Page 15 of 15 FirstFirst ... 5 13 14 15
Results 141 to 144 of 144

Thread: Thread approval

  1. #141
    Member tasguitar7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Wichita, Kansas
    Posts
    111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hodari View Post
    If it's not already done, might be better just to have an option for each user to be able to filter out threads below a certain rating rather than setting arbitrary numbers like this and hiding it from everyone. If someone WANTS to see threads rated 2 or lower, they could choose to still do so. Also in that case, probably no need to have the threads auo-reported either since the people who don't want to see them won't(aside from the first few needed to rate it down far enough, who can choose to report it themselves as well if they feel it''s deserved) and the mods will likely notice the thread and take action soon enough otherwise anyway
    I get what you are saying, but take for example, if a really really bad thread was at the top of the front page, everyone will keep opening it, reading it, many will flame it, and the quality of the forum deteriorates. Now yes, the thread would probably be reported, but not until rampant flaming has occurred and the time of many users and mods has been wasted. However, if the rating system had the power to hide threads and delete them then more people would be inclined to vote and you could see a 2 star thread at the top of the homepage and go "Let's not waste my time with that", it will also not only save the mods time by having an auto-reporter, but it would also save them time because they would be able to see the ratings of each thread and have a better indicator of which threads needed to be reviewed more carefully.

    Essentially, I think the thread rating system needs more importance and that if it was used more frequently it would greatly benefit the quality of the forum. I also believe that the only real way to get people to rate threads consistently is to give the rating system power to hide and delete threads.

    PS. The hiding function exists to an extent, you can hide content from specific users through the "ignore list"
    [single][full-step][avg5][avg12][avg100]: [10.53][12.46][18.86][19.84][21.47]

  2. #142
    Colourful Kirjava's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    WCA Profile
    2006BARL01
    YouTube
    snkenjoi
    Posts
    6,004

    Default

    You could implement one of the flawed ideas suggested in this thread, or you could just do what you're supposed to like recommended at the start of this thread and this would not be a problem in the first place.

  3. #143
    Member asportking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Michigan
    YouTube
    asportkingSoF
    Posts
    896

    Default

    Like a lot of people have said, I'm fine with stupid threads as long as they get taken down, it's just the people that flame them and post on them instead of just ignoring it. What if, after a certain amount of reports, the thread is temporarily closed until a mod can take a look at it? Or, to improvise on that "half-mod" idea someone had a while back, there would be a ton of people (not anything special, just most of the semi-responsible members here, which is a lot), and it would only take two or three reports from them to temporarily close the thread. I know someone already suggested it, but I don't see why it shouldn't work. One of the problems someone had mentioned about it was that some people could team up and shut down a random thread. But so what if that happens? A mod looks at it, the thread is reopened, and the people who reported loses their privileges.

  4. #144
    Member insane569's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Don't Worry About It
    WCA Profile
    2011LUEV01
    YouTube
    insane569
    Posts
    436

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by asportking View Post
    Like a lot of people have said, I'm fine with stupid threads as long as they get taken down, it's just the people that flame them and post on them instead of just ignoring it. What if, after a certain amount of reports, the thread is temporarily closed until a mod can take a look at it? Or, to improvise on that "half-mod" idea someone had a while back, there would be a ton of people (not anything special, just most of the semi-responsible members here, which is a lot), and it would only take two or three reports from them to temporarily close the thread. I know someone already suggested it, but I don't see why it shouldn't work. One of the problems someone had mentioned about it was that some people could team up and shut down a random thread. But so what if that happens? A mod looks at it, the thread is reopened, and the people who reported loses their privileges.
    That was my idea and it seems like it might work. There's alot of people that post great topics and they know what the forum wants. They could easily be these half mods and make sure there isn't a bunch of threads that just start flame wars.
    Why you reading this bro?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •