Topic: [applaud]/[smite] system? (Read 18765 times)
Wow looks like my systematic smite campaign may have worked...
Vandroiy, you're right on the money.
TBH, I'd be looking for another bitcoin forum if they started hiding posts that were deemed "unpopular". That's not what a forum is about.
If you want 100% quality content, go look for a blog or article. A forum is for discussions of all kinds, and of all intelligence levels.
TBH, I'd be looking for another bitcoin forum if they started hiding posts that were deemed "unpopular". That's not what a forum is about.
If you want 100% quality content, go look for a blog or article. A forum is for discussions of all kinds, and of all intelligence levels.
Good riddance.
For once, everybody shares one opinion. Feels good, too. 
Just have a button that says "Help hide this post" or similar then make it hidden by default when it hits the threshold, readers can bring it back with one click.
Reminds me of "mark as spam" on Youtube. That, too, was abused quite a bit though, especially while not fine-tuned.I think an upvote system works best, somewhat like Facebook's "like" system.
You're right that it's better than what we just had. But what about no system? I doubt any of these are going anywhere. If there was a way to distinguish good from medium content for everybody, we'd be using it to fix the world before the Bitcoin forum. Any positive voting system just makes popular statements even more popular. They work against debates, but debates are what a forum like this is, at least partially, about, right?
Good riddance.
what about formatting posts that are not serious or do not advance the topic differently so they can easily be skipped?
I like this. It's much better in terms of feedback on what people don't want to see in particular threads, but doesn't go all the way to deleting which causes pain and frustration.
Just have a button that says "Help hide this post" or similar then make it hidden by default when it hits the threshold, readers can bring it back with one click.
Thank god, no more of this...
Please, DO NOT PUT A SMITE SYSTEM
+1 Please, DO NOT PUT A SMITE SYSTEM
Thank god, no more of this...
Please, DO NOT PUT A SMITE SYSTEM
Please, DO NOT PUT A SMITE SYSTEM
Thanks for the -1, it's a real honor? 
As noted above it's just a silly Internet rating. But since we do real transactions with each other I think a bad system does more damage than no system at all. This rating is broken. I wish there was a way to "pay to rate". Let's say it costs .10 BTC to rate someone. Maybe people would not be so cavalier with their new powers.
As noted above it's just a silly Internet rating. But since we do real transactions with each other I think a bad system does more damage than no system at all. This rating is broken. I wish there was a way to "pay to rate". Let's say it costs .10 BTC to rate someone. Maybe people would not be so cavalier with their new powers.
Where would the money go? To the person you're voting for?
That's what I was thinking. I'm not sure who would get the money for negative voting? Also, I understand there are many difficulties with implementing such a plan.
Has it been established exactly what we're trying to achieve? It seems like a reputation system has been implemented possibly in the hope that it will "improve things" but even this is not made clear. How do we establish whether having ratings is better or not?
by putting it to a vote?Personally I have the following problem; there are too many posts (especially "me too" or other lightweight posts) to read in order to stay informed about the good ideas. Reading the board now takes too much time.
me too =)what about formatting posts that are not serious or do not advance the topic differently so they can easily be skipped?
I'd like to be able to nominate (without their knowledge) certain people to recommend posts to me. The recommenders would know only how many people rely on their recommendations as an incentive to keep recommending posts. I would not want to see any posts which had not been recommended. Recommended posts would have the names of the people who recommended them so I could add/delete recommenders on that basis. I can recommend posts myself and get statistics for who recommends in a similar fashion so that I can add them to my list.
I know ARS doesn't do this but could I set all posts below a certain reputation to be already read?
this sounds quite complicated. What about a +1 for posts? good posts will stand out. The sum of +1 someone gets makes up the reputation. I know ARS doesn't do this but could I set all posts below a certain reputation to be already read?
-1 is really frustrating when implemented so intransparently and the advantage to +1-only is small.
doood, you no longer think I'm a jerk or noob! *feels honored* 
(you just changed a +1 to a -1, didn't 'ya!)
I must really hold myself back from playing along and producing posts like this one until I reach 250. Not that I want to rate anyone, just help putting the bad effects to display.
Actually, I just noticed something. This is messing with the post count statistics, one of the Bitcoin indicators I use. Newbies want to post faster to reach 250 and join the madness.
Let's just shut the thing down, okay? It was funny for a while, but there's just trouble ahead now.
Edit: Oh you.
(you just changed a +1 to a -1, didn't 'ya!)I must really hold myself back from playing along and producing posts like this one until I reach 250. Not that I want to rate anyone, just help putting the bad effects to display.
Actually, I just noticed something. This is messing with the post count statistics, one of the Bitcoin indicators I use. Newbies want to post faster to reach 250 and join the madness.
Let's just shut the thing down, okay? It was funny for a while, but there's just trouble ahead now.
Edit: Oh you.
Thanks for the -1, it's a real honor?
As noted above it's just a silly Internet rating. But since we do real transactions with each other I think a bad system does more damage than no system at all. This rating is broken. I wish there was a way to "pay to rate". Let's say it costs .10 BTC to rate someone. Maybe people would not be so cavalier with their new powers.
As noted above it's just a silly Internet rating. But since we do real transactions with each other I think a bad system does more damage than no system at all. This rating is broken. I wish there was a way to "pay to rate". Let's say it costs .10 BTC to rate someone. Maybe people would not be so cavalier with their new powers.
Where would the money go? To the person you're voting for?
Thanks for the -1, it's a real honor?
As noted above it's just a silly Internet rating. But since we do real transactions with each other I think a bad system does more damage than no system at all. This rating is broken. I wish there was a way to "pay to rate". Let's say it costs .10 BTC to rate someone. Maybe people would not be so cavalier with their new powers.
As noted above it's just a silly Internet rating. But since we do real transactions with each other I think a bad system does more damage than no system at all. This rating is broken. I wish there was a way to "pay to rate". Let's say it costs .10 BTC to rate someone. Maybe people would not be so cavalier with their new powers.
doood, that's kinda dangerous, now everybody who gets positive ratings might suspect that you think he's a jerk. Ahaha~ doood you hate us all!! 
(Sounds funny when reading this out in my mind... doood, seriously!)
Come on, what did people expect... an anonymous smite system, voting right based on the amount of posts written? This will systematically exclude certain kinds of people, very especially those who have little time to spare on Bitcoin. To make things worse, those abusing it will cast lots of votes, while those only using it for spam or most insightful posts will hardly use it. And there is apparently no punishment whatsoever for absurd voting behavior. I can't use the system, but from what I read, every user can vote all other users at once? So 20 users could give one another a reputation of +19 and the entire rest of the forum -20, and if done slowly enough, people can only guess who's involved?
I claim nobody ever even thought about the dynamics of this. I wrote a comment on it when I saw it, and then changed my mind and deleted it. Some people just wanna watch the world puddi.
Edit: it was too late anyways, the system was already in place when I noticed. Don't worry, I'd have annoyed everybody majorly had I seen it in time.
(Sounds funny when reading this out in my mind... doood, seriously!)Come on, what did people expect... an anonymous smite system, voting right based on the amount of posts written? This will systematically exclude certain kinds of people, very especially those who have little time to spare on Bitcoin. To make things worse, those abusing it will cast lots of votes, while those only using it for spam or most insightful posts will hardly use it. And there is apparently no punishment whatsoever for absurd voting behavior. I can't use the system, but from what I read, every user can vote all other users at once? So 20 users could give one another a reputation of +19 and the entire rest of the forum -20, and if done slowly enough, people can only guess who's involved?
I claim nobody ever even thought about the dynamics of this. I wrote a comment on it when I saw it, and then changed my mind and deleted it. Some people just wanna watch the world puddi.
Edit: it was too late anyways, the system was already in place when I noticed. Don't worry, I'd have annoyed everybody majorly had I seen it in time.
My opinion on reputation systems like these:
They create too much agreement. People generally +1 people who they agree with, and -1 people who they don't agree with. Since the reputation represents trust, people only agree with each other in order to gain reputation, and healthy debates aren't posted.
I think an upvote system works best, somewhat like Facebook's "like" system.
They create too much agreement. People generally +1 people who they agree with, and -1 people who they don't agree with. Since the reputation represents trust, people only agree with each other in order to gain reputation, and healthy debates aren't posted.
I think an upvote system works best, somewhat like Facebook's "like" system.
I decided after reading this thread to do just that, but I have a good reason: To help show how out of alignment with reality it is.
I smited all the most trustworthy people I could think of, and applauded all the jerks and newbies.
I smited all the most trustworthy people I could think of, and applauded all the jerks and newbies.
Slow down a little bit:
Step 1: Try to fix the system
Step 2: Try to build a better alternative to the system
Step 3: If possibilities for step 1 and step 2 are not exhausted, retry the corresponding step
Step 4: Then, attack the system with your integrity intact
What about if we let the experiment go on for a couple more days, and then if the community hasn't developed a useful way of using the ratings that doesn't sweat a couple of intentional abuses, try one of the more advanced options? Until then I think we should all remember that this is just an experiment. Try to make it useful, and if we aren't able to we can move on to other options. Don't use it in a way that you don't want it to be used. That's just not helpful for an experiment.
And awesome greasemonkey chops, theymos! Just imagine if we were all on Apple's vision of the internet. shiver
At least in my Firefox, it freezes up without the following include/exclude
// @include *://www.bitcoin.org/smf/*
// @exclude *://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?board*
// @exclude *://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php
// @exclude *://www.bitcoin.org/smf/
// @exclude *://www.bitcoin.org/smf
But now it's wonderful. Thank you for making that!
// @include *://www.bitcoin.org/smf/*
// @exclude *://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?board*
// @exclude *://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php
// @exclude *://www.bitcoin.org/smf/
// @exclude *://www.bitcoin.org/smf
But now it's wonderful. Thank you for making that!
Sorry. I thought I tested for stuff like that...
I added those excludes, plus some more checks:
http://pastebin.com/5aTU768g
My post is updated.
I pay 10 BTC for a Greasemonkey or Firefox plugin that hides the ratings completely.
Here you go:
http://pastebin.com/XBiAVrJQ
At least in my Firefox, it freezes up without the following include/exclude
// @include *://www.bitcoin.org/smf/*
// @exclude *://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?board*
// @exclude *://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php
// @exclude *://www.bitcoin.org/smf/
// @exclude *://www.bitcoin.org/smf
But now it's wonderful. Thank you for making that!
It is clear that the current reputation system is causing problem. One example incident goes like this:
A: You downvoted me, instead of answering me. Thanks
B: I didn't downvoted you.
A: You downvoted me, instead of answering me. Thanks
B: I didn't downvoted you.
I'd like to be able to nominate (without their knowledge) certain people to recommend posts to me. The recommenders would know only how many people rely on their recommendations as an incentive to keep recommending posts. I would not want to see any posts which had not been recommended. Recommended posts would have the names of the people who recommended them so I could add/delete recommenders on that basis. I can recommend posts myself and get statistics for who recommends in a similar fashion so that I can add them to my list.
Me too.
Jump to: