Topic: [Feature added] Color besides usernames for Ignored by % of established members. - page 12. (Read 27265 times)

Current rules are:
- 0.35% of very-established users ignore you: no public highlight, but a range on your posts that only you can see
- 0.5% of very-established users ignore you: light highlight
- 1% of very-established users ignore you: medium highlight
- 1.5% of very-established users ignore you: dark highlight

You're very established if:
- You have 100+ hours of online time
- You have 100+ posts
- You registered 30+ days ago

There are ~1414 very-established users right now.

The change only shows up in the default theme.

OK, I added an indication of how ignored someone is (by very-established users) without revealing the exact count. We'll see how it goes. I might remove it later.

Is the highlighting a good way to indicate it?

I have modified my OP to include this  
I think there is a margin between being a rating system and this ; more like a safety feature.

Group think ? I would never ignore someone only because it hold controversial idea and I was against it,  I am am generally banning people because their reasoning is so flawed I deem it has no chance of improving in a reasonable time-frame.

And most likely I ban people who keep on posting opinions without any logical arguments with the intent of influencing others. (aka. planned groupthink)


(DDWRT AC66U)

Yeah, you're right. If we just use SQL and bypass all of the SMF stuff then it's actually easy and pretty fast. (I was thinking it would be really slow, but all of the necessary data is in one table and MySQL handles lists-in-strings surprisingly well.)

I suppose it wouldn't be the worst kind of rating system (it's pretty resistant to abuse), but I still don't think it's a good idea. Any "global" reputation system like this encourages groupthink and discourages people from posting controversial ideas. As I mentioned in the other thread, it would also cause hurt feelings and drama.

Implementation of that feature is unlikely while we use SMF. A lot of code would need to be added to prevent the count from being easily exploitable.

Based on your posts I’ve read, I actually believe you.

If being routinely banned hasn’t really tarnished everyone’s opinion of you already then I guess you’re Teflon to all incoming damage so it wouldn’t matter anyway. 

Social experimentation is the most entertaining of exercises. Who cares if I'd be on the top of the list. It'd be useful and entertaining, and that's what I live for.

Can you both be so sure you wouldn’t be at the top of the rankings list?

Agreed and witnessed.

The idea came from reading this thread : People paid by banking elite to troll this Forum? https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.796704
This is mostly a safety concern, the reputation of users is very important when dealing bitcoins with anonymous.

I've noticed that I now have many speculations threads with ~90% of people ignored.

I think the reason is there are many posters who only post to raise their post-count to give appearance having some reputation.
It wouldn't surprise me if some 1000-2000 posts accounts would end up being sold to the highest bidders.

SUBs such as Specu... and off-topic are very prone to non-sense postings.  I have no idea why off topic threads should be tolerated if off-topic post are not.

I am committing to a 5BTC bounty to develop the "Ignored by # peoples" feature besides usernames.

EDIT : similar thread found.  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=67702.0
Conslusion, : Theymos did not want to hurt feelings and cause drama.

My take is, whatever the outcome, we must at least end up with a way to filter the top of phony and disingenuous posters. If only moderators could have access to a counter and have a warning when a user trigger the 50 ignore threshold that would be a improvement.

The middle point could be, flagging someone as "suspicious" publicly when it cross the 0.1% top ignored threshold,   say there are 50000 users and the top 50 most ignored have ~200 ignore then, ... well they're definitely suspicious enough to be worried about.  I guess this safety measure would also scale well in time as the forum grows.

When I ignore someone, I genuinely do not want to hear about anything they have to say, Thus I think it's an accurate measure for debunking abusive post count hoarders.


Matthew N. Wright is willing to contribute another 5BTC

Total : 10.0000000 BTC

Edit : Done, Full bounty sent, Thanks Matthew
Result : https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.796962