14......and if I'm not mistaken, that block count of 12 you mentioned has just gone to 13
.**sorry, the new PC pronoun regime has me baffled
T2W Website Updates (New Features/Bug Fixes/Server Problems)
- Thread starter Sharky
- Start date
Um, on the reactions and the most reacted members: if the reactions count includes Neutrals then the global count is a bit deceptive...and since we're chatting.... how does one react Neutrally??? I can see Like, Love, Wow, HaHa, Sad, Angry...but no "Meh" or "Hmmph" as one said in Jurassic times. How about a breakdown somewhere?
I agree with cantagril, and I hope that this issue will be revisited. It doesn't make much sense to hide the blocking information. For that matter it doesn't make much sense to prevent someone from "disliking" a post (unless the individual disliking the post makes a post stating his dislike, which usually has the effect of feeding the troll). If one can only "like" a post or say nothing, that pretty much defeats the purpose of liking the post at all.Glad to be of service, sir!
I reckon that for a poster to be able to see how many people are blocking him/her/them/it** should be clear evidence to them that perhaps their posts are not appreciated in the way they hoped and therefore the sensible would take heed and adjust their offerings. The not-so-sensible would presumably continue until the number of blockers becomes first of all ridiculous and then bannable at which point you would excommunicate them. I would therefore argue that the "blocked by" facility would help both the readers and the posters.
...and if I'm not mistaken, that block count of 12 you mentioned has just gone to 13
.**sorry, the new PC pronoun regime has me baffled
Db
I think an interesting metric to consider is the number of posts a member has made divided by the number of likes they have received. You could argue that this figure reflects some sort of quality value the member has added to the site in other members eyes. I think it would be more meaningful if it was calculated over the last 12 - 36 months, rather from the beginning of time. I note that many members who have the most likes, no longer post (for whatever reason)
So neutral reactions don't count towards Likes. Right now, Like, Love & Haha reactions are positive; and Wow, Sad & Angry are neutral. Those are the default settings, and I think they make sense. But they're easily changed, and we can easily add more reactions.
So we're not actually hiding the blocking information, it's not available out of the box, and I can't find any off-the-shelf plugin ythat shows it. Meaning it would require custom development to do it, which as always, is expensive. So unless there's a real need for it, I'd prefer to invest in something that's more beneficial and has a wider appeal. Disliking I recall reading can be disruptive to an online community, probably why you can't dislike in the big social media sites like Facebook and Instagram. Many years ago we did have the ability to unlike something, and I recall we pulled after some time, because it was causing problems, members ganging up on others and creating resentment etc. Like everything in life, it's more complicated than it appears, but my belief is the cons outweigh the pros.
That's true, I'm always a fan of ratios, again it's not a default option, nor have I seen a plugin for this, so it would require a bit of custom development. It would be a nice touch.
Interesting: I hadn't thought of Sad or Angry as neutral - I shall speak to my better half on this matter. I'm sure she'll disagree...she always does, so maybe a pointless exercise
Re Stats and Blocking n°: Of course, you're right - if the facility isn't available out of the box then it doesn't make sense to pursue it expensively. I agree absolutely on the Dislike misuse risk but I still think that somehow, somewhere, being able to ascertain who is being blocked and by how many, is a useful metric.
I remember having a discussion with either yourself or a mod on serial offenders and being told that as people were not Ignoring them, then therefore their posts could not be that offensive and the only recourse would be Banning which wouldn't happen as their posts were still being read and so on as infinitum. Some means by which members could see posters of dubious content without having to either read said content (or report them) would be a practical half-way house and a way of promoting self-management.
I stand by my original point that whilst a Dislike is an action in itself, the essential purpose of Ignoring/Blocking someone is to, er, Ignore and therefore not see content and so a tally of how many members have chosen to do this would be a helpful tool..... If it is not possible automatically then maybe just a regular manual mod post would suffice
Custom development should not be necessary. If it is, then of course that's too much. Consider, however, that Dislike is a matter of course on YouTube, so the facility does exist. As to "real need", perhaps there is none. But I for one tire of logging in and being faced with posts which amount to little more than sh*t slinging. Ignoring doesn't solve the problem, and reporting gets to be tiresome when the posts go on and on day after day. I avoid weighing in on any topic that has attracted the attention of one particular member because I don't want to have to deal with the fallout. Yes, my comments can be made privately, but is that really the point of an online community?
So I suppose to a large extent it depends on how you define "real need" and "beneficial". I cringe when I see a newcomer subjected to this sort of treatment, but there may be some value to giving disruptors a free ride while alienating more desirable members that I just don't see. But then I'm neither an administrator nor a moderator, so I don't have to deal with it.
I agree with cantagril here. Assuming that a given member's posts can't be all that offensive if he's not being ignored is false given that ignoring accomplishes so little. As does reporting unless one makes an avocation of it, in which case he begins to feel like a prude. There should be and are standards of behavior. Whether or not the administrators and moderators of a website should be responsible for teaching members how to behave is a matter all on its own. But their responsibility toward those members who do know how to behave should not be given short shrift. An offensive post which is allowed to stand, which one is not even allowed to Dislike, sends the message that the post is okay. Look, for example, at elitetrader.
Indeed look at Elite Trader, which I myself no longer do...... and why I'm here and not there.
Still don't agree that a Dislike is that useful ......unless perhaps it could be both hidden and counted. One could Dislike and know that a mod could see it even if members could not. As Sharky has already stated earlier, mods can see the number of Ignorers on the internal stats so that's already happening, sort of, so another reason why I dislike Dislike
However, if all forms of disapproval are hidden, then whoever reads these posts is left with the understandable impression that that sort of post is okay, which constitutes an implicit permission to make the same sort of post. One could argue that free, unfettered expression is good. But there also have to be consequences.Indeed look at Elite Trader, which I myself no longer do...... and why I'm here and not there.
Still don't agree that a Dislike is that useful ......unless perhaps it could be both hidden and counted. One could Dislike and know that a mod could see it even if members could not. As Sharky has already stated earlier, mods can see the number of Ignorers on the internal stats so that's already happening, sort of, so another reason why I dislike Dislike
I do not see how a simple thumbs up/thumbs down can do more damage than what the trolls do with their slinging.
Fair points DB. I still have the same concerns about the thumbsdown as it has no other purpose and risks engendering exactly the behaviour that Sharky has warned against....i.e "ganging up"......but I do agree wholeheartedly with yr para 1 and that some mechanism is called for.
Some of this may be an artifact of Operant Conditioning and the notion that negative behavior, if ignored, will be self-extinguishing. Under lab conditions, maybe. In the real world, not necessarily (if it were so in this case, the member in question would not still be slinging).
But before leaving this, I'll post a reminder of what is included in the T&C (bold mine):
You agree to not use the Service to submit or link to any Content which is defamatory, abusive, hateful, threatening, spam or spam-like, likely to offend, contains adult or objectionable content, contains personal information of others, risks copyright infringement, encourages unlawful activity, or otherwise violates any laws. You are entirely responsible for the content of, and any harm resulting from, that Content or your conduct.
Under what conditions is this to be enforced and under what conditions is this to be ignored? I ask only for clarity and, hopefully, an improved contract. If a simple "thumbs down" risks opening Pandora's Box, then perhaps something else (I should also point out that posting a "like" also risks personal attack).
Db