Large Scale Central

Dear Bob

General Discussion
#61

I really dont like the way the blocked users is implemented. It seems to be the inverse of what it should do. I would think blocking a user would have ME not see HIM, but its the other way around. Ill see about making that two-way.

The other thing I’m toying with is post voting, and ‘reputation’. i.e. You will be able to vote a post up or down once. This will allow a user to say something like “I dont want to see any posts with a score < -5” or similar. Your ‘reputation’ will be the aggregate of the votes on your posts. So, if I post something very interesting, and 10 users vote it up, my ‘reputation’ is 10. If I post a bunch of stupid posts, (say, three) and they are all voted down by 10 users, my ‘reputation’ is -30. This will allow users to see if a certain member is an idiot, or helpful, and avoid as necessary. It will help me, because if I have a user that has a negative reputation, then he’s just a troll.

That said, its a fairly complex modification, but its becoming fairly common on non-moderated sites like this one. It allows the general forum population (not just a few) to have an impact on the site quality.

Now, on the subject of “Bob doesn’t do anything about these people” comments. As I’ve mentioned before, I don’t generally reply to emails that come in that have a “You must do something about [insert name here]” bent, nor do I pay any attention to “You need to see my side of this”. If you think you need to explain why you’re behaving a certain way to me, you’re already on the wrong side of things. Despite that these things cost a ton of money, and we have thousands of hours invested in it, I do this for fun. Dealing with this kind of garbage is no fun.

Hopefully these code changes I’m working on will let you avoid threads and comments that will get your blood pressure up, and force you to flood forward tubes and call for a firing solution.

#62

Dear Bob,

Thanks.

#63

Ken Brunt said:

The “Mark As Read” button works just fine for all this nonsense…:wink:

/standing ovation

#64

Hans-Joerg Mueller said:

“the more I know about people, the better I like my dogs.”

― Mark Twain

“So it goes.”

— Kurt Vonnegut

Sorry, no illustrated versions. Imagination should serve well enough!

Here ya go HJ:

(http://www.aplacetolovedogs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/twain.jpg)

(http://wallpaper.pickywallpapers.com/htc-desire/so-it-goes.jpg)

(All: yes that IS the correct imagery for that phrase, if you don’t believe me go read SlaughterHouse Five)

#65

Thank you very much Vic! I knew you would find them.

I guess I could read SlaughterHouse Five, again. It’s been 40 years.

:wink:

#66

Thank you Bob. I believe your thoughts are an effective way to deal with a small minority here that can’t seem to manage to communicate in a cordial way while expressing their opinion. I have not engaged in many posts on this site, but follow them all because there are many useful bits of information that make my railroading more fun. Most of the modelers here blow me away with their skills and abilities. That’s what I enjoy most, not unending diatribes about personalities or corporate behavior. I encourage you to to continue with your thoughts about changes you are contemplating. Thank you again.

#67

Thanks Bob. Good solution.

#68

Bob McCown

It will be interesting to see what effects those additions will have.

:wink:

Time will tell if they keep the

. and GIFs

at bay.

BTW on one of the fora I participate the points are KARMA, marked as plus and minus. What shows is the aggregate i.e. if one has +10 and then goofs big time one may end up with +2 instead. All very subjective, but … so it goes.

#69

Bob,

It’s great that you are working on a system to protect the rest of us from individuals that

cause trouble. The rating system you describe sounds like it is intended to associate the per

post rating with some accumulated value for the poster. I’m wondering if something less obvious

in terms of “penalty” makes more sense and whether folks will game the system.

Let’s say user X refers to my trains as “toys” and really upsets me. I’m flaming mad cause

I know these are not toys.

User X has several hundred posts so I go and vote ‘down’ every one of X’s posts. Now user

X is unfairly filtered for those users with their “view” threshold set for reputations above -200. :^)

This could also get triggered from sub interest groups…the code 250 versus the code 332 rail

folks…old versus modern…

From my perspective an accumulated rating on the “thread” (other than view count) would

be a great way to indicate what others think of the thread. “helpful” or “not helpful” might go a

long way. Even just a ‘helpful’ button would differentiate posts/members over time. A button on

the post to flag offensive posts might be enough to remove the post after a certain number

on complaints. Not sure what ‘report’ does at this point…I suppose it send you an e-mail?

In terms of real troublemakers it might be easier to suspend them for a period of time. If the

behavior continues simply ban them from posting for a year. Or issue a $ ticket and reinstate when

payment has been made and mandatory counseling has been completed.

I’m glad you are attempting to improve the environment. I do enjoy this site.

Thanks

#70

David Fielding said:

User X has several hundred posts so I go and vote ‘down’ every one of X’s posts. Now user

X is unfairly filtered for those users with their “view” threshold set for reputations above -200. :^)

Already taking this into account. Both manually (a speed limit of 2,5,10, something) per day of votes, and the ability for me to see the inter-relations between users and posts. Anyone abusing the system will get banned out of hand.

#71

I like the idea of ‘blocking’ someone who is mis-behaving or obnoxious.

But I don’t find many people obnoxious on LSC. I came over here to get away from the lunacy on MLS (and because my friends came here before me - was getting lonely over there.)

Most of the posters here are either friendly or knowledgeable. A few try to provoke others by making unnecessarily personal comments, but they aren’t a problem (to me.)

As Bob says, just grow a thick skin and you’ll be fine.

#72

I agree with Pete and Bob does face a challenge with ratings.

I know there are some on this list who will use more than one name if they fear low ratings.

Very few times have I ignored what someone says. Usually it’s because they are long winded and being legally blind their posts take toooooo long to read!

#73

David Fielding said:

…

Or issue a $ ticket and reinstate when payment has been made and mandatory counseling has been completed.

I’m glad you are attempting to improve the environment. I do enjoy this site.

Thanks

To add some levity: Completion of counseling needs to be certified.

:slight_smile: :wink:

PS I’m now off to get some MtoBFRs

#74

Doug,

Being as most people today are on some form of Cable Modem/DSL or similar, their IP address does not change. An on-line game I play uses the IP to keep people from creating more than the two allotted accounts. Anyone running a web site has the ability to see the IP address of anyone visiting. Not an insurmountable task.

Bob C.

#75

Pete Thornton said:

I like the idea of ‘blocking’ someone who is mis-behaving or obnoxious.

But I don’t find many people obnoxious on LSC. I came over here to get away from the lunacy on MLS (and because my friends came here before me - was getting lonely over there.)

Most of the posters here are either friendly or knowledgeable. A few try to provoke others by making unnecessarily personal comments, but they aren’t a problem (to me.)

As Bob says, just grow a thick skin and you’ll be fine.

Pete we just need to get more of the live steam guys over here and posting on the live steam forum.

#76

That’s good to know Bob. It will keep challenges to a minimum.

#77

Point value scoring is used on other fora. However, the usefullness of the scoring system implies firstly that the member can read the intent of the posting and secondly that we are dealing with adults and not immature troublemakers.

The points allotting system will no doubt be done annonymously so that the post respondent who is being ‘marked down’ has no knowledge of who is allocating the points. To be fair, the software should require the person allocating the point to either respond to the posting or at least be required to mark the post as read before being allowed permission to allocate a mark on the posting. This way at least there will be a record of that person’s activities and ‘intent’.

I can see the Morse Code club maliciously marking down postings from specific members just to spite them. The presumption of dealing with an adult flies out the window when we have those with feuds or vendettas to settle.

I can see a member being banned from posting merely because a clique forms to orchestrate that members removal by malicious allocation of points. Obviously the administrator would be aware of who was allocating points but then his workload would increase exponentially in policing the site. Such a system is open to exploitation.

A simpler method for me is to require the post respondent to post a minimum number of characters in a post response to allow the forum software to accept the posting. This will require the member to actually THINK about his response prior to posting. This then overrides the impulse knee jerk responses of late. Of cause the respondent
could easily override the minimum character requirement by posting gobblydegook, but then his nonsensical response will be obvious to all and his malicious intent evident. The minimum character requirement would also remove the prevalence of those short cutesy and Morse Code responses some prefer in their attempt to guile others or derail a thread.

Edit: the requirement to mark a posting as read before permission to allocate points allows the respondent one chance only to allocate a point on a posting response. This then removes the chance of multiple point allocation for one posting.

However, I can see a member marking ‘all posts as read’ and then going back to allocate points to ‘preferred’ postings. Where there is a will, there is a way. There is no way to override one who is on a witch hunt.

#78

GSC uses points as rewards. To this day I have no idea how its tabulated.

One way to avoid the Feuding is to only allow POSITIVE points to be allowed. That disarms the most negative aspects being put forth.

#79

Vic,

The downside to restricting all negative commentary is you loose the ability to disseminate information that although considered negative, is information others may find invaluable in making their next purchase. Barring the ability to block out individual obnoxious poster, the point system seems to be the next best bet.

Bob C.

#80

Vic Smith said:
GSC uses points as rewards. To this day I have no idea how its tabulated. One way to avoid the Feuding is to only allow POSITIVE points to be allowed. That disarms the most negative aspects being put forth.

Unfortunately only allowing positive points lead to the same situation of groups voting up each other in spite of good or positive information