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

[mrbrightside]

The newly launched 'Recs' don't appear to be enabled for 'Laughing Lemons'.

Is this intentional ? Or a subtle joke ?

[csearle]

The newly launched 'Recs' don't appear to be enabled for 'Laughing Lemons'.

Is this intentional ? Or a subtle joke ?

The LL posts are not wanted on the Best of lists.

It is a shame though because I used to use the recs there extensively to filter out the rubbish jokes. Now I have to (ha ha) read them all.

It would be good if the jokes could be recced and show up next to Replies and Views columns when looking at the LL forum, but without being accounted for elsewhere.

Chris

[mrbrightside]

The newly launched 'Recs' don't appear to be enabled for 'Laughing Lemons'.

Is this intentional ? Or a subtle joke ?

The LL posts are not wanted on the Best of lists.

It is a shame though because I used to use the recs there extensively to filter out the rubbish jokes. Now I have to (ha ha) read them all.

It would be good if the jokes could be recced and show up next to Replies and Views columns when looking at the LL forum, but without being accounted for elsewhere.

Chris

Thanks Chris. Have a Rec. I've been dying to dole one out.

[mrbrightside]

It was a short-lived popup but did I really just see

'You have just Thanked for the post' ?

If so, I hope the pedantic grammar police grab a screenshot and vehemently complain accordingly.

[csearle]

Thanks Chris. Have a Rec. I've been dying to dole one out.

Oh thanks, glad I was the Guinea pig!

The pop-up needs to be short so that people with slow internet connections don't waste too much time. (This follows from a conversation I read somewhere hereabouts.)

Chris

[Lootman]

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...

As I understand it, there is consideration to the idea that you can switch off seeing recs, and therefore not see who made them, or even not see that they have been made. But there is not consideration of the idea of an option whereby all your recs can be anonymous, or that you can choose an anonymous rec on a case-by-case basis.

For those for whom this is a concern (and it isn't to me so far because I haven't recced anyone yet) I think the latter is the more important feature.

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.

Well, if somebody was so determined to figure out who you are that they read the more than 20,000 posts you made on TMF, then I'd suggest that they deserve to know your identity. And you helped them somewhat by including your first name and home town on your TMF profile.

That said, if I wanted to mask my true identity, I might just deliberately provide a lot of disinformation to muddy the waters.

As an aside I do wonder what happens when Fools meet in real life (I have never knowingly met a Fool). Do they keep using their Fool name and not ask too many prying questions?

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.

I had more than one account at TMF, for reasons I can talk about if anyone is interested. I only have one here. (It was against official TMF policy, not that they had any way of knowing, let alone enforcing it. I haven't seen it's against any rules here so you could do that AFAIK).

Should that be a route you want to take, and I have no moral position on it, then the key to not mixing them up is separate machines with two concurrent TLF sessions. You can even put your two TLF names on the top of each, to minimise the risk of you out'ting yourself accidentally.

Not saying it's worth the effort, just saying it's possibly to do it effectively.

[stooz]

Hi lootman, see my previous post. I do hope to add anonymous reccing.

The original codebase is by a respected Russian developer, so I accept some of his translations are less than ideal. I'm happy to update them when pointed out.

[melonfool]

Hi lootman, see my previous post. I do hope to add anonymous reccing.

The original codebase is by a respected Russian developer, so I accept some of his translations are less than ideal. I'm happy to update them when pointed out.

The accounting software I use at home was written by a French guy, apparently my invoices are marked 'payed'. But it's free, so I can live with it

Mel

[DiamondEcho]

...worth exploring why people have issues with the more public approach...

You could consider the reverse, why does it matter who liked your post? Does any value of knowing exceed a Lemon's 'right' to rec anonymously?
IMO/E it matters less on neutral topics, which is probably most of them. But issues can arise when the topic is more personal, politics, religion, 'how big your house is'. On TMF the original property board had to be split into two, one for the market in general, and the other for investors. That happened because the tribalism almost totally overwhelmed the original single board. And that was with anonymous recs! So here we are considering whether returning to such tribalism might be an problem, but going further and wondering if identifying the various tribe members is desirable. I don't think id'ing who recs what has any value, and it risks encouraging tribalism.

And whilst on the subject, what is the value of in my 'capsule profile' on the right of my posts stating how often I've rec'd posts? Is rec'ing posts supposedly virtuous? I'm having difficulty understanding this idea.

[DiamondEcho]

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.

That's right, and as mentioned that was precisely what happened on the old TMF Property board. The subject pretty much went out the window and the board was ongoing tribalism and a slanging match. The most eloquent on either side were rewarded for polemics, which only encouraged them. It must have created a lot of work for the Mods. And as also mentioned, identifying the various 'tribe members' would just encourage such behaviour even more. The more badges, gongs and 'Best of' rankings the worse it can be.

IME

[DiamondEcho]

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

Here we go, motoring down the highway towards creating tribalism, posting for recs [rec-slutting]...

[idpickering]

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

Here we go, motoring down the highway towards creating tribalism, posting for recs [rec-slutting]...

You evidently have a problem with my post. As to why, I've no idea. Each to their own.

[stooz]

And whilst on the subject, what is the value of in my 'capsule profile' on the right of my posts stating how often I've rec'd posts? Is rec'ing posts supposedly virtuous? I'm having difficulty understanding this idea.

The concept gives the reader information on how good this persons posts typically are. a sort of trust system that the message you are reading has come form a person of good standing in the community for helpful posts.

the other how many you have given shows your compassion and enjoyment of the others in the community.

[kiloran]

the other how many you have given shows your compassion and enjoyment of the others in the community.

Hah! It shows:
Stooz been thanked 66 times
Stooz has thanked.... 0. Zilch. Nada

You uncompassionate £$%!
Maybe we are all unworthy.

Just kiddin'

--kiloran

[DiamondEcho]

You evidently have a problem with my post. As to why, I've no idea. Each to their own.

No, I haven't a problem with either you or your post! Oh, and I've 'no idea why' you think that I'm just trying to give 'IME', rather than kick anything off
What I was trying to suggest that the path you outline IME can be a route to tribalism and posting for reward simply to maintain a 'rank'; so it can create a point-scoring side-show and a distraction. That path might be of benefit on some boards, maybe inherently constructive/supportive ones where is no need to 'defend' one's position, but on others it can lead to behaviours that I don't think should be encouraged. If you didn't frequent the TMF property boards [for example] perhaps you didn't witness first-hand what I mean.

The concept gives the reader information on how good this persons posts typically are. a sort of trust system that the message you are reading has come form a person of good standing in the community for helpful posts. the other how many you have given shows your compassion and enjoyment of the others in the community.

I believe I can see what you're aiming for, it's just I'm not sure if it will help achieve it. As others have observed there are several reasons to up and/or down-vote a post, inherent quality or lack of being just one of them. IME a rec/rewards-system comes with a cost attached to it, which might not become apparent until it starts changing behaviour for the worse. Recs given is a compassion-indicator? I've never heard of such a thing 'in all my years on the web'. What next a 'Niceness' league table?

Anyway, thanks both, as usual it's interesting to hear others' perspectives.

[idpickering]

Thanks for your reply DE. No harm done. I never went on that board. Let's move on.

Ian.

[NomoneyNohoney]

Fantastic.

Just one observation. What has laughing lemons done to be shunned by this improvement? Afaics it affects every other board, even lootp.

Gryff

Totally agree - Laughing Lemons needs recs for feedback. Why the exclusion pls?

[stooz]

Just temporary - I didn't want it clouding the best of table - it's going to get it's own.

[XFool]

The concept gives the reader information on how good this persons posts typically are. a sort of trust system that the message you are reading has come form a person of good standing in the community for helpful posts.

OK. This can work. But there are some circumstances in which I crave a down vote!

the other how many you have given shows your compassion and enjoyment of the others in the community.

Again, this is one person's opinion. Other's might have other reasons.

Compassion?

[PinkDalek]

Compassion?

Merely a random example but Comfort Cafe could readily be used to show compassion for a poster's situation, without wishing to reply on the thread. In that situation, I'd possibly prefer my (not) Rec to be anonymous but, if not, so be it.