Thanking posters on Laughing Lemons

[vrdiver]

Originally, not allowing thanks on LL ensured the "best of" board didn't get overwhelmed with non-financial posts, but now things have settled down, is it time to rethink this?

I used to enjoy rummaging around on TMF for older, but well-received humour. Would be nice to have the same option on TLF.

VRD

[jfgw]

I would like to see a rec system. I don't know how easy it would be to have one separate from the main one but that would avoid the problem of posts on LL overwhelming the "best posts" list.

Apart from providing feedback and allowing one to skim through and read the best from the past, it would avoid the need for otherwise unnecessary replies such as this,



Julian F. G. W.

[redsturgeon]

I would like to see a rec system. I don't know how easy it would be to have one separate from the main one but that would avoid the problem of posts on LL overwhelming the "best posts" list.

Apart from providing feedback and allowing one to skim through and read the best from the past, it would avoid the need for otherwise unnecessary replies such as this,



Julian F. G. W.

I think that a reply such as has some merit.

If it was adopted as a standard method of response to a joke you really thought funny then it would be easy for those who wish to scan down the posts and look to the number of replies as a marker for how many people thought the joke was funny enough to take the time to reply.

For instance, out of the 26 posts on the first page of Laughing Lemons, only seven have any replies so immediately you can see that around 75% of jokes were not considered funny enough to illicit a response.

The other advantage is that the numbers of can signify just how funny you thought the joke was.

Also replying to a joke in this way automatically bumps it to the top of the board.

Of course replies might be other than just a but if it became customary then it could work.

John

[csearle]

I too would like to see a recs on LL. The absence has IMO negatively impacted LL as compared with JC at the other place.

Recs should, if possible, not be used for the Best Posts rating but would definitely need to be visible on the LL forum (along with REPLIES and VIEWS) in order that the rec'ed posts can be seen in one place.

Because of something that I saw once I have a suspicion that Clariman (and possibly stooz) see LL differently and do indeed have the ability to rec posts. It may be because of this that the repeated requests for implementation (several by me) have not produced any responses in the past.

Regards,
Chris

..

..

[redsturgeon]

I too would like to see a recs on LL. The absence has IMO negatively impacted LL as compared with JC at the other place.

Recs should, if possible, not be used for the Best Posts rating but would definitely need to be visible on the LL forum (along with REPLIES and VIEWS) in order that the rec'ed posts can be seen in one place.

Because of something that I saw once I have a suspicion that Clariman (and possibly stooz) see LL differently and do indeed have the ability to rec posts. It may be because of this that the repeated requests for implementation (several by me) have not produced any responses in the past.

Regards,
Chris

..

..

Though your suspicion is correct I do not think that has any bearing on stooz and Clariman's view on disabling the "thanks" button on LL. Personally I am neutral on the subject but I understand their reasons. ie. this is not primarily a "joke" site.

I do not think that a bespoke "rec" system that was particular to the LL board would be easy to create and I wonder what value it would have.

If you wish to show appreciation for a joke then surely a reply to say as much is more significant that clicking the "thanks" button. If people wish to use the number of "thanks" as a sorting mechanism then I've already suggested how the number of replies could be used as a surrogate.

John

[jfgw]

If you wish to show appreciation for a joke then surely a reply to say as much is more significant that clicking the "thanks" button. If people wish to use the number of "thanks" as a sorting mechanism then I've already suggested how the number of replies could be used as a surrogate.

I see that as being far from ideal as some jokes elicit a chain of related jokes or comments. This thread, for example, has eight replies; viewtopic.php?f=64&t=10302 . While one reply is a compliment, it does not relate to the OP. Also, I for one would not want to have to wade through posts that are purely complimentary in order to find the ones with follow-on jokes.

JC had an unwritten rule (that was not always followed) that, in order to reduce such off-topic clutter, any otherwise non-humourous reply should include an obligatory joke.

Julian F. G. W.

[csearle]

Though your suspicion is correct I do not think that has any bearing on stooz and Clariman's view on disabling the "thanks" button on LL. Personally I am neutral on the subject but I understand their reasons. ie. this is not primarily a "joke" site.

No I don't either, I just wondered if they have never responded simply because they can rec them and so don't know what the fuss is about.

Not a "joke" site, no, but it was all part of the unique character of the other place that has not been able to become the character of this one because of the lack of recs and partly because of the IMO OTT forum rules that were introduced because of a single nefarious post rather than simply just deleting it*.

I do not think that a bespoke "rec" system that was particular to the LL board would be easy to create and I wonder what value it would have.

Well if it is too much of an effort then I agree. I do see value in it though, or rather, I see that the value of LL is less than the value of JC.

If you wish to show appreciation for a joke then surely a reply to say as much is more significant that clicking the "thanks" button. If people wish to use the number of "thanks" as a sorting mechanism then I've already suggested how the number of replies could be used as a surrogate.

Yes, I agree that would be a way of doing it, but a couple of problems are that a) it would require the readership to follow a convention of which they know nothing, and b) some jokes attract many replies that are not endorsements of the original joke, so the system is flawed from the outset. Better to just have recs (if easy to implement).

Regards,
Chris

*Most jokes have a butt of some sort another so blanket forbidding disparaging, i.e. critical or disrespectful, kills off a large proportion. IMO it would be better to just point out that particularly nasty jokes will be deleted at the discretion of the moderators.

[stooz]

Hi, having thought about it, I think there is a quick way I can provide a best of board option that just reports from the joke section.
Leave it with me..