Site Issues, Updates, Changes, and Feedback Thread

[mansr]

8 minutes ago, austinpop said:

Clearly, the OT flag is working as designed.

What makes you say that?

[rickca]

On 9/15/2018 at 8:42 AM, rickca said:

Chris, I'm now seeing new entries like

mansr reacted to a post in a topic: Is Resolution The Only Barrier Between Stream And Own

in the All Activity stream that never used to be there.  This just adds clutter.

 

 

This is really getting out of hand.  On the current activity stream, the most recent 10 entries are all reactions with 8 of them from the same user.  It's meaningless.

[gmgraves]

Chris;

I am confused about the designations of member level on this forum. For instance:

Ralf11 has 8, 219 posts to his credit, yet he is listed as a "Junior" member

While I have only 6,986 posts and I'm listed as a "Senior" member

Firedog has only 25 more posts (8244) to his credit than Ralf11 (a Junior with 8219) yet he is listed as a Master member!

I remember you saying one time that the levels on this forum were based solely on the number of posts. Yet clearly it must be something else, or Ralf11 and Firedog would both be masters. I would think that Ralf11 would at least be a Senior? I must be missing something.

[The Computer Audiophile]

18 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Chris;

I am confused about the designations of member level on this forum. For instance:

Ralf11 has 8, 219 posts to his credit, yet he is listed as a "Junior" member

While I have only 6,986 posts and I'm listed as a "Senior" member

Firedog has only 25 more posts (8244) to his credit than Ralf11 (a Junior with 8219) yet he is listed as a Master member!

I remember you saying one time that the levels on this forum were based solely on the number of posts. Yet clearly it must be something else, or Ralf11 and Firedog would both be masters. I would think that Ralf11 would at least be a Senior? I must be missing something.

Some people have manually edited their ranks to say whatever they want.

[mourip]

43 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Some people have manually edited their ranks to say whatever they want.

 

Could we make it a requirement for those who are a member of the trade, even as a consultant, to state that as their "rank". I think that it would avoid some confusion regarding their "point of view" on a given topic.

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, mourip said:

 

Could we make it a requirement for those who are a member of the trade, even as a consultant, to state that as their "rank". I think that it would avoid some confusion regarding their "point of view" on a given topic.

Yes

[Richard Dale]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Some people have manually edited their ranks to say whatever they want.

Perhaps you could add 'Like', 'Thanks' and 'Off Topic' totals under the total number of posts number when we post something to give a more accurate picture about what the community thinks about someone, rather than what they think of themselves in terms of fancy names.

 

I don't personally care what I'm called, apart from not liking any labels with 'Senior' in them, although I think I am currently 'Junior' which doesn't sound quite right either.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, Richard Dale said:

Perhaps you could add 'Like', 'Thanks' and 'Off Topic' totals under the total number of posts number when we post something to give a more accurate picture about what the community thinks about someone, rather than what they think of themselves in terms of fancy names.

 

I don't personally care what I'm called, apart from not liking any labels with 'Senior' in them, although I think I am currently 'Junior' which doesn't sound quite right either.

This is pretty easy to do. It has been used for abuse previously but who knows, maybe we’ve all grown up since ?

[gmgraves]

3 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Some people have manually edited their ranks to say whatever they want.

Oh, OK. Thanks for the answer. 

[austinpop]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

This is pretty easy to do. It has been used for abuse previously but who knows, maybe we’ve all grown up since ?

 

Yes, there has been a stunning increase in maturity since then.

 

Actually, I do think there is value in exposing that a user is a "contributor," based on their "score." The score could either be:

• total upvotes (thanks+likes+upvotes), or
• total upvotes - total off topic

The problem is that trolls get upvotes too, from other trolls. So looking at the total upvotes site-wide may mistakenly identify some trolls as contributors.

 

How about this: can counts be maintained on a per-thread basis? If a user achieves a certain score within a thread, then they could be recognized as a contributor on that thread, rather than site-wide.

 

Just a thought.

[mansr]

4 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Chris;

I am confused about the designations of member level on this forum. For instance:

Ralf11 has 8, 219 posts to his credit, yet he is listed as a "Junior" member

While I have only 6,986 posts and I'm listed as a "Senior" member

Firedog has only 25 more posts (8244) to his credit than Ralf11 (a Junior with 8219) yet he is listed as a Master member!

I remember you saying one time that the levels on this forum were based solely on the number of posts. Yet clearly it must be something else, or Ralf11 and Firedog would both be masters. I would think that Ralf11 would at least be a Senior? I must be missing something.

How many posts does it take to be a Troll?

[gmgraves]

6 minutes ago, mansr said:

How many posts does it take to be a Troll?

Just a couple, if they are the right kind of the wrong kind posts.?

[rando]

18 minutes ago, mansr said:

How many posts does it take to be a Troll?

 

How many would you like to be nailed to? 

[austinpop]

31 minutes ago, austinpop said:

 

Yes, there has been a stunning increase in maturity since then.

 

Actually, I do think there is value in exposing that a user is a "contributor," based on their "score." The score could either be:

• total upvotes (thanks+likes+upvotes), or
• total upvotes - total off topic

The problem is that trolls get upvotes too, from other trolls. So looking at the total upvotes site-wide may mistakenly identify some trolls as contributors.

 

How about this: can counts be maintained on a per-thread basis? If a user achieves a certain score within a thread, then they could be recognized as a contributor on that thread, rather than site-wide.

 

Just a thought.

 

Expanding on this idea of per-thread contributors. You could mark their posts with the same green border that currently gets triggered with 2+ upvotes.

 

The other feature that would be nice is to frame posts that garner 2+ Off-topic votes with a Red border.

[mansr]

16 minutes ago, austinpop said:

 The other feature that would be nice is to frame posts that garner 2+ Off-topic votes with a Red border

We had something like that. It was instantly abused.

[One and a half]

4 hours ago, mansr said:

How many posts does it take to be a Troll?

Is that the same type of question that asks “how many people does it take to change a lightbulb”.

[rickca]

4 hours ago, mansr said:

How many posts does it take to be a Troll?

You need a advanced degree from MIT (Mans Institute for Trolls).

[Ralf11]

Just add a popcorn emoji

[mourip]

Two questions/issues.

 

When I click on "Unread Content" button I see more than one entry for "A novel way to massively improve the SQ of computer audio streaming". For most threads I just see the most recent post.

 

Second. Could this thread be a sticky in the General Forum.

[Superdad]

51 minutes ago, mourip said:

When I click on "Unread Content" button I see more than one entry for "A novel way to massively improve the SQ of computer audio streaming". For most threads I just see the most recent post.

 

I’ve had the same thing occur randomly for several weeks.  But with different threads than the one you mention (though I also subscribe to that one).

[auricgoldfinger]

1 minute ago, Superdad said:

I’ve had the same thing occur randomly for several weeks.  But with different threads than the one you mention (though I also subscribe to that one).

 

+1

[The Computer Audiophile]

Thanks for the reports guys. Looking now.

[davide256]

On 9/23/2018 at 12:28 PM, The Computer Audiophile said:

Some people have manually edited their ranks to say whatever they want.

Head-fi is a forum example where the ranking system was extensively abused.  Many would routinely add 1 word comments multiple times in any given topic to "grind" up their title. I'd prefer to see titles based on the number of people who have responded favorably to someones posts... that requires longevity and audience interest.

Not the number of favorable "likes" as that is rife for cliche abuse but the number of unique "likes"

[mansr]

1 minute ago, davide256 said:

I'd prefer to see titles based on the number of people who have responded favorably to someones posts... that requires longevity and audience interest.

Or a few sock puppet accounts.

[wgscott]

On 9/18/2018 at 12:15 PM, rickca said:

This is really getting out of hand.  On the current activity stream, the most recent 10 entries are all reactions with 8 of them from the same user.  It's meaningless.

 

I agree.

 

I also suggest going in the opposite direction some of the others suggest:  Eliminate all of the button-click up-votes, off-topic badges, etc. They are all being abused by people who want to reward their friends (people they agree with) and punish people who have the temerity to disagree with them with the off-topic button.

 

These badge-buttons can be manipulated to such an extent that they rapidly become meaningless.

 

In the absence of the non-verbal button-pressing option, people at least have to articulate why they agree or disagree with something. It leads to a more meaningful and intelligent conversation.