[Feature added] Color besides usernames for Ignored by % of established members.

[BadBear]

I don't really see a need for an arbitrary autoban after x, if someone is going to be banned it should be for something specific they did, not just that they're unpopular because of their views or opinions. I find contrary opinions/views bring a lot of value to the forum because it brings about good discussion which informs everyone reading.

[LoupGaroux]

Hey! I'm feeling a little necro-postical this morning as I have just seen my Ignore stats for the very first time, and was brought back here to re-live fond memories by clicking on them.

So- here's my legit thought... if we are going to honor Ignores by giving them this whole Ignore Color Shading Protocol Mechanism (ICSPM) shouldn't we also have a parallel but far more positive version in having an Optional Un-ignore Color Shading Protocol Mechanism (OUCSPM)? That way members of our community could select those authors that they find worthwhile to follow and in effect "subscribe" by noting their posts as being the type that they would make an effort to read. Rather than just making a big noise about who is getting ignored, which does nothing but bring attention to the malcontents and the ninnyhammers who think they should control free expression of ideas, we offer a positive shading option for those who are well respected and followed.

With an OUCSPM in place we would highlight those members of our community whose prose is memorable, and worthy of following, in spite of the negative reactions of the intellectually impaired who want to stick their fingers in their ears and la-la-la as the day is long so they don't hear anything that conflicts with their narrow world view.

What say you world?

[Crypt_Current]

I don't really see a need for an arbitrary autoban after x, if someone is going to be banned it should be for something specific they did, not just that they're unpopular because of their views or opinions. I find contrary opinions/views bring a lot of value to the forum because it brings about good discussion which informs everyone reading.

+1

I don't see the point in ignoring anyone.  I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I consciously knew I was ignorant in any capacity.

[bulanula]

I don't really see a need for an arbitrary autoban after x, if someone is going to be banned it should be for something specific they did, not just that they're unpopular because of their views or opinions. I find contrary opinions/views bring a lot of value to the forum because it brings about good discussion which informs everyone reading.

+1

I don't see the point in ignoring anyone.  I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I consciously knew I was ignorant in any capacity.

Same here. I don't have anyone on ignore.

[Crypt_Current]

Hey! I'm feeling a little necro-postical this morning as I have just seen my Ignore stats for the very first time, and was brought back here to re-live fond memories by clicking on them.

So- here's my legit thought... if we are going to honor Ignores by giving them this whole Ignore Color Shading Protocol Mechanism (ICSPM) shouldn't we also have a parallel but far more positive version in having an Optional Un-ignore Color Shading Protocol Mechanism (OUCSPM)? That way members of our community could select those authors that they find worthwhile to follow and in effect "subscribe" by noting their posts as being the type that they would make an effort to read. Rather than just making a big noise about who is getting ignored, which does nothing but bring attention to the malcontents and the ninnyhammers who think they should control free expression of ideas, we offer a positive shading option for those who are well respected and followed.

With an OUCSPM in place we would highlight those members of our community whose prose is memorable, and worthy of following, in spite of the negative reactions of the intellectually impaired who want to stick their fingers in their ears and la-la-la as the day is long so they don't hear anything that conflicts with their narrow world view.

What say you world?

I say the only thing I might like to be ignorant of is the number of ignores I currently have 

[BadBear]

Only person I ignore is that gem dude.

[rjk]

Only person I ignore is that gem dude.

It's easier to just ignore the entire auctions board, but I guess you can't really be doing that since you are a global mod lol.

[Maged]

Only person I ignore is that gem dude.

It's easier to just ignore the entire auctions board, but I guess you can't really be doing that since you are a global mod lol.

Yeah, it sucks. I used to be able to get away with ignoring the non-English boards, but ever since that Klamm spammer came around I had to disable that

[Vandroiy]

This is the exact same thing as the reputation system back when I was doing the difficulty equilibrium discussion.

Actually, it's worse, because there are no positive votes and people who are calm tend to not use it as much, since there's really little point in not seeing certain posts. Plus, being more active automatically makes you "darker" due to noise.

Obviously I'm against this for personal reasons, but it is also quite clear that the behavior of this feature isn't good. I'd prefer a plain web of trust, where people can't just mark an unlimited amount of others as bad anonymously. People who understand ignore the new system, newbies are confused, and we're back where we started.

Really, if someone wants to mark me for the flamewar, just do it by hand. If you see hordes trolling, just temp-ban them until they stop. Those are methods that actually work, this one is a designed exploit.

[Kluge]

This is the exact same thing as the reputation system back when I was doing the difficulty equilibrium discussion.

Actually, it's worse, because there are no positive votes and people who are calm tend to not use it as much, since there's really little point in not seeing certain posts. Plus, being more active automatically makes you "darker" due to noise.

Obviously I'm against this for personal reasons, but it is also quite clear that the behavior of this feature isn't good. I'd prefer a plain web of trust, where people can't just mark an unlimited amount of others as bad anonymously. People who understand ignore the new system, newbies are confused, and we're back where we started.

Really, if someone wants to mark me for the flamewar, just do it by hand. If you see hordes trolling, just temp-ban them until they stop. Those are methods that actually work, this one is a designed exploit.

Can you point to any member of the community with an opaque "ignore" highlight who is not frequently abrasive?

[bulanula]

Personally I love the fact that 12 people have me on ignore. It proves that I'm doing something right and 12 people are jelly. If it was 1000 people then I'd start to rethink my position.

I have said it once and I will say it again :

People who use ignore are just that : ignorant !

[justusranvier]

Actually, it's worse, because there are no positive votes and people who are calm tend to not use it as much, since there's really little point in not seeing certain posts.

To my knowledge reputation systems for online forums are not a solved problem, due to the reasons you listed.

I wonder if they would work better if they didn't rely on manual positive votes. There are probably a lot of other metrics that could be used, like how frequently people with a high reputation reply to a user's posts, how often people click on thread they started, how much time they spend looking at the user's posts, etc.

[payb.tc]

Actually, it's worse, because there are no positive votes and people who are calm tend to not use it as much, since there's really little point in not seeing certain posts.

To my knowledge reputation systems for online forums are not a solved problem, due to the reasons you listed.

I wonder if they would work better if they didn't rely on manual positive votes. There are probably a lot of other metrics that could be used, like how frequently people with a high reputation reply to a user's posts, how often people click on thread they started, how much time they spend looking at the user's posts, etc.

ignore score could also degrade with time, so that an 'ignore' request effected yesterday has more weight than one done a few months ago.

[2112]

People with an ignore color now see the ignore range they fall in instead of the ":-(". Also, people with 0.35% see a range in the same spot as a warning.

You have seem to put this feature in the template specific to Mozilla browser. Any chance on getting it moved to a general browser template? I managed to spoof the Opera to pretend to be Mozilla to see my ignore count. If it isn't much work, could you move it to the general template?

Thanks in advance.

[theymos]

You have seem to put this feature in the template specific to Mozilla browser.

There is no such thing, and I don't see any user-agent checks in this area of the code. Do you see other ignore colors?

[Raoul Duke]

You have seem to put this feature in the template specific to Mozilla browser.

There is no such thing, and I don't see any user-agent checks in this area of the code. Do you see other ignore colors?

I see it on firefox, opera, chrome, maxxton and safari.
What other browsers is he using? lol

[2112]

You have seem to put this feature in the template specific to Mozilla browser.

There is no such thing, and I don't see any user-agent checks in this area of the code. Do you see other ignore colors?

I've always seen everyone's else ignore info, but not my own. For me it was always empty (visually and HTML-wise, I searched HTML for something like blue on blue, etc.) Strangely it works now both in IE9/64 and Opera12/Win64 with default Spoof UserAgent ID (1 instead of 4).

I should've checked on more than one computer before bothering you. This had to be something related to my machine. Maybe the 1st full reboot in a month cured it?

Thanks in retreat and sorry for bothering you.

[theymos]

I've compiled some updated stats.

There are 1414 very-established users.

You need x ignores for...
Warn: 5
Light: 8
Medium: 11
Dark: 15

These users have some color:
zyk 90
bulanula 58
smoothie 43
Maria 39
Rarity 38
bitlane 38
cunicula 34
1nject0r 33
Jon 29
Matthew N. Wright 27
iCEBREAKER 25
PinkiePie 23
Micon 23
mystery2048 22
Faisal7 20
ElectricMucus 20
LoupGaroux 19
psy 18
SuperDuperJenkins 17
reeses 16
Mosrite 16
gene 15
Phinnaeus Gage 15
Liberty Payout 14
RandyFolds 14
The_Duke 14
mem 13
Vladimir 13
Yolocoin 12
Chaang Noi (Goat)
piotr_n 12
hoo 11
plastic.elastic 11
MPOE-PR 10
CoinHunter 10
myself 10
David_Benz 9
hazek 9
JeffK 9
bitcoinBull 8
Atlas 8
i_rape_bitcoins 8
Surawit 8
bitcoiners 8

This list seems pretty reasonable to me. I'm thinking that maybe the threshold for dark highlighting should be moved up, though.

[repentance]

I've compiled some updated stats.

There are 1414 very-established users.

You need x ignores for...
Warn: 5
Light: 8
Medium: 11
Dark: 15

This list seems pretty reasonable to me. I'm thinking that maybe the threshold for dark highlighting should be moved up, though.

I think all of the thresholds need to be bigger.  It's only 3 ignores from light to medium and another 4 to dark.  I think there should be at least 5 ignores between each group and maybe even 10.

[Transisto]

I've compiled some updated stats.

There are 1414 very-established users.

You need x ignores for...
Warn: 5
Light: 8
Medium: 11
Dark: 15

This list seems pretty reasonable to me. I'm thinking that maybe the threshold for dark highlighting should be moved up, though.

I think all of the thresholds need to be bigger.  It's only 3 ignores from light to medium and another 4 to dark.  I think there should be at least 5 ignores between each group and maybe even 10.

I agree with having larger range, and I'd like to have a first tone start lower (very dim).

Larger range because once someone is flagged as ignored, the exposure to more ignore increase exponentially thus the ranges between color should increase.

What is "Warn" is that visible ?
Depending on the limited time we have reading the forum, having a very light warning for ~5 ignores would allow to skip read some posts.

There are a few of dark users with large quantity of posts that I suspect aren't ignored because of their poor posts but more because of some past controversial posts.

A different threshold of (-1) per 1000 post could be used for established members.    The reason behind this is that users get ignored for many different reasons and the number of post increase the likelihood of conflict and disagreement. Not even mentioning the risk of rogue ignores only to affect someone else reputation (as a competitive advantage).