Poster ratings - has the time come?

[SoonerDave]

I offer this only in the "suggestion" category, and realize up-front it is subject to brickbats and/or applause...so I'll just toss it out there for discussion.

As much as I've generally disliked it on other boards, I've come to the point that I think it is time to enable some kind of individual poster rating or reputation system here.

I hate to make this suggestion, because I think the need arises from a very small fraction of overall posters here, but I think the need is legitimate.

Too many discussions, good, thoughtful discussions, are getting derailed if not hijacked into one that espouses a particular point of view, demanding alignment with that point of view, and then deriding those who decline. These threads become monopolized by a discussion that devolves into mutual exchanges of debate so departed from the topic that the original discussion is hardly recognizable.

For any one thread, it isn't such a big deal. But when it starts to happen in a pattern, people start to notice. Folks who would like to participate on a thread just give up. Once. But then it happens, with the same folks, on another thread, and they give up on that one. And, unchecked, it gives the perception that a handful of posters have the latitude to steer an exchange as they see fit without recrimination. And I respectfully think this is wrong.

Poster reputation is a dangerous thing - its an imperfect measure of a user's contribution, but its at least a starting point in assessing who wants to engage in lively discussion or even intense, constructive debate, and who is simply derailing a thread for their own purposes. I don't like suggesting it, but I think the time has come for it at least to be considered. Individuals amassing a substantially negative reputation can at least spark a more general review of contributions that, individually, wouldn't necessarily be an issue, but collectively stifle the spirit of thought and discussion that OKCTalk tries to encourage.

Respectfully submitted for discussion.

-SoonerDave

[kevinpate]

I get where you are coming from, but you have it already in one sense. If there is a poster one truly finds lacking in credibility, as contrasted to compeltely disagreeing with their position, one can place an individual on ignore. If that is done, one only sees the other poster if someone quotes that person's posts.

Myself, I don't mess with it much at all. Yet there have been a few folks when I see the name I tend to skim on past. Often it is because a poster is, in my opinion, rather fond of potshots, drama, and being disagreeable rather than merely disagreeing with someone's point.

I imagine there are some folks who do the same with me, at least from time to time. I don't think I get wound up often, but yeah, I know myself enough to know it is certainly possible for it to happen.

Rating systems I have seen, not many, seem to inspire group think at times, and oh how boring that would be.

[CuatrodeMayo]

There are several well-known trolling types who consistently derail threads.

They simply need to be identified as such and ignored/not fed.

[kevinpate]

True, though at times one person's troll is someone else's comic relief and to still another it a designated person to pray for.

[gjl]

It's the internet. Get used to it or just ignore the ones that bother you.

[SoonerDave]

It's the internet. Get used to it or just ignore the ones that bother you.

gjl, to a great extent, I agree with you - just ignore the ones causing problems and move on. That's surely been my general practice here, although I've only ever truly "ignored" two users here over the years. The problem arises, however, when the "problem posters" do get responses from other well-intentioned folks, and derail otherwise good threads. When people ignore threads because they know a particular problem poster has come in and opted to squat, and co-opt many if not other posts as a means to (as an example) restate an extreme position on something merely for the sake of eliciting sharp responses.

I certainly won't pretend I've not gotten irritated at times here and posted something I might have later regretted, but I don't believe nor have I ever intended to engage in what I believe is the deliberate behavior by some to derail otherwise legitimate topics. If people get frustrated off of a good discussion thread as a result of all the chaff mixing in with the wheat, the quality of discussion falls, and the whole board suffers as a result, IMHO.

Hope that makes some degree of sense.

[OKCisOK4me]

True, though at times one person's troll is someone else's comic relief and to still another it a designated person to pray for.

I know, right? If I'm going to provide useful information then I'm going to provide it but just because I don't have information that pertains to a subject I open doesn't mean I can't be satirical about it. I'm going to post my thoughts openly. It's human nature. The usage of the word troll on the net was created by people that don't like to read other peoples thoughts regardless AND I agree that people can be awfully annoying like everything a poster by the name of Cashville says on skyscraperpage about OKC but it is what it is.

[Stew]

I already have an okctalk poster ranking system in my noggin. It works perfectly.

[zookeeper]

I hear you, SoonerDave. I often wonder about a system of rep points, up/down, some sort of formal accountability to the community. My only fear would be people voting down posters or posts they simply disagree with. While you and I, and probably most active posters here, know the difference between disagreeing and trolling or being disagreeable, I fear that many do not. I'd hate to see thoughtful posts voted "down" simply because the voter disagreed with the position expressed. But, on the whole, I'm with you as to figuring out some way to filter out obvious trolling.

[Teo9969]

This forum does a relatively good job of staying on topic, all things considered. The issue is that things are pretty interconnected and in the context of conversation good discussion starts in an unrelated thread but is not moved to a more appropriate thread. We should all probably take a little more individual responsibility to reply in cross reference posts…Here's a loose example:

[Assume for a moment that I'm Sid Burgess]

I already have an okctalk poster ranking system in my noggin. It works perfectly.

I do as well! I think a more effective way to deal with this issue is to discard the anonymity of our handles and use our real names. I've started a thread on using our real names instead of other handles.

[/Example]

-------

An even better example would be recent comments I made in the Stage Center Tower thread about the Arts. As the conversation was steering toward OKC's relationship to music, rather than replying in the thread which was about SCT, I should have just started a new thread (or found a relevant old thread) and copied the quote from SCT and replied there, and then just referenced it in hopes of guiding the discussion to a more appropriate thread.

[Pete]

I wanted to interject that moving posts from one thread to another is a giant pain in the arse.

First of all, I/we don't usually catch a series of tangents until it's pretty far down the line. Secondly, the off-topic posts are often intertwined with those about the main subject. Third, lots of posts talk about the relevant subject but also touch on things completely off-topic; move some and others suddenly lack context. And fourth, there isn't always a good/clear destination topic.

I do move some posts to other threads but there is only so much the moderators can do and as with most things here, it's preferred that our on-line community take responsibility. If you find one topic leading to another, start a new thread and post the link so the discussion can be continued in the proper place.


Don't mean any of this as a complaint, just explanation.

I'm actually a bit of a control freak (if you haven't already noticed ) but have learned from managing sites much bigger and more volatile than this one, that community moderation is much a more effective approach.

And even though I get frustrated like everyone else about tone, negativity, personal attacks and thread hijacks, I can tell you that all that is much, much better here than most high-traffic discussion forums.


Of course, we can always improve and feedback is greatly appreciated. But you can also be assured that lack of action is almost never due to lack of effort; just a well thought-out decision that we don't always explain in detail.

[zookeeper]

The struggle with this topic is the site is mostly focused about opinion discussions. So there is going to be vast differences of opinions. Take Garin's appeal for InfoWars stories. The guy gets likes sometimes...

My suggestion for OkCTalk is if it wants to become more of a repository for information and not opinions, it is going to have to embrace the wiki approach.

Pete is moving that direction but I honestly have less and less faith that it will get traction. Not because of anything that Pete is doing or won't do but because forums, and especially vBulletin are jus not designed for that use case. So they roll out tools to try to mitigate that fact but they never really get traction. They are poor implementations. vBullettin doesn't want to get into the Wiki business. It wants to be in the Forum business.

I suggest OKCTalk stand up a LocalWiki instance and leave OKCTalk as a forum and a forum alone. Use a wikiplatform and co-brand them and link them up in the header and let folks use the one they want to use. I'd use and contribute to a wiki site much more frequently, personally. I think forums aren't good repositories for information we want to keep as a makeshift community record.

So I don't think the issue is about moderation. Pete is right, we've got a great track record here. Why we are embarrassed at times is because we know we are putting out and assembling great data and we don't want people to have to read the trolls. Because currently we know they have to.

Have you read the discussion pages in Wikipedia? Dissension and disagreement is everywhere. We just mix it in with our useful information. And vBulletin and other forum platforms will always have that fundamental weakness. They architect it that way because it promotes more discussion and that's the business they are in. Not the record and information assembly business.

Good analogy, Sid. I've never really thought of it that way before. But I can see where it's really very close same thing.

[zookeeper]

I meant, ."..really close to being the same thing." Edit button is missing and I'm signed in. ?

[catch22]

I don't think there is a silver bullet to this issue.

I agree, the information gets lost in the discussions. But at the same time, I like how easy it is to discuss issues that are relevant.

Even if the wiki was completely separate from discussions, you'd still have data being introduced via discussion, and it would simply get lost also.

There is quite a large volume entering to keep up with, as there is also a ton of data to continually update (for example in development articles, there are construction status entries, which become old and outdated). I imagine the workload is pretty tough for Pete.

Perhaps a solution (but may just be a bandaid) would be to have a small team of trusted people who have access to edit articles, and try and keep data updated as it comes in. Wouldn't have moderator capabilities, or such. Just an idea, and I wouldn't mind helping out.

[Pete]

We will soon be soliciting wiki editors; that has been the plan all along, just trying to get all the templates set, most the articles outlined, etc.

We can easily segregate discussion from the articles; lots of different ways to do that.

But already, it's a million times easier to find what you are looking for and keep all the projects straight, which was the main intent.

Keep in mind we have over 30,000 (!) threads and there are still tons of important things without a topic, let alone article. Also, we've consolidated most the existing topics; I've found some subjects with 10 different threads, which demonstrates how hard it's been to find what you are looking to discuss / learn about.


The whole point is to engage the community and get those most passionate about certain areas and topics to maintain and enhance the wiki articles. Discussion is an important part of that and we are still toying with how the articles and discussion will fit together. And discussion is how we get a lot of great information.

We already have several thousand wiki articles on the site but I'm still playing with the format and some general administrative issues.

In the meantime, traffic is way up and we continue to add much needed structure and content.


Tweaking how components fit together will be much easier once we make more progress on the basic framework.


I'm just glad so many people care about the site. We have a pretty big and engaged group that is growing all the time and it's important to balance the administrative/organizational piece with the ownership that so many feel here.

[Mel]

I will read more and post less, and try real hard to not post after the night meds kick in. That should ease the problem a bit.

[Pete]

I will read more and post less, and try real hard to not post after the night meds kick in. That should ease the problem a bit.

Actually, the site doesn't work if people don't post and I've personally enjoyed a lot of what you've written, Mel.

I certainly don't want people to think that any changes are meant to limit discussion, because it's just the opposite.

[venture]

I have to agree with the overall sentiment that the user rating will probably get abused to some point. I like a post rating method to where an post by get grayed out or "hidden" by a bunch of down ranking votes, but even then you are playing with metrics to figure out the right number. There are obvious pools of people that stick together so you have to compensate for that. I think most of us are the same as Stew with lists in our head already of people that are just here for a distraction. The rail threads, OU threads, etc...provide plenty of clear evidence of the community managing itself and taking care of the problem.

As far as the wiki format over forum, it definitely is a balance. In some cases I think it works great. I'm so thankful Pete has shown support in what us weather nerds are providing here that we got our own section. I also think the Wiki format is great for it since the first post always has reusable/updated information. It is even better now that the first post stays on top regardless of what page in the comments you are on. The only downside is, I think this is true, the comments and updates from Wiki posts don't show up in the new post feed (for those that have it viewable). Other than that...the format is great. Granted new posters starting threads in the Wiki-formatted areas need to understand how they work so the initial article post is structured that way and not just a random comment that we see elsewhere.

[Mel]

Actually, the site doesn't work if people don't post and I've personally enjoyed a lot of what you've written, Mel.

I certainly don't want people to think that any changes are meant to limit discussion, because it's just the opposite.

I didn't mean to flop from the earlier contact. I do need to be careful posting under the influence. Not all the voices in my head are as funny as some.

[Dennis Heaton]

I don't know what all is involved in maintaining a site like "okctalk," but it is definitely one of thee best I have seen on the net in the last several years. I just wish folks would stay on the subject of the Thread. Aside from that, the Administrator(s) is/are doing a great job.

[OKVision4U]

The definition of Insanity, is doing something over & over and expecting a different result. Well, Oklahoma has been plagued with this for decades. It was only until we had MAPS, did we get passed our own "small minded / simple minded / strangling" selves and get something accomplished in a big way. New ideas, creativity, and hard work combined w/ passion in a single effort brought us (OKC & All Oklahoman's ) out of Steinbecks "Grapes of Wrath" and into a new day and a new future w/ great potential. This is relavant in our College Brain Drain to Texas. Our college graduates of May 2014, will have the option of staying in Oklahoma and starting their careers at home. They are not now forced to go to Dallas and find gainful employment. This is where we are today, because someone had a grand idea. It was laughed at, scoffed at, and even ridiculled, but that did not sway their passion for something better for their future. Even, if most did not see it then. ...NBA Team in OKC, it will never happen...(1992).

Sometimes, we may disagree with the one(s) that bring the new ideas to the forum, but let's not keep great ideas from being seen. If we choose this path, then we will be back in the same boat before, paddling upstream w/o the oar in an economic structure that benefits the East & West Coast. Remember, the Titans of Commerce ( Rockefeller / Morgan / Carnegie ) were economic industry giants before we became a state...thus the head start. So, we need to continue to be innovative, and not just trying to be another city.

You will find my passion is to be better than we were yesterday and our typical OKIE approach to most things ( "Let's Wait and See / We Cain't do that? / We can't afford it" ) isn't acceptable anymore. MAPS defied all 3 of those "OLD" positions. ...and brought us into relevance.

...btw, do you think the Kitchen 324 would be here today, if it wasn't for MAPS? ...that Butterfly Effect really has wings.

...if I didn't care, I wouldn't be here.

[Plutonic Panda]

There are several well-known trolling types who consistently derail threads.

They simply need to be identified as such and ignored/not fed.

I hope I'm not considered one. I know my liking of highways and big roads can probably get annoying to some, but I promise you I'm not trying to troll.

[Urbanized]

Pete, you do a great job with moderation. I've been involved on boards before that REALLY struggled to find the balance that you have achieved here, for the most part. Also, from experience I can tell you that a poorly-considered and poorly-administered reputation feature is fraught with peril.

[David]

Speaking of moderation, is the behavior in this thread really acceptable to the board? I'm a little floored that it's gone on for five pages with no administrative action.

[Martin]

i have to admit i haven't been looking at that thread... there are so many to keep up with that it makes life easier if questionable posts are reported. you can report a post by clicking the "!" symbol beneath it. -M