Recs, come and get your recs, fresh in this morning..

[mc2fool]

How are people intending to use this feature such that they're embarrassed or concerned about their thanking (or upvoting) action being revealed to others?

The mind boggles!

All I can imagine is that some people intend to use this facility in some sort of "tribal" way, "supporting" with their upvotes those whose writing they favour - while "disapproving" with downvotes those who write things they don't like. And enacting this tribal behaviour anonymously, without the nerve to put even their (anonymous!) username to their actions.

Seems pretty shady to me and not something a civil discussion site would wish to encourage.

Your intimations that people who value their privacy in this are somehow unsavoury and have seamy motives is, quite frankly, offensive.

It's really quite straightforward: if you want your votes to be public, that's fine and is your choice (and you should have the option to make them so).

However, my choice is that how I vote is none of your business, and I only ask that you, others, and the system respect that -- and do so without casting aspersions on those that prefer privacy in this.

[XFool]

All I can imagine is that some people intend to use this facility in some sort of "tribal" way, "supporting" with their upvotes those whose writing they favour - while "disapproving" with downvotes those who write things they don't like.

Seems pretty shady to me and not something a civil discussion site would wish to encourage.

Um... I can see you were never familiar with LoST.

[melonfool]

All I can imagine is that some people intend to use this facility in some sort of "tribal" way, "supporting" with their upvotes those whose writing they favour - while "disapproving" with downvotes those who write things they don't like. And enacting this tribal behaviour anonymously, without the nerve to put even their (anonymous!) username to their actions.

But there isn't a downvote is there? It's "thank" and "unthank (a previously thanked post)", in effect, no?

Currently - but it's all open for discussion.

Mel

[Lootman]

All I can imagine is that some people intend to use this facility in some sort of "tribal" way, "supporting" with their upvotes those whose writing they favour - while "disapproving" with downvotes those who write things they don't like. And enacting this tribal behaviour anonymously, without the nerve to put even their (anonymous!) username to their actions.

But there isn't a downvote is there? It's "thank" and "unthank (a previously thanked post)", in effect, no?

I think the kind of game-playing that is envisaged here is based on the theory that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". So for example, if you don't like A and B is criticising A, then you upvote/thank B to make A look worse. After all, if B has 20 thanks and A has none, then you've collectively made A look bad even if in fact you don't even disagree with him.

Petty, you might say. Indeed. But when the poster above "imagines" that this function will be used in a tribal way, he doesn't have to imagine that hard, because it happened on TMF. Not everyone all the time, but some Fools some of the time certainly.

I'm not massively bothered either way, but the reason I argued against ratings and thanks before was simply that it leads to all these issues, and endless meta-discussions and expressed anxieties about these issues. And somehow everything that is done to mitigate those concerns then just further complicates the system and creates new problems via the law of unintended consequences, ad nauseum.

Once you start down this path of people stroking each other, it's hard to unravel.

PS: I'll add my vote to those of others who noticed the site is slower since this was implemented.

[melonfool]

I don't recall endless meta discussion about recs on TMF, nor do I see it anywhere else that has a system like it.

I do recall some loon wibbling on about "rec circles" but it was only that one time.

Mel

[Itsallaguess]

I don't recall endless meta discussion about recs on TMF

And were the recs there public or anonymous?

I rest my case m'lud...



Itsallaguess

[XFool]

I'm not massively bothered either way, but the reason I argued against ratings and thanks before was simply that it leads to all these issues, and endless meta-discussions and expressed anxieties about these issues. And somehow everything that is done to mitigate those concerns then just further complicates the system and creates new problems via the law of unintended consequences, ad nauseum.

I'll vote for that. But not via the 'rec' system!

PS: I'll add my vote to those of others who noticed the site is slower since this was implemented.

I noticed it was slower to respond yesterday, as were other sites. It seems a lot better today.

[Lootman]

I don't recall endless meta discussion about recs on TMF, nor do I see it anywhere else that has a system like it.

I do recall some loon wibbling on about "rec circles" but it was only that one time.

There was one particular board on TMF - Civil Discussion - which was devoted to meta-discussions. It didn't happen elsewhere by design, the posting guidelines and moderation policy. As I recall these were usually complaints about the moderation but I also recall discussions about "rec tarting", "mischievous reporting" and other related matters.

Other than that, I think it depended on which boards you visited. Some were very cliquey, I always thought, where the regulars would sometimes gang up on anyone who wandered in with a different viewpoint. Others were quite well behaved.

For what it's worth, I think that TLF's lower key and lighter approach to such matters has ensured a better behaved clientele. So far anyway . .

[XFool]

There was one particular board on TMF - Civil Discussion - which was devoted to meta-discussions. It didn't happen elsewhere by design, the posting guidelines and moderation policy. As I recall these were usually complaints about the moderation but I also recall discussions about "rec tarting", "mischievous reporting" and other related matters.

Other than that, I think it depended on which boards you visited. Some were very cliquey, I always thought, where the regulars would sometimes gang up on anyone who wandered in with a different viewpoint. Others were quite well behaved.

For what it's worth, I think that TLF's lower key and lighter approach to such matters has ensured a better behaved clientele. So far anyway . .

I vote for that too! But again, not via a 'rec'.

P.S. LMF has slowed right down again.

[csearle]

wibbling

Once again I'm educated, amused and enriched. Whoever would've though that a verb like this existed? 'Kin nobody!

C.

[redsturgeon]

wibbling

Once again I'm educated, amused and enriched. Whoever would've though that a verb like this existed? 'Kin nobody!

C.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2DCExerOsA

The origin is here I believe

John

[beeswax]

I would vote NOT to have a rec system as we can see it is open to abuse and can make people good, bad, jealous or feel inferior and there is no doubt there were posters on TMF that there was a competition going the whole time and people were given recs because who they were and not necessarily how good their post was.

I can't quite figure why we need an 'ignore' poster facility when its just as easy to skip a post if we don't like a particular poster and seeing so called Christians doing that when their views are challenged makes no sense on what is supposed to be an open discussion forum.

So for me keep recs out of it...

[mc2fool]

wibbling

Once again I'm educated, amused and enriched. Whoever would've though that a verb like this existed? 'Kin nobody!

C.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2DCExerOsA

The origin is here I believe

John

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=wibbling and click on "More definitions and word origin"

[Clariman]

While I know there are arguments for and against recs/thanks, I cannot believe that so many mature adults get soooo worked up about it all!

Lighten up. Nobody is going to die from how recs are implemented . We're all big boys and girls - we can cope with the ups and downs of recs.

What is clear to me is that there is no way that LemonFool can please everyone, so we'll just make a call on it.

Clariman

[melonfool]

I don't recall endless meta discussion about recs on TMF

And were the recs there public or anonymous?

I rest my case m'lud...



Itsallaguess

I was replying to "but the reason I argued against ratings and thanks before was simply that it leads to all these issues, and endless meta-discussions and expressed anxieties about these issues. And somehow everything that is done to mitigate those concerns then just further complicates the system and creates new problems via the law of unintended consequences, ad nauseum."

The premise does not appear to rely upon 'recs' being public. Nor did the OP's previous objections rely upon it.

I am not sure what 'case' you are resting as you have not made one.

Though I recently posted a link to a TMF thread from some years ago where Lootman was arguing for rec information to be public.

Mel

[panamagold]

While I know there are arguments for and against recs/thanks, I cannot believe that so many mature adults get soooo worked up about it all!

Lighten up. Nobody is going to die from how recs are implemented .

We're all big boys and girls

-

we can cope with the ups and downs of recs.

Clariman

You reckon? It would appear that many members/posters would struggle to fulfill an application to be included in the two catagories above that you quoted.

[doug2500]

Could it be set up so it doesn't take you away from the page when you rec a post?

Bit of a fiddle having to go back, but not a biggie.

[chas49]

Could it be set up so it doesn't take you away from the page when you rec a post?

Bit of a fiddle having to go back, but not a biggie.

Not sure if this has changed, but I just thanked you, was taken to the other page and then straight back to your post with no clicks required

[doug2500]

Could it be set up so it doesn't take you away from the page when you rec a post?

Bit of a fiddle having to go back, but not a biggie.

Not sure if this has changed, but I just thanked you, was taken to the other page and then straight back to your post with no clicks required

You're right. My problem is my slow internet. I just thanked you and then sat and waited and it did indeed revert back to the thread. It all took quite a few seconds though. It always feels longer when you're waiting. Next time I rec a post I'll try to time it. It's a bit tedious for those with slow internet but that's Bt's fault not LF's

[idpickering]

The rating is a maths rating of total recs vs number of replies on the whole topic
rating = round up (number of recs for this post / total recs for topic / 100)

Uh?

Firstly, which of the above is correct, replies or recs for the topic?

Secondly (and in either case), really? So as the replies/recs for other posts in the topic increases, the rating for a particular post will decrease?

Thanks for your continued efforts stooz. May I ask if there's going to be an overall count on a posters' profile with regard to total recs/posts? Including those two totals perhaps? Maybe an area where we can all see who's leading on each page and/or overall on an ongoing basis?

Regards,

Ian.