Title: General/shared ignore list Post by: EcuaMobi on March 22, 2015, 09:42:20 PM I got this idea from DannyHamilton's thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=973843.0). While I don't agree how it's being handled by him I do like the general idea.
This wouldn't be a forum feature, just the team work of several active trusted members here. A staff member could organize.
I already posted this idea on DannyHamilton's self-moderated thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=973843.0) but it was just deleted by him without any comment (most probably because I am on his ignore list simply for joining a signature campaign). I'd like to know other people's opinion. Quote from: EcuaMobi I agree signature campaigns have greatly reduced the quality of posts recently and I like the idea of a general ignore list that most users can use. However these reasons are very poor and not at all sufficient for someone to be added into this list:
There are people that publish quality posts and who have joined a signature campaign. I understand that analyzing case by case would require a lot of effort and time, and it would be annoying to go through all those ads so I understand your method completely. However this first list that includes all the users with a signature campaign is not ready to be shared at all, especially not by a trusted member who will definitely influence other users. In a few months, after completing this step continually, your list will be high quality but not just yet: Then, if I happen to see that some other user quotes something an ignored user says AND the quote indicates that the ignored user is creating thoughtful and useful posts, I click "unignore" I'd very much like the idea of creating a shared quality 'ignore list'. However it should be made by several trusted members after properly analyzing posts/accounts case by case. Then the users who are in at least half of those lists would be added to a shared/general one. Signature campaigns could even reject users who are in this resulting list. This would definitely improve the overall quality of posts here. If you are welcoming ideas please move this thread to Meta, otherwise I'd appreciate if at least you read my post completely before deleting it. Title: Re: General/shared ignore list Post by: SaltySpitoon on March 22, 2015, 10:14:05 PM Staff members don't generally ignore members, because then they are in effect turning a blind eye to what is probably disruptive behavior that they want to watch for. Why not just have everyone post their ignore lists, see who is most commonly on them, and edit that into the OP? Then there isn't need for any trusted members, its just consensus. As you said, theres no adding anyone by default, so people can just pick and choose who they wish to ignore based on common "suggestions". I can't imagine this will be a overly popular idea, so theres not really any danger in sock puppets trying to get someone ignored. Not to mention people are free not to add the entire list.
my only concern is, it will just end up being a popularity contest which generally isn't a good idea. That said, it doesn't really matter if it is or isn't because no one is being forced into using the suggested ignore list. That and people tend to be lazy, so its likely that the only ones interested in actively seeking to increase their ignore list will be the ones with enough initiative to see if they agree with the list or not. On that note, while I can't see the idea being particularly harmful, I can't see it being particularly useful either. Title: Re: General/shared ignore list Post by: EcuaMobi on March 22, 2015, 11:09:32 PM I wouldn't suggest staff members to create these lists, just manage the team. Because staff doesn't ignore users it would be more appropriate for regular (but trusted) members to do so.
A general consensus could work but I see some problems like:
Title: Re: General/shared ignore list Post by: redsn0w on March 23, 2015, 07:00:15 AM If I can say my opinion: I don't support the idea, the ignore list is a personal thing. The forum doesn't need this new "feature" the problem is more and more complicated than it seems.
|