"ignored by x members"? Potential quality improvement

capcher

full member

Activity: 224

Merit: 100

This user is currently ignored.

I like this idea a lot.

Quote from: pawel7777 on January 25, 2016, 12:15:08 PM

Cons: It could be abused by creating multiple newbie accounts just to ignore certain member (either to reduce his credibility, or to get him kicked out of campaign). So maybe low-rank members should be excluded from stats.

Another way to mitigate this (if the powers that be don't feel like excluding lower-ranked members) would be using a score instead of "ignored by x members" - lower-ranked members' ignore contributes less to that score.

Like others said there are other issues:

- an influential member may ignore another member because of difference in opinion or heated argument, and not because of that member spamming
- people using a premade ignore list; this would give the list maker a disproportional influence in this "ignore" metric

Decoded

legendary

Activity: 1232

Merit: 1030

give me your cryptos

Quote from: pawel7777 on January 25, 2016, 12:15:08 PM

How about making it visible on member's profile (in 'General Statistics' maybe?) how many other members have put him on their ignore lists?

Simple info like ie.: "14 members have ignored this user", possibly with '14 members' hyperlinked to detailed list.

Pros: Not many signature managers would be keen on paying to massively ignored members, therefore it could enforce more quality/substance posting from signature campaigns participants.

Cons: It could be abused by creating multiple newbie accounts just to ignore certain member (either to reduce his credibility, or to get him kicked out of campaign). So maybe low-rank members should be excluded from stats.

Well, if the "ignored by 14 members" phrase was hyperlinked to those accounts, it wouldn't be a problem, add you would be able to see who's opinion actually counts.

MbccompanyX

full member

Activity: 182

Merit: 100

★YoBit.Net★ 350+ Coins Exchange & Dice

I don't think that such a feature can be considered valid, if you did a quick search on some threads (i forgot which one exactly but is supposed to be there), some people doesn't ignore member x because his/her post quality is low or high but because of the signature that the user that gets ignored uses, in that case there should be a check of who could abuse that system....

Your Point Is Invalid

hero member

Activity: 756

Merit: 510

Dear me, I think I'm becoming a god

Quote from: twister on January 29, 2016, 08:58:00 AM

As much as like this feature because it can help fight trolls/spammers but I am afraid it might get abused, people will gang up with their alts to harm another member's reputation by ignoring them due to personal differences.

And don't think that it will only happen with scam busters, people will use it to win debates or to prove that they're better from someone.

people will know that people are using their alts, there will be a system in place for identifying alts

twister

hero member

Activity: 672

Merit: 502

As much as like this feature because it can help fight trolls/spammers but I am afraid it might get abused, people will gang up with their alts to harm another member's reputation by ignoring them due to personal differences.

And don't think that it will only happen with scam busters, people will use it to win debates or to prove that they're better from someone.

Your Point Is Invalid

hero member

Activity: 756

Merit: 510

Dear me, I think I'm becoming a god

There is something like this already in place, users ignored by alot of users will have their ignore buttons stand out, i saw it in the requirement documents

pawel7777

legendary

Activity: 2436

Merit: 1561

Quote from: theymos on January 25, 2016, 11:22:30 PM

What used to happen was that users with many ignores would have their ignore button highlighted orange. But I removed it because it was rather taxing on the database and I don't think very many people used it. Maybe I could try bringing it back sometime.

It would be best if the feature remains neutral, simple info: "X members have ignored this users" is neither positive or negative but purely informational, while highlighting 'ignore' orange definitely has a negative tone.

Also, if the goal is to give campaign managers tool to fight spammers, it's best if it they decide themselves on what's the tolerable number of 'ignorers', rather than the number being predetermined.

BTW, what was the number of 'ignorers' that triggered orange highlighting?

Quote from: Superhitech on January 25, 2016, 10:34:36 PM

Some people with a vengeance might. Some users get really mad; go to a user like Vod and look at his untrusted feedback; there are tons of "negative" feedback that angry users and their alts have given him as they are mad at him for giving them negative trust.

Because of this reason, I think that this idea should not be implemented, unless we can find a workaround to this.

I don't think Vod would care too much if he was ignored even by thousands of angry scammers, mostly low-rank accounts and inactive anyways.

I see your point tho. Members who are less-mild (scam-busters, or those with unpopular opinions) would likely accumulate larger number of ignores over time.
But again, if the stat is purely informative (no negative highlight) and if you could see exactly which members are ignoring the user, you could analyse it and make your own judgement.

Quote from: morantis on January 25, 2016, 11:36:16 PM

The signature still shows on ignored members replies.

No, it does not.

Side note - apart from signature campaigns, there are a lot of farmed accounts (intended for sale), so it could work on that field too. Accounts highly ignored would probably be worth much less.

morantis

hero member

Activity: 868

Merit: 503

The signature still shows on ignored members replies.

theymos

administrator

Activity: 5222

Merit: 13032

What used to happen was that users with many ignores would have their ignore button highlighted orange. But I removed it because it was rather taxing on the database and I don't think very many people used it. Maybe I could try bringing it back sometime.

Superhitech

legendary

Activity: 1064

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Densitymax on January 25, 2016, 02:02:00 PM

I like the idea but i dont think users will create new accounts just to ignore, this will help signature campaign managers in choosing members

Some people with a vengeance might. Some users get really mad; go to a user like Vod and look at his untrusted feedback; there are tons of "negative" feedback that angry users and their alts have given him as they are mad at him for giving them negative trust.

Because of this reason, I think that this idea should not be implemented, unless we can find a workaround to this.

Densitymax

sr. member

Activity: 437

Merit: 250

I like the idea but i dont think users will create new accounts just to ignore, this will help signature campaign managers in choosing members

tmfp

legendary

Activity: 1932

Merit: 1737

"Common rogue from Russia with a bare ass."

The only problem with any type of stat regarding other users, whether it's positive or negative, is that they are meaningless because of the toleration and proliferation of alts. Account farming makes any newb restriction pointless too..

OmegaStarScream

staff

Activity: 3500

Merit: 6152

Quote from: traderbit on January 25, 2016, 01:46:52 PM

Quote from: pawel7777 on January 25, 2016, 12:15:08 PM

How about making it visible on member's profile (in 'General Statistics' maybe?) how many other members have put him on their ignore lists?

Simple info like ie.: "14 members have ignored this user", possibly with '14 members' hyperlinked to detailed list.

Pros: Not many signature managers would be keen on paying to massively ignored members, therefore it could enforce more quality/substance posting from signature campaigns participants.

Cons: It could be abused by creating multiple newbie accounts just to ignore certain member (either to reduce his credibility, or to get him kicked out of campaign). So maybe low-rank members should be excluded from stats.

It's good to know as much information as possible, like number of profile view, how many users are following you, how many are ignoring you, but even if it is only a number it has pros and cons like you said, but this is acceptable.
P.S you know any estimated date when the new forum will be released?

No body does , I'd say it will never get released if you ask me .
Still you can always check the progress since It's open source : https://github.com/epochtalk/epochtalk (design sucks but they keep saying that the screenshot may not be like the final results (hopefully)) .

traderbit

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

Quote from: pawel7777 on January 25, 2016, 12:15:08 PM

How about making it visible on member's profile (in 'General Statistics' maybe?) how many other members have put him on their ignore lists?

Simple info like ie.: "14 members have ignored this user", possibly with '14 members' hyperlinked to detailed list.

Pros: Not many signature managers would be keen on paying to massively ignored members, therefore it could enforce more quality/substance posting from signature campaigns participants.

Cons: It could be abused by creating multiple newbie accounts just to ignore certain member (either to reduce his credibility, or to get him kicked out of campaign). So maybe low-rank members should be excluded from stats.

It's good to know as much information as possible, like number of profile view, how many users are following you, how many are ignoring you, but even if it is only a number it has pros and cons like you said, but this is acceptable.
P.S you know any estimated date when the new forum will be released?

OmegaStarScream

staff

Activity: 3500

Merit: 6152

Quote from: pawel7777 on January 25, 2016, 12:15:08 PM

How about making it visible on member's profile (in 'General Statistics' maybe?) how many other members have put him on their ignore lists?

Simple info like ie.: "14 members have ignored this user", possibly with '14 members' hyperlinked to detailed list.

Pros: Not many signature managers would be keen on paying to massively ignored members, therefore it could enforce more quality/substance posting from signature campaigns participants.

Cons: It could be abused by creating multiple newbie accounts just to ignore certain member (either to reduce his credibility, or to get him kicked out of campaign). So maybe low-rank members should be excluded from stats.

Pretty good idea if you ask me . and I totally agree for what comes to the second point , Low rank members should be excluded however I don't think theymos will do that .
From what I've seen , theymos don't really do "excluding stuff" . Just like he didn't exclude newbies from using Marketpalce to prevent more scamming and just like he didn't prevent them from asking for a loan etc ... he will probably won't for this case too .

pawel7777

legendary

Activity: 2436

Merit: 1561

How about making it visible on member's profile (in 'General Statistics' maybe?) how many other members have put him on their ignore lists?

Simple info like ie.: "14 members have ignored this user", possibly with '14 members' hyperlinked to detailed list.

Pros: Not many signature managers would be keen on paying to massively ignored members, therefore it could enforce more quality/substance posting from signature campaigns participants.

Cons: It could be abused by creating multiple newbie accounts just to ignore certain member (either to reduce his credibility, or to get him kicked out of campaign). So maybe low-rank members should be excluded from stats.

Topic: "ignored by x members"? Potential quality improvement (Read 1840 times)