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

[JMN2]

Avatars next?

[beeswax]

It may be me but God Almighty, what do people expect for nothing...

Thin end of wedge and can we have this and that added please..

My advice is to thank the owners for a job well done and just get on with posting and sod the recs and avatars and what not!

Reminds me of the Oliver Film, where he asks "Can I have some more please"!

[Gaggsy]

My advice is to thank the owners for a job well done and just get on with posting and sod the recs and avatars and what not!

Although I can't help noticing it was ok for you to have your opinion...

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.
...
So for me keep recs out of it...

I'm sure we'd all like to thank Stooz, Clariman et al for the time and effort they put in to make this site work. However, as it's a discussion forum, I'm also sure that they appreciate the feedback and suggestions provided by us.

[stooz]

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.

Indeed it does that already.
On the right of this post --> totals. click a total to see a breakdown on the users profile.

There is a lot of debate, and its all very constructive. We do listen and as the 1st post, its just the raw bones to make a start for those that want it. Updates are coming. But in the meantime;
If you dont like recs, dont use them. It is merely a number at the end of posts and a option in the menu to see results.

I will be adding an option to hide these views so they don't offend those that have no interest.

Following on from this thread, I will add in anonymous likes. Your contributions are counted but the 'who' will be missing (you will rec as a virtual user called 'Nonny Mouse'. as there will be a bias in the reports, the best reccer" (app.php/thankslist) will not display the Nonny mouse account. They will show in profiles - you were thanked by Nonny mouse for this post->

As you will see the best of board (app.php/toplist)
only shows the 10 best posts. This can be extended if anyone has a preference? 10 seems a bit short..

[UncleEbenezer]

Why should it be anonymous here?

Save people agonising over questions like "how can I rec X but not Y?" or "I'm reccing an awful lot on this thread, it's out of proportion". Anonymity is being above street level, so passers-by don't see all that happens inside my home.

For example, I just recced Gengulphus on this thread. Then I read further and saw Itsallaguess had expanded on Gengulphus's point. Should I rec that? I think I agree with both of them, but it would feel a bit promiscuous reccing both. Damn. Can I post a single rec and apply it to both of them? And indeed to AleisterCrowley earlier in the thread, whose point I also support.

[melonfool]

Why should it be anonymous here?

Save people agonising over questions like "how can I rec X but not Y?" or "I'm reccing an awful lot on this thread, it's out of proportion". Anonymity is being above street level, so passers-by don't see all that happens inside my home.

For example, I just recced Gengulphus on this thread. Then I read further and saw Itsallaguess had expanded on Gengulphus's point. Should I rec that? I think I agree with both of them, but it would feel a bit promiscuous reccing both. Damn. Can I post a single rec and apply it to both of them? And indeed to AleisterCrowley earlier in the thread, whose point I also support.

Really, just have a nice cup of tea.

Mel

[Bink333]

I agree with both of them, but it would feel a bit promiscuous reccing both. Damn. Can I post a single rec and apply it to both of them? And indeed to AleisterCrowley earlier in the thread, whose point I also support.

There's nothing wrong with being promiscuous with your recs, as long as your current partner doesn't find out about it.

[Lootman]

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

You have me at a disadvantage because I didn't see and cannot find that link upthread. But I suspect I argued for such information to be public because there was one period in my 18 years at TMF where I became quite certain that a small clique of individuals were following me from board to board, reccing the person disagreeing with me and/or reporting my posts on technicalities.

Might have been paranoia on my part, of course, but the ability to see who was reccing and reporting would either have confirmed my suspicion or confirmed my paranoia.

I don't have the same concern here because, so far, we haven't had recs. Nor have I had any posts removed or edited as far as I have noticed. And anyway my sense is that ex-Fools are behaving better here and that the moderation here is more reasonable. The problem I cited would not have been a problem but for the fact that one of the TMF moderators was going along with the campaign. This ended with a right royal argument he and I had, where I accused him of blatant bias and he vehemently denied it. (Whilst admitting that he had "favourites". Ho hum).

Anyway, it's early days at TLF. Like some others here, I don't necessarily see a correlation between recs and quality, and pay only passing attention to them. I think they are more valuable when attached to a post than aggregated for a poster, not least because the most recced individuals are probably the ones who post the most. But so far the implementation looks discreet and I have no real concern. Happy to trust the sponsors and their judgement.

[Raptor]

I don't have the same concern here because, so far, we haven't had recs. Nor have I had any posts removed or edited as far as I have noticed. And anyway my sense is that ex-Fools are behaving better here and that the moderation here is more reasonable.

I take that as "global" rec for all of us moderators....

Raptor.

[melonfool]

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

You have me at a disadvantage because I didn't see and cannot find that link upthread. But I suspect I argued for such information to be public because there was one period in my 18 years at TMF where I became quite certain that a small clique of individuals were following me from board to board, reccing the person disagreeing with me and/or reporting my posts on technicalities.

Might have been paranoia on my part, of course, but the ability to see who was reccing and reporting would either have confirmed my suspicion or confirmed my paranoia.

I don't have the same concern here because, so far, we haven't had recs. Nor have I had any posts removed or edited as far as I have noticed. And anyway my sense is that ex-Fools are behaving better here and that the moderation here is more reasonable. The problem I cited would not have been a problem but for the fact that one of the TMF moderators was going along with the campaign. This ended with a right royal argument he and I had, where I accused him of blatant bias and he vehemently denied it. (Whilst admitting that he had "favourites". Ho hum).

Anyway, it's early days at TLF. Like some others here, I don't necessarily see a correlation between recs and quality, and pay only passing attention to them. I think they are more valuable when attached to a post than aggregated for a poster, not least because the most recced individuals are probably the ones who post the most. But so far the implementation looks discreet and I have no real concern. Happy to trust the sponsors and their judgement.

Yes, you're right, going back through CDF there was a lot of paranoia.

And here, where you called people who report posts 'petty', and called for total transparency:

http://boards.fool.co.uk/quite-possibly ... sort=whole

Mel

[Lootman]

Yes, you're right, going back through CDF there was a lot of paranoia.

And here, where you called people who report posts 'petty', and called for total transparency

Well, it's only paranoia if it's not true, and that was what those discussion were seeking to determine.

I didn't mean that anyone who reports posts is petty, even though I rarely found a need to report a post myself. I did regard SOME of the post reporting as petty, which perhaps would not have mattered but for the fact that the TMF moderators were rather literal and rigid about their guidelines.

As mentioned, not a problem here as far as I am concerned, which is why I haven't offered a strong view on the transparency versus anonymity question.

[Clariman]

Moderator Message:
I think we've probably covered most angles, but I'll leave the thread open for any further relevant discussion on how recs/thanks have been implemented. Many thanks.

[PinkDalek]

Moderator Message:
I think we've probably covered most angles, but I'll leave the thread open for any further relevant discussion on how recs/thanks have been implemented. Many thanks.

Hello,

One thing that may have not have been mentioned is the "List of thanks" app.php/thankslist would appear to show when all listed were "Last Active". Despite some of those showing having turned off the "Last Active" option in their profile etc. An unintentional consequence, I'm sure, and whether or not there is an easy fix is another matter.

Me included!

[stooz]

Noted, they is no relevance to that being displayed. I will remove it.

[wickham]

I'll add to what has been said before - Thanks means thank you for answering my question, as I did for Slarti when he gave me useful advice.

I think it should say Rec so that if you see a post that would be useful for everyone but are not part of the discussion yourself you can rec it.

As I said a long time ago, all the code changes will make it very arduous for you to upgrade the phpBB version, rather you than me. I'm a forum admin and even with a few changes to my phpBB forum code I can get confused. Of course, it does depend whether phpBB just edit a few files or issue a completely new version like 3.1.x to 3.2.

[Tortoise1000]

I am delighted to see this feature. Its a great way to access interesting posts one might not otherwise have seen. It keep the community together and enriches it , looking at each others posts even though they may generally inhabit different boards.

Could you embolden the post titles please, on the Best Posts list?

T

[stooz]

Noted, they is no relevance to that being displayed. I will remove it.

Removed!

[stooz]

Could you embolden the post titles please, on the Best Posts list?
T

emboldened.

[Gengulphus]

But that is because you are regarding the 'recs' as 'thanks'. Just because they may be called this doesn't mean they will be used as such.

Silly old me for reading what's on the tin:

...the button is labelled 'Say thanks to the author of the post:'
and clicking it adds one to the count labelled 'Been thanked: n times'

Silly old me for reading the other side of the tin, where it says "Recs, come and get your recs, fresh in this morning.."! And the third side, namely the 'thumb up' picture, which is generally recognised as a sign of approval rather than gratitude or recommendation.

I'm pretty certain that TMF's 'recs' were intended and presented as recommendations that a post was especially worth reading, not as thanks. And those aren't the only two possibilities for how they're used: others I am pretty certain I've seen include expressing agreement with the opinions expressed, expressing a general liking for the poster pretty much regardless of what they've actually posted, saying "this is funny" about a joke or humourously-written post, and awarding points in various LOOTP-style games... Probably other reasons as well, but half a dozen are enough to be getting on with!

And that's what I saw happening on TMF, even though it did pretty consistently label the tin as being for recommendations - the 'button' said "Recommend it!", there was no not-quite-the-same-meaning picture, and the responding message was along the lines of "Thank you for recommending this post for our 'Best Of' list". I have very little doubt that the same will happen here, no matter how much stooz tries to present the facility as only being for saying "thanks".

So in practice, I believe that no matter what the site says, the facility will be used to express a wide variety of views about a post and/or its author, about the only common feature of which is that they're generally positive.

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?

Well, before deciding how to use the feature, first I've got to decide whether to use it! It's got the obvious plus point that it's very quick and easy to use, and the obvious minus points that one can't be at all specific about which positive feeling one is expressing, and people are liable to assume they know which one it is (especially in discussions that have become heated, where agreement with the viewpoint being expressed in the post tends to be assumed).

And my concern about using it is that no matter what meaning I intend, some readers are liable to assume a different one. Which is OK with me as long as they can only make that assumption about some unknown Fool out there - after all, they're probably right that somebody recced it for the reason they're assuming!

But if they can make that assumption specifically about me and post on the basis of that assumption, I can easily end up having to either leave that fallacious assumption unchallenged or challenge it. Challenging it is liable to waste far more of my time than using the facility ever saved in the first place. Leaving it unchallenged may be an option, but if the views being attributed are too greatly at odds with my actual views, that too may have drawbacks that IMHO greatly outweigh the time saved by using the facility. And either way, having views attributed to me that I have not expressed tends to irritate me, making it harder to remain civil...

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.

Well, to make up for your shortage of imagination, if my recs can be anonymous, I intend to use them as I did on TMF: a quick-and-easy way to express a variety of positive views on posts - typically "well worth reading, whether you agree with it or not", "a good bit of research" or "made me laugh out loud". If they can't, I'll either reckon it's worth expressing those views in a post (which would be the method I would normally use anyway if I specifically wanted to say "thanks" to someone) or that I'd better not bother because the site doesn't give me any good way of expressing them without using too much of my time (or risking doing so).

On username anonymity, not everyone's username is anonymous: some people are quite open about who they are. I'm not one of them, but there are a few Fools who I've met in person, at least some of whom definitely know who I am, rather than just that I am David some-name-they-were-told-but-don't-remember whose they know by sight. I equally know who some of them are, though in other cases I just know what they look like and their first name. And I'm also aware of a number of clues that have been scattered around the place over the years from which my identity could be worked out with reasonable certainty if one happened to look in the right places. So username anonymity is not totally to be relied upon.

Incidentally, I could of course get completely anonymous recs by registering another unconnected username and only ever using it to rec, while continuing to post as "Gengulphus". That would however have the disadvantage of shifting to the other username whenever I wanted to rec a post, shifting back whenever I wanted to reply, and doubtless occasionally making a mistake about it... More trouble than giving recs is worth IMHO, so again I'll prefer to reply or do nothing.

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

I don't think a civil discussion site should wish to encourage accusations of shadiness either, especially when they're only based on what the accuser finds themselves able to imagine, not on things actually said...

In any event, I've posted what I have mainly as feedback - basically that I'll use the facility if it allows me to make my recs anonymous recs, but won't if it doesn't. The second part of that is something I wasn't entirely certain about when this discussion started, and the discussion has helped me clarify my thoughts about it - thanks all! And that means that the discussion has achieved all I want it to - which includes giving my feedback, clarifying my reasons for it and including those reasons in the feedback in case it helps decide between alternative ways of taking it into account, but not convincing everyone that my reasons are good ones - I'm quite certain that's a hopeless task!

So I'll bow out of it now.

Gengulphus

[Clariman]

I agree that recs/thanks may have different meanings to different people and there is a possibility that the giver of the recs/thanks may interpret it differently to the recipient.

I think the solution to this is to not take them too seriously