|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Dog piling | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trae Member (Idle past 4337 days) Posts: 442 From: Fremont, CA, USA Joined:
|
Problem with ideas is they often have unintended emergent behavior. If you limit thread replies to two people then you can wind up with a first come first serve mentality. You also reward whoever pounces on a message first. You may even wind up with people essentially tagging a thread to ‘claim’ it. You can even penalize those who might spend an hour or hours researching a reply, only to find that someone posted before they were able (that would piss me off).
One approach (in that it is easier, more manageable and less likely to piss off people) would be to give new members their own sandbox and then flag who can interact with new members thereby creating participation ghetto. When making rules always try consider their negative impact. How much effort can you expect people to expend to make sure they’re conforming to rules? No matter who the person is, there always seems to be some set of possible rules the person will find not to their liking and decide to move on. There is almost no new rule that won’t cost you one or more existing member. Hide posts. [Emergent behavior] Others repeat what has been previously said since they didn’t see the message. More people think they’ve been ignored, they have, those posts were hidden. People spend time going back trying to figure out if their message was hidden. Moderators hide messages they shouldn’t have (it’ll happen). ****** This is the sixth reply to your post. Should I have not posted?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trae Member (Idle past 4337 days) Posts: 442 From: Fremont, CA, USA Joined: |
If this is implimented let's not make an exception for the person up the chain. That way if someone asks me a question and five people reply to the person, I'll be blocked.
See snarky and informative.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trae Member (Idle past 4337 days) Posts: 442 From: Fremont, CA, USA Joined: |
Adminnemooseus writes:
I see this as both undesirable and simply not working well. These sort of restrictions penalize individuals for behavior presumably the community wishes participants to engage in (assisting others, trying to get threads back on topic) and would even reward individuals for behaviors the community doesn’t desire (game-playing threads, running opponents replies out). Another concept would be to limit a members posts per topic, subject to review and a reset/extension. Say, a member was limited to 5 posts per topic. S/he would be wise to not squander his/her messages on a dog pile.Just a rough idea. How would such a system not cause people to create multiple similar threads? If one only gets five replies then when done, they’re reduced to not being answered or starting more threads. I think you’re looking at this though the myopic lenses of having full access. You don’t see the issues which come with restricted access as they don’t much exist for admins.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trae Member (Idle past 4337 days) Posts: 442 From: Fremont, CA, USA Joined: |
Should I stop replying in this thread now that I've exceeded five posts? This isn't to snark, but to demonstrate the point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trae Member (Idle past 4337 days) Posts: 442 From: Fremont, CA, USA Joined: |
RAZD writes:
Agreed. It seems to me that behavior is far more of an issue here than dog-piling and it also seems to me that perceived treatment increases the perception of dog-piling.
Perhaps there are times when snarky is appropriate, but there should also be some content with the snarkyness, such as a recommendation to learn the substance one is trying to discuss? RAZD writes:
I’d like to see some specifics on how much dog-piling which is detrimental actually occurs, arguably not all dog-piling is detrimental. What is being proposed appears unwieldly. That would be a problem. The way I envisage a mechanism to reduce (but not eliminate) dogpiling would be to restrict the number of replies to follow-up messages, rather than to specific people. If the concern is new members then I say sandbox them, give privs to reply to them only to certain members and graduate them when they know what is expected of them. The forum software could be coded in such a way that new members could even reply in a thread and only certain individuals could reply to them.
RAZD writes:
Your suggestion is also a sandbox idea, just wanted to point out that not all sandboxes are equal and one failing doesn’t mean others won’t succeed. I am uncertain as to why something along the lines of New Member Threads couldn’t work. IIRC, the sandbox idea failed by discouraging the sandboxed people from posting. If we had a "Tag-team" forum, where number of replies is restricted, then admin could decide if a proposed new thread would be better served in general forum or as a tag-team thread, based on content of the proposed post. I haven’t seen it raised let alone addressed that much of the ‘dog-piling’ is due to behavior by the new member. If the new member can come in and Gish-gallop the last thing they should be protected from is the mess they created themselves.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trae Member (Idle past 4337 days) Posts: 442 From: Fremont, CA, USA Joined: |
Chuck77 writes:
Creation Scientists may have opinions and facts, what they don’t have which is required for science are properly tested theories, which have been correctly peer-reviewed. If you think what Christian Creation Scientists have done is sufficient, then why don’t you think what Muslim religious scientists have done to be sufficient? Both Creation and "real" Scientists each have a set of opinions and facts to backup what they say, what makes the Scientists YOU believe anymore qualified than the one's WE believe. Don't tell me they have facts to back it up either, so do we, which you just discount as pseudo Science. So what seperates good evidence from bad? What makes Dr. Steve Austin, for example( who's a Geologist and provides evidence of a world wide Flood) personal work on six continents unreliable? Saying he's a Creationist doesn't count. He has done hands on research AND is educated: You still have this fundamental misunderstanding that science is some individual pursuit where as long as you find an opinion you like somewhere you can claim that opinion is scientific, it doesn’t work that way.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein. AdminPD Edited by AdminPD, : Warning
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trae Member (Idle past 4337 days) Posts: 442 From: Fremont, CA, USA Joined: |
RAZD,
I think a couple of those points haven’t really been discussed. I agree that much of dog-piling is the result of the poster (specifically these two):
quote:Personally, I’d rather see moderator tools which lock people into responding to thread replies before starting new lines of dialog. Course that would require a rewrite of the forum software and I can’t think of seeing such a system anywhere else. To help visualize, it would be along the lines of a feature where the moderator asks a person to respond to a specific question and the person is barred from participating in the thread until they do so. It seems to me that with this discussion that some sort of mini-comments feature might be helpful. Stackoverflow.com has some interesting approaches one of which allows other members to place comments on posts. I could see something along this line as a way to point out fallacies, other threads, off-topic, casual comments not worth an entire post, etc.
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trae Member (Idle past 4337 days) Posts: 442 From: Fremont, CA, USA Joined: |
Interesting idea. Notification could be like Facebook (qwrtl has commented on your post) and the comments could be inserted\done like footnotes and shown at the end of the post. Should they be limited in length? I don’t know about size. Seems at some point the person would have exceeded a comment. Could go with the twitter limit to start with (though perhaps not counting links would be nice). Stackoverflow.com has these guidelines. Not that all make sense over here. Of course they’re more of a question and answer site: Forbidden - Stack Exchange I notice they have a cool feature where you can sort of page a single person other than the person you’re commenting on.
quote:That seems kinda cool. Would let you do things like: @Razd Perhaps Razd will see this and reply.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trae Member (Idle past 4337 days) Posts: 442 From: Fremont, CA, USA Joined:
|
That was my point. That you could comment to summon an expert. You could also comment to point out dogpiling, but perhaps, comments themselves could provide an outlet to dogpiling that wouldn't impact threads and poster to the same extent.
For instance, some comments could be hardcoded. If fallacies are hardcoded, then those comments work more like votes then post. >>12 people view this post as containing a strawman fallacy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trae Member (Idle past 4337 days) Posts: 442 From: Fremont, CA, USA Joined: |
I think it could, my suggestion would be to collapse that type of information into a summary and only expand the summary if someone bothers to drill down for the information.
Not all information would need to be negative. There could be positive feedback as well. Edited by Trae, : added note on positive feedback.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trae Member (Idle past 4337 days) Posts: 442 From: Fremont, CA, USA Joined:
|
As far as I can tell, dog-piling in the context of this thread is more about being overwhelmed by separate replies which appear to request responses. I don’t see that the board needs to be concerned with dog-piling in the sense of numbers of people who disagree with your post who do not expect or require individual attention. The issue here appears to be respond to these X separate requests and not a ton of people think you’re full of shit.
If Razd, makes a post to some third party, requesting a response, and I post as little as, I’d like to know that as well. Then the person usually feels some pressure to respond to both of us. Even if the response to me is as little as, Read my reply to Razd it takes extra effort. If instead Razd marks a post as a strawman and I click on, ‘I agree’, the OP doesn’t have to respond to me at all. The OP and other forum members can simply see that more than one person seems to think there’s an issue. Since in this context the person doesn’t have to reply to me, and either wouldn’t be able to even if they wished (or would have to go out of their way to include me) this seems clearly to me to be less dog-piling in the sense of overwhelming people with replies. Allowing people to participate in threads without creating additional work for posters does IMO tend to decrease dog-piling. I’m using ‘flags’ in the sense that programmers use the term (it is a throwback to when I used to program games and we’d ‘flag’ and item as invisible, or some such), the more correct term today would be ‘properties’. I’m not familiar with Topix, so way out on a limb I’d say we’re talking about different implementations or perhaps they simply have a poor implementation. There are all manner of ‘voting’ systems. All are not equal. Vote weighting can address some of the issues I think you have.
Educated person responds:
Isn’t this exactly the system we have currently (replace ‘lemon’ with ‘thumbs down’)?"That doesn't make any sense, even within the narrow context of your religious belief." Then 47 Creationists mark the response as "lemon". Not all posters need to have the same privileges, nor does every poster have to add the same weight when voting. If I was redesigning this site software (and no I’m not saying this is either the only way to do this or even that it would be the best) I would seriously consider tracking bias of participants. I agree with you that it seems that much of the ‘voting’ here is political. Perhaps, minimizing the effect of this is something worthwhile.
Whether or not whatever is being posted is a strawman, you'll see people marking it strawman. Then you have admins trying to go back and correct labels. Then you have people arguing with admins about why it's not a strawman, or why it is a strawman.
Outside of style, these forums seem to contain only a handful of features I don’t remember seeing in the mid 1990s. I’m not even sure that the CompuServe forums couldn’t tell you which were direct responses to a post you made. Admins trying to control all forum behavior simply isn’t as needed with some additional programming. One way to implement better social sites is to use ‘trusted users’. The admins by consensus assign trusted users (this should be done at the category level). Once enough trusted users are found (whatever the programmer sets it to) the rest of the population and the admins themselves are evaluated against the first group. The entire user list is reevaluated at intervals and becomes self-correcting. Consensus of trusted individuals becomes filter for all other votes. In such a system you damage your own ability to impact votes by voting against the trusted users. In such a system, you can try to argue with the Admins, but since the decisions are more in the hands of the community often they’re just going to tell you to convince the other posters. As a side note, think of all the cool java script charts that could be implemented in such a system. Tracking change of voting, geography, etc.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024