honestly, I use chrome too, but you should advertise tampermonkey and not the unfiltered addon. Tampermonkey is as a sandbox more secure!
Tampermonkey users use http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/174546 so I can't specifically advertise it, people already know it exists as it was the only way to get the script 
Topic: BitcoinTalk++ script - v0.2.96 - page 48. (Read 114219 times)
honestly, I use chrome too, but you should advertise tampermonkey and not the unfiltered addon. Tampermonkey is as a sandbox more secure!
Ok, I finished coding
I'd eventually like to eliminate most moderation and replace it with web of trust rating/ignore systems so you can choose whether you want to see trolling, profanity, etc. by modifying your trust lists. This is the sort of thing that pretty much requires a forum rewrite, though: it's totally against SMF's nature.
Global ratings like Bitcointalk++ aren't usefully scalable. It's too difficult to prevent (and even define) abuse as the number of users increases. Some sort of WoT is needed.
By incorporating a "plural moderation" script (this isn't being developed, afaik, but seems like an obvious extension from the ignore+ script and the OP script), this could allow multiple lists narrowly defining "abuse," or anything else someone may not want to read. Lists would be maintained by one or a few people who go through posts and mark certain posters with tags. With the ignore script, this could remove threads and posts from users with certain tags, based on what the user individually chooses to filter out. Posts may be able to be tagged individually, too, if someone feels up to it. For example, "dubious investments" could be a tag, and the moderators of that list could remove those threads from the forum without "the forum" needing to do any moderation on its part.
So, for example, let's say someone wanted to remove-from-view people who use referral links. Let's call the list "referral link spam." There would be 1-5 moderators of the list with mod credentials who could click a button next to a person's post (or through adding them manually), including brief reasoning for the inclusion in the list. This would tag them with "referral link spam" and remove their posts and threads from users' view who decide to exclude posts from people tagged with "referral link spam."
From a user perspective, you could choose whichever lists you want, based on both the criteria and moderators maintaining the list (there could be competing moderators for multiple lists removing posts meeting the same criteria if someone distrusts a particular group's judgment). So let's say the lists are:
*Spambots
*BFL shills
*anti-BFL shills
*libertaritards
*dubious investments
*Jews
A user could go into the extension or script settings and simply check off whichever groups of people they don't want - maybe BFL shills, Jews, and libertaritards. Anyone (or any post) with any of those tags would be removed from that user's view. The most important benefit from this, I'd think, is that it gets around the dichotomy of abuser or non-abuser, and allows people to really choose what kind of experience they get out of BTCTalk. The service may or may not benefit from incorporating a charge system for access to a particular list, the fees of which might go toward paying the moderators of the list.
Re-reading this, it doesn't seem particularly clear. I can draw some mockups if it's too confusing (I'd prefer not to, though).
That would indeed be something great to implement
Too much work for 18 users though, but if the script becomes somewhat popular and if people want it I can look at that
that's really strange. did you upgrade the script recently (today) ?
Nope, 2 days ago. Will download the newest version in a bit.
UPDATED. Works now.
Try!
note is +2/4
pctnote is +50% (= score/total votes)
pctplus is +75% (= number of +1 votes/total votes)
I think Chrome users will appreciate this: http://jackjack.alwaysdata.net/btoplusone/btpp_0.1.15.crx
This crx includes auto-updates, which get the source directly from userscripts.org
Combining some of the projects in this thread with that, there could be a completely new user management regime, and allow multiple regimes to exist on one forum. This could allow all sorts of filters on users. For example, there could be a list which bans people who regularly advertise, a list which bans people who sell certain dubious goods/services, a list of people who turn everything into a political argument, a list which bans people who talk very technically, etc. It would probably also be feasible to eliminate the posts of people meeting certain "hard" criteria, such as activity count. These can be tailored quite precisely to what a person wants and doesn't want to see, whereas management in forums now generally forces an admin to either allow everyone to see the persons post, or ban him, and nobody sees his posts.
I'd eventually like to eliminate most moderation and replace it with web of trust rating/ignore systems so you can choose whether you want to see trolling, profanity, etc. by modifying your trust lists. This is the sort of thing that pretty much requires a forum rewrite, though: it's totally against SMF's nature.
Global ratings like Bitcointalk++ aren't usefully scalable. It's too difficult to prevent (and even define) abuse as the number of users increases. Some sort of WoT is needed.
So, for example, let's say someone wanted to remove-from-view people who use referral links. Let's call the list "referral link spam." There would be 1-5 moderators of the list with mod credentials who could click a button next to a person's post (or through adding them manually), including brief reasoning for the inclusion in the list. This would tag them with "referral link spam" and remove their posts and threads from users' view who decide to exclude posts from people tagged with "referral link spam."
From a user perspective, you could choose whichever lists you want, based on both the criteria and moderators maintaining the list (there could be competing moderators for multiple lists removing posts meeting the same criteria if someone distrusts a particular group's judgment). So let's say the lists are:
*Spambots
*BFL shills
*anti-BFL shills
*libertaritards
*dubious investments
*Jews
A user could go into the extension or script settings and simply check off whichever groups of people they don't want - maybe BFL shills, Jews, and libertaritards. Anyone (or any post) with any of those tags would be removed from that user's view. The most important benefit from this, I'd think, is that it gets around the dichotomy of abuser or non-abuser, and allows people to really choose what kind of experience they get out of BTCTalk. The service may or may not benefit from incorporating a charge system for access to a particular list, the fees of which might go toward paying the moderators of the list.
Re-reading this, it doesn't seem particularly clear. I can draw some mockups if it's too confusing (I'd prefer not to, though).
Too much work for 18 users though, but if the script becomes somewhat popular and if people want it I can look at that
Thanks for adding Bitcoin INR rate.
It's not me, it's the source you chosen that supports it, the script only asks them what you asked it I only see:
"Source for Bitcoin price (default=mtgox)"
"Source for Bitcoin price (default=mtgox)"
that's really strange. did you upgrade the script recently (today) ?
UPDATED. Works now.
I'm coding, I don't have the time to post long answers
When in doubt, look at the OP, I try to keep it updated
As for this specific matter, the settings link has been moved and the OP contains a screenshot
The new update looks great! But what is "Format of note display (note/pctnote/pctplus) (default=note)"?When in doubt, look at the OP, I try to keep it updated
As for this specific matter, the settings link has been moved and the OP contains a screenshot
note is +2/4
pctnote is +50% (= score/total votes)
pctplus is +75% (= number of +1 votes/total votes)
I think Chrome users will appreciate this: http://jackjack.alwaysdata.net/btoplusone/btpp_0.1.15.crx
This crx includes auto-updates, which get the source directly from userscripts.org
I only see:
"Source for Bitcoin price (default=mtgox)"
"Source for Bitcoin price (default=mtgox)"
that's really strange. did you upgrade the script recently (today) ?
UPDATED. Works now.
I'm coding, I don't have the time to post long answers
When in doubt, look at the OP, I try to keep it updated
As for this specific matter, the settings link has been moved and the OP contains a screenshot
The new update looks great! But what is "Format of note display (note/pctnote/pctplus) (default=note)"? When in doubt, look at the OP, I try to keep it updated
As for this specific matter, the settings link has been moved and the OP contains a screenshot
I'm coding, I don't have the time to post long answers
When in doubt, look at the OP, I try to keep it updated
As for this specific matter, the settings link has been moved and the OP contains a screenshot
When in doubt, look at the OP, I try to keep it updated
As for this specific matter, the settings link has been moved and the OP contains a screenshot
I only see:
"Source for Bitcoin price (default=mtgox)"
"Source for Bitcoin price (default=mtgox)"
that's really strange. did you upgrade the script recently (today) ?
I do not see that list ;o
Thanks! This is a lot better.
Thanks! This is a lot better.
you can't see the settings page?
"Source for Bitcoin price (mtgox/btcavg/btce) (default=mtgox)"
I only see:
"Source for Bitcoin price (default=mtgox)"
I downloaded the newest script 2 days ago, so I guess I am up-to-date. Or I missed a new update post.
What sources can I use for the BitCoin Price?
Source for Bitcoin price (mtgox/btcavg/btce) (default=mtgox)btcavg = http://bitcoinaverage.com/
Thanks! This is a lot better.
you can't see the settings page?
What sources can I use for the BitCoin Price?
Source for Bitcoin price (mtgox/btcavg/btce) (default=mtgox)btcavg = http://bitcoinaverage.com/
Thanks! This is a lot better.
What sources can I use for the BitCoin Price?
Source for Bitcoin price (mtgox/btcavg/btce) (default=mtgox)btcavg = http://bitcoinaverage.com/
What sources can I use for the BitCoin Price?
Thanks for adding Bitcoin INR rate.
Jackjack can't you add a voting on your site? Maybe just put a page that allows one person using their password to vote on if someone deserves a scamming tag or whatever tag.
Would something like this fit?
yes but have a threshold so when like X people mark as scammer then it labels him a scammer, or it brings it to your attention so you can make an executive decision.
Yay, tags!
You don't know what you've done. I implemented tags on whiskchat and now EVERYBODY WANTS THEM!
You don't know what you've done. I implemented tags on whiskchat and now EVERYBODY WANTS THEM!
This is best done through a rework towards the forum for performance reasons.
Combining some of the projects in this thread with that, there could be a completely new user management regime, and allow multiple regimes to exist on one forum. This could allow all sorts of filters on users. For example, there could be a list which bans people who regularly advertise, a list which bans people who sell certain dubious goods/services, a list of people who turn everything into a political argument, a list which bans people who talk very technically, etc. It would probably also be feasible to eliminate the posts of people meeting certain "hard" criteria, such as activity count. These can be tailored quite precisely to what a person wants and doesn't want to see, whereas management in forums now generally forces an admin to either allow everyone to see the persons post, or ban him, and nobody sees his posts.
I'd eventually like to eliminate most moderation and replace it with web of trust rating/ignore systems so you can choose whether you want to see trolling, profanity, etc. by modifying your trust lists. This is the sort of thing that pretty much requires a forum rewrite, though: it's totally against SMF's nature.
Global ratings like Bitcointalk++ aren't usefully scalable. It's too difficult to prevent (and even define) abuse as the number of users increases. Some sort of WoT is needed.
So, for example, let's say someone wanted to remove-from-view people who use referral links. Let's call the list "referral link spam." There would be 1-5 moderators of the list with mod credentials who could click a button next to a person's post (or through adding them manually), including brief reasoning for the inclusion in the list. This would tag them with "referral link spam" and remove their posts and threads from users' view who decide to exclude posts from people tagged with "referral link spam."
From a user perspective, you could choose whichever lists you want, based on both the criteria and moderators maintaining the list (there could be competing moderators for multiple lists removing posts meeting the same criteria if someone distrusts a particular group's judgment). So let's say the lists are:
*Spambots
*BFL shills
*anti-BFL shills
*libertaritards
*dubious investments
*Jews
A user could go into the extension or script settings and simply check off whichever groups of people they don't want - maybe BFL shills, Jews, and libertaritards. Anyone (or any post) with any of those tags would be removed from that user's view. The most important benefit from this, I'd think, is that it gets around the dichotomy of abuser or non-abuser, and allows people to really choose what kind of experience they get out of BTCTalk. The service may or may not benefit from incorporating a charge system for access to a particular list, the fees of which might go toward paying the moderators of the list.
Re-reading this, it doesn't seem particularly clear. I can draw some mockups if it's too confusing (I'd prefer not to, though).
Combining some of the projects in this thread with that, there could be a completely new user management regime, and allow multiple regimes to exist on one forum. This could allow all sorts of filters on users. For example, there could be a list which bans people who regularly advertise, a list which bans people who sell certain dubious goods/services, a list of people who turn everything into a political argument, a list which bans people who talk very technically, etc. It would probably also be feasible to eliminate the posts of people meeting certain "hard" criteria, such as activity count. These can be tailored quite precisely to what a person wants and doesn't want to see, whereas management in forums now generally forces an admin to either allow everyone to see the persons post, or ban him, and nobody sees his posts.
I'd eventually like to eliminate most moderation and replace it with web of trust rating/ignore systems so you can choose whether you want to see trolling, profanity, etc. by modifying your trust lists. This is the sort of thing that pretty much requires a forum rewrite, though: it's totally against SMF's nature.
Global ratings like Bitcointalk++ aren't usefully scalable. It's too difficult to prevent (and even define) abuse as the number of users increases. Some sort of WoT is needed.
Jackjack can't you add a voting on your site? Maybe just put a page that allows one person using their password to vote on if someone deserves a scamming tag or whatever tag.
This could be a very interesting experiment in decentralized/plural forum management.
Someone's (sorry, can't remember name) working on a script which'd utterly eliminate all traces of an ignored person on this forum for the user.
Combining some of the projects in this thread with that, there could be a completely new user management regime, and allow multiple regimes to exist on one forum. This could allow all sorts of filters on users. For example, there could be a list which bans people who regularly advertise, a list which bans people who sell certain dubious goods/services, a list of people who turn everything into a political argument, a list which bans people who talk very technically, etc. It would probably also be feasible to eliminate the posts of people meeting certain "hard" criteria, such as activity count. These can be tailored quite precisely to what a person wants and doesn't want to see, whereas management in forums now generally forces an admin to either allow everyone to see the persons post, or ban him, and nobody sees his posts.
Someone's (sorry, can't remember name) working on a script which'd utterly eliminate all traces of an ignored person on this forum for the user.
Combining some of the projects in this thread with that, there could be a completely new user management regime, and allow multiple regimes to exist on one forum. This could allow all sorts of filters on users. For example, there could be a list which bans people who regularly advertise, a list which bans people who sell certain dubious goods/services, a list of people who turn everything into a political argument, a list which bans people who talk very technically, etc. It would probably also be feasible to eliminate the posts of people meeting certain "hard" criteria, such as activity count. These can be tailored quite precisely to what a person wants and doesn't want to see, whereas management in forums now generally forces an admin to either allow everyone to see the persons post, or ban him, and nobody sees his posts.
I read about this famous 1000BTC donation he promised to a charity but never checked anything. If it is an established fact that he promised this and never delivered, Josh is a good candidate for a scammer tag IMO!
BFL did a 1k BTC charity donation. Josh had a 1k side bet with runeks. I can confirm it was taken care of. In fact, I promised I would donate to the BFL charity if it was proven he had settled with runeks, and runeks has confirmed this with me and I subsequently donated.
I'm not a fan of many of the things Inaba says, but he has been honorable regarding that 1k BTC bet and I don't think it's right for him to take flak from it. There are any number of things to be upset with Josh or BFL about, but this is not one of those things.
Jump to: