Now I have Ignore, Unable to Push the Button

I do ignore some, in the sense that I don't respond to them, and sometimes I collapse their comments, but that's the extent of it.

0 Replies

Is there any kind of connection between one's "reputation" and being ignored? Given that ignored members' posts are hidden from view, there's no way to give them a "thumbs down" unless you open up their posts -- which kinda' defeats the whole purpose of the "ignore" function. Without any connection between "reputation" and being on someone's "ignore" list, it's possible that the most "ignored" members will have completely unblemished "reputations" because no one will be voting on their posts. We might then have the ironic situation where being annoying and "ignored" is actually preferable, from the standpoint of "reputation," to being intelligent but controversial.

4 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Joe - at least some posters here have been voting themselves (using different names) up >
http://able2know.org/topic/120955-1
> so "reputation" as a criterion is compromised for that reason as well. The only one I have on ignore so far is the notorious ramafuchs... this site has improved immeasurably since I did that......

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

I doubt "ignore" will be universal. That means that if someone is obnoxious, plenty of people will be voting down their posts/ topics. (I don't have anyone on "ignore" yet.)

Additionally, right now a lot of people already know what to expect from posters and so can make pretty quick judgments, but in the future there will probably often be a slow build-up rather than an abrupt "ignore." That is, a given member will be annoyed by a troll (and vote accordingly) say 20 times (arbitrary example) before putting the troll on "ignore" (whether it's the troll that's new or the member that's new).

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

Is there any kind of connection between one's "reputation" and being ignored? Given that ignored members' posts are hidden from view, there's no way to give them a "thumbs down" unless you open up their posts -- which kinda' defeats the whole purpose of the "ignore" function. Without any connection between "reputation" and being on someone's "ignore" list, it's possible that the most "ignored" members will have completely unblemished "reputations" because no one will be voting on their posts. We might then have the ironic situation where being annoying and "ignored" is actually preferable, from the standpoint of "reputation," to being intelligent but controversial.

i think enough people are voting down, rather than ignoring... and the reputation figures will reflect it.

0 Replies

Or, in other words, the "ignore" feature only works if not everybody uses it. Oh well, if that's how things are supposed to work around here, that's fine -- it's not really a big deal to me. But shouldn't there be a connection between "reputation" and being "ignored?" Seems to me that there's a direct relationship. Putting someone on one's "ignore" list is a pretty definitive "thumbs down," so why shouldn't that be reflected in the ignored member's "reputation?"

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

I was wondering about that too, the other day. Like, how many thumbs down should one "ignore" count as? No idea if they already process that in the reputation, they might well.

Not that I'd guess that anyone uses the "reputation" number for much ... have you ever used it? I checked for a few out of pure curiosity, but it's pretty obscure... I think seeing the ratings for someone's posts in a thread will usually be enough for most people to get their impression from. (Purely speculating, of course.)

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

I have the impression that reputations are less important for the community-type stuff than for the knowledge-sharing stuff. If you're asking a question about cane toads, and iheartcanetoads and canetoadexpert both answer, you can check their reps to see who is more likely to be giving an accurate answer.

If so, that will probably be a scaling thing too though, as in more important in the future, as the site gets bigger (and has more busy little corners) than now.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Not yet, but that's definitely something we wanted to explore. But in this kind of system, you need to err on the side of the positive and you need to have data to build the algorithms or you'll guess pretty wildly. I don't know if that data will be useful for that purpose yet, and even if it is I don't know how much it should count for yet (it can't just count for 1 post vote right?) and lastly I want to see the data before I also build in anti-abuse measures (e.g. create a bunch of accounts to ignore one person to influence reputation) for it.

0 Replies

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

Joe - at least some posters here have been voting themselves (using different names) up >
http://able2know.org/topic/120955-1
> so "reputation" as a criterion is compromised for that reason as well. The only one I have on ignore so far is the notorious ramafuchs... this site has improved immeasurably since I did that......

You are just plain making stuff up, the system discards votes behind the scenes, so people creating extra accounts for it are wasting their time, they'll see the vote but it won't be aggregated for others.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert - you don't quite understand the case: the extra accounts were created over several years. The system may do that NOW (congrats, btw) but it didn't do so BEFORE.

1 Reply

@High Seas,

I understand it well. It doesn't matter whether there are duplicate accounts from before or now, the filtering is not on accounts but on the voting. So it doesn't matter if the account was made a few years ago or today, and the duplicate vote casting is addressed just the same.

Again, you are just making stuff up.

1 Reply

Damn, you have to admit though it would be pretty sad if people were doing that lol.

They should add some extra options like “take poster hostage and hold for ransom” or “ruin reputation with a high profile sex scandal”... or if you’re really mad at them you could always hit the “tactical nukes away, civilian casualties A-OK!” button and watch the fireworks!!

(sorry, I'm new and just trying to bring some humor)

2 Replies

@Razrez,

welcome aboard, Razrez... Smile

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Yes, the filtering is on the voting, but in this specific case that doesn't apply. Specific (= 1 poster).

As to multiple accounts, is it correct you block more than 1 account per IP? How do you handle anonymizer sites or just people posting from offices or libraries? Thank you.

2 Replies

@Region Philbis,

Hey, thanks Cool

0 Replies

@High Seas,

Quote:

As to multiple accounts, is it correct you block more than 1 account per IP? How do you handle anonymizer sites or just people posting from offices or libraries? Thank you.

Wouldn't explaining the mechanism here kind of defeat the whole purpose of it?

0 Replies

@High Seas,

Quote:

As to multiple accounts, is it correct you block more than 1 account per IP? How do you handle anonymizer sites or just people posting from offices or libraries? Thank you.

Now, you are just fishing. I'm not going to disclose particular methods (and they are changing pretty fast right now) but the ways to do that is to look for the particular pattern of votes, weighed votes based on history etc.

So while it will always be technically possible to add an extra vote, it can easily be made as hard as having the user require new IPs and new accounts with history and after all that you can still require that they vote within a certain range of patterns so that they would need to cast a bunch of random votes to be able to have their malicious ones count.

And then we can just throttle it all, so that after they do all that work, they get a limited number of benefits.

So yeah, if someone wants to carefully maintain different accounts on different IPs, and spend a lot of time making their user activity look real on their sock puppet accounts they might get an extra vote or two in. But then again they might not. Either way, there are a lot more normal users than nuts like that, and they'll react to counter anomalies when they get through.

If someone manages to sock puppet up or down a topic, users will probably react. We'll also be watching, and adding ways to filter out those votes.

In any case, you are still just making stuff up. Laughing

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Read what YOU write - I'm not fishing, first (Craven noted the IP restriction at one of the original instructions posts) and I've no reason to make anything up.

YOU wrote THIS:

Quote:

So yeah, if someone wants to carefully maintain different accounts on different IPs, and spend a lot of time making their user activity look real on their sock puppet accounts they might get an extra vote or two in. But then again they might not. Either way, there are a lot more normal users than nuts like that, and they'll react to counter anomalies when they get through.

If someone manages to sock puppet up or down a topic, users will probably react. We'll also be watching, and adding ways to filter out those votes.

And I know the poster in question (you don't) and yes, all you said applies.

Nor do I care, particularly, if you believe you are god and never make a mistake - but if that's not the case, read what you and Craven both wrote and see for yourself.

1 Reply

@High Seas,

You still aren't making any sense, so I'll stop wasting my time. I'm quite aware of my ability to make mistakes, but that still doesn't make anything you said make sense.

0 Replies

Now I have Ignore, Unable to Push the Button

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know