of each (thus you can't go all negitive/positive).
**can only rate a person so often (prevents stalking / building rep).
You could associate the voting to the public IP address of the poster as well, in conjunction with an account name.
^^^ This. Imagine all the +1 style posts (and ironically "this" posts) were gone and their functionality replaced with a single number at the bottom of the post. It is a glorious future because these posts rarely add anything to the discussion in and of themselves.
Okay. I don't see those posts (or rather, don't notice them), so I would not have thought of that.
^^^ This. Imagine all the +1 style posts (and ironically "this" posts) were gone and their functionality replaced with a single number at the bottom of the post. It is a glorious future because these posts rarely add anything to the discussion in and of themselves.
Okay. I don't see those posts (or rather, don't notice them), so I would not have thought of that.
If it means an end to me having to post some variant of "polls are not permitted according to the CoC. If you want the thread to remain open, please ensure that there is actual discussion going on", followed by me getting flamed for "censorship" and "shutting down negative threads" it would be awesome.
If it means an end to me having to post some variant of "polls are not permitted according to the CoC. If you want the thread to remain open, please ensure that there is actual discussion going on", followed by me getting flamed for "censorship" and "shutting down negative threads" it would be awesome.
Sure, but...where's the benefit to me?
If they implemented a "poll" category of posts, that would also solve your problem.
There are sever ways to hamper (though not really stop) such behavior.
1) Having to sign up for new accounts each time isn't the quickest process.
2) Limiting the number of +/-'s you can give in some sort of way.
**per day
**need to be active (e.g. post)
**need to recive positive ratings of your own
**must give out a near equal number of each (thus you can't go all negitive/positive).
**can only rate a person so often (prevents stalking / building rep).
Though likely the best is some combination of them. Like limiting to 5pluses, 5minuses, 3/person/day...
Though personally i like a 4 star rating better then the binary rating. Being able to say "AWSOME", "GOOD", (you don't really comment on nutral stuff), "DISAGREE", and "HORRIBLE" (e.g. +5/+1/-1/-5) gives more variety then just +1/-1. Probably a limit the +/-5 to once per week or something.
These reasons Are why I think the + / - button should be only clickable once. Make the button poll the IP of the clicker and never respond to it again. The + / - should be on the post not the poster.
Seconded.