a tweek to the self-closing threads feature...
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: a tweek to the self-closing threads feature...

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    356

    a tweek to the self-closing threads feature...

    well i think there is an oversight in the implementation. if you look at http://www.antionline.com/showthread...0&pagenumber=1 , you will see that thread commited suicide aparently because of neg's given to a total of 2 posts, which were both by the same user. that doesnt really indicate at all the level of discussion in the thread as a whole. perhaps require that a certian % of the posts in the thread get negs, or(even better) a certian % of the users who have posted in the thread?
    -8-

    There are 10 types of people in this world: those who understand binary, and those who dont.
    Share on Google+

  2. #2
    The Iceman Cometh
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    1,210
    You also have to consider that, perhaps, there were more such negative posts by other users which were removed by either themselves or a moderator. Also, some of the language within the thread wasn't all that appropriate, and I think JP set up the "suicidal thread" based upon more than just negative posts. I may be wrong though... I'd check out the archives, but my wireless mouse is out of batteries and it's somewhat difficult for me to move around the entire site using only the keyboards... if you check JP's first post discussing Suicidal Threads, it should clarify any questions or concerns you have.

    AJ
    Share on Google+

  3. #3
    AntiOnline Senior Member souleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Flint, MI
    Posts
    2,884
    Die thread Die. I think once people learn how this system works, and use it properly, things will go a lot better. Everyone is spending more time evaluating it, and complaining about it, then anything else.

    I am not going to take the time to look for it, but I saw 3 threads go suicidal last Friday. All three only had 1 person getting negative points and it was the same person in all three threads. Obviouslly the guy is banned now. And after looking at the threads, they all deserved to die. They were nothing but 1 stupid post, and a bunch of flames. Only that 1 post got negatives though. If it took 2 or 3 people getting negatives, those threads would still be alive, and people would probably still be posting in them....
    \"Ignorance is bliss....
    but only for your enemy\"
    -- souleman
    Share on Google+

  4. #4
    Old Fart
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    1,658
    I'm the guy who wrote the post in question, and I was saddened to see it negged out of existence due to ONE IDIOT making fun of the fact that it occurred in Ky. The pupose of the thread was to make people aware of a situation that revealed how Wal-Mart reacts to child abuse that takes place in their stores. IMHO, if a thread is going to commit suicide, it should be because of the original post, not the response of one idiot. I wish souleman had taken the time to read the post...maybe his opinion would have been different.
    Al
    It isn't paranoia when you KNOW they're out to get you...
    Share on Google+

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    518
    To be honest I have noticed a increase in the "pointy" threads to those pointless ones since the new system has been around. Even now I look and see taht most threads are on the positive side, or at least even, so it APPEARS the quality is going up... or at least _I_ think so.


    Avenger
    Remember -
    The ark was built by amatures...
    The Titanic was built by professionals.
    Share on Google+

  6. #6
    AntiOnline Senior Member souleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Flint, MI
    Posts
    2,884
    A thread that has gone suicide can still be viewed. I have looked at that thread. A good portion of the posts were 1-2 liners that didn't really say anything. The post that got negged to death was mentioned in a few of the replies (so off topic). The best post (other then allenb's first one) was his last one, which gave an update. I am not trying to condone what happened to the kid in any way. If/When you get more information about the situation, start another thread.

    The thread was in Cosmos. If I remember correctly, most of the active people in that thread agreed that antipoints should NOT be given out at all in that thread. It was suggested that AP's couldn't be assigned there, but that idea was shot down. So the people that used that thread the most all agreed that AP's would not be assigned, because a good portion of what is stated in there is bassed on opinion, and no one wanted points being thrown around because you agreed/disagreed with the "meaning of life" or whatever. I saw quite a few posts with positive points also, that didn't really deserve them. At least people are finally getting the idea that postive points will BALANCE a thread.

    When JP instituted balancing pints assigned, a lot of people complained. There were a lot of threads saying how much they hated it. A lot of negative points were assigned to posts that didn't deserve them. Trust me, trying being on the top10 list of antipoint earners, everyone felt we could all afford to loose a few points. But now that everyone is pretty much balanced, people don't complain any more. Here is something to try doing. When you see a post is already negative, or very negative, don't assign more negative points. That one person was obviously assigned negs by quite a few users (I believe that is one of the checks....number of actuall assignements, not number of negative points). So if the post is already negative, don't give it more negs, and the thread will be ok. Also, check the thread status before you assign points. If the thread is very negative, don't give out negative points. Once people start understanding this system, I think that not only will people stop complaining about it, but start using it in a positive way.

    Avden> JP did put checks/balances in, but didn't specify what they were. Like I said above, I am pretty sure that the number of people that assigned negative points to a post is one of them, not just how many antipoints were assigned.
    \"Ignorance is bliss....
    but only for your enemy\"
    -- souleman
    Share on Google+

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Posts
    570
    Have you seen NetSyn's thread "New AO Feature I Just Discovered"? If you put a person to your ignore list they won't be able to see, or at least reply to, your threads. The thread is here: http://www.antionline.com/showthread...948#post557967
    (link is trying to point to my message but it seems to fail. Oh well.)

    In short, those who get badly negged should be automatically put to thread starter's ignore list.
    Q: Why do computer scientists confuse Christmas and Halloween?
    A: Because Oct 31 = Dec 25
    Share on Google+

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Posts
    1,100
    Greetings All:

    souleman is right about much of what he posted. There are literally hundreds of checks and balances in place with the AntiPoint System. The system is constantly "learning" about the the assigning habbits of the community as a whole, and adjusts itself as necessary. As things change, so does the system. And, of course, I'm always manually tweaking things as necessary with the system as well.

    ZeroOne also pointed out something that needs to be remembered, along with the AntiPoints System itself, there are also dozens of other features designed to make the forums virtually flame-free and self running.

    If you compare AntiOnline to ANY other forum, you will quickly see how far ahead in the game were are when it comes to forum moderation....

    Thanks for the suggestion though!
    Share on Google+

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •