that is nice bonus change
Meta: comment point bug
but I just figured it was because I was better than everyone else. Thanks a lot.
Somtimes I get one, others two. I don't really give a rusty fuck but here's a test on my one.
EDIT: Maybe Skynet did become self aware and is messing with the point system. Also test confirms 1 point, God hates me.
It's Karma. You have two Karma. The more you post, the higher the point total or something. Go to your profile and take a look.
From Drupal's User Karma module page:
How does karma work?
So, if user 99 for example writes 10 comments, and they all get votes > 0, the person's karma will stay positive. Vice versa, if user 98 has 10 comments and they are all flamebaits which get votes < 0, the person's karma will be negative. This assumes that rating can be < 0.
Now... some modules work differently, and only allow positive voting (for example rating from 1 to 10 etc.). This module will work in those cases too: since karma expires (meaning that only content newer than N days will be considered for karma), the users' karma will eventually stabilise.
A Users Manual to post and vote on a blog.
It's your current Karma total.
No idea how your Karma is determined... but that's it.
So Crank That Donovan's karma is 12 then?
Huh? Where do you see that? I'm as confused by this new system as anybody
I don't know what Zone Left was referring to, but click on any user (including yourself) and you can see the karma number.
Edit: Nope, just your own. My bad.
I'm just a fan of your posts, that's all.
And a sweet Karma score of 1.
there seems to be a lot of good Karma surrounding the program lately
While we're at it, do comments have a max point value of 5? I upvoted someone whose comment had 5 and nothing happened.
That seems to be the case. I honestly am not a fan; I liked watching a good comment get to +70 or a bad one doing the opposite.
especially on awesome threads like the Lloyd Brady photoshop or really terrible ones like after a terrible loss
I find myself clicking collapsed comments anyways because sometimes there is actual information being said.
I can understand the collapsed comments when it gets to maybe -5, but sometimes good posts are moderated for no reason.
You can set your threshold to -1, which appears to be the lowest that comments can go, and you'll see everything.
Personally, I'm indifferent to this system, because I don't really care about the individual comments. I liked the points system because users could minimize the impact of bad posters by negging them so low that they could never create content. A user with 100 flamebait posts still gets to create a flamebait thread after 100 shitty comments.
Thanks for the tip. That does save me from my own laziness.
I agree, but entering 100 CAPTCHAs are a bitch. I would know I came back from around -200 to get to 500 and back to -90 because of expiring points.
One thing I've noticed is that when I try to click on a post that has been minimized by a negative vote the thread will refresh and I will end up back at the original post. It's frustrating because all it takes is one negative vote for a comment to be lost forever to me. I want to make up my own mind about whether a comment is worth reading or not.
Yeah. The refresh happens to me too. I don't like how the comments collapse. I feel like we are in some dictatorship, and certain comments get assassinated due to their deviance from the norm.
Can't you just adjust the Threshold at the top of the comments section?
Thanks. I didn't know I could do that.
It encourages "groupthink" which is already hard enough to combat in an online forum.
Interesting idea. I'm not sure if I agree with you though until I hear some more input.
Not really a dictatorship unless you are saying us Mgodenizens are a secret police as its the users that moderate the board.
You're not using IE are you? It works for me in Firefox 4 and Chrome.
I'm using Firefox. Not sure what version. FWIW, it only seems to happen when I am not on the first page of a multiple page thread. On the first page it seems like I can expand collapsed comments fine.
I just want to come on and read some Michigan football stuff, man. I don't need all this....mumbo jumbo, man. What the fuck, Walter?
This dude not THE DUDE.
"Make it zero Smokey."
Any combination of "Tressel" or "that school in Ohio" and an obscenity should automatically qualify for the maximum number of points, right?
"That school in Ohio" "shits" "Tressels"
Is there a way to re-moderate your moderation of a comment?
As mentioned, this is a feature: people who post generally good stuff start off higher and people with generally bad stuff start off at 0 or worse.
I'm not sure what's up with the refresh bug. People experiencing it should send me an email detailing their browser and what happens.
between people with different views, and people who are assholes. I can have a decent conversation with people with different views, but not with assholes. Maybe if you tone down the rhetoric, read what people actually write, respond with your views (different or same), and stop playing a victim, you won't get the flamebait tag as much.
I guess that is point set match for Dark Blue
I implied you are an asshole. I like how you cherry pick the most innocent comment on here you've made (which wasn't even in the comment I replied to) and use that as an indication of your type of posts.
My post was a response to your post where you think that the only reason people don't like your posts is because you provide a different view. I responded that this is not why. I was refering to your other posts like when you took a comment http://mgoblog.com/comment/reply/54373/1061309 I said and tried make up a bunch of other stuff like I don't like Hoke. Those type of actions are what people don't like.
Again though, keep trying to play the poor me victim.
The whole point system is a mystery to me, but I once got a "Flamebait" label for asking whether the Big 10 had any independent power to punish Tressel or OSU for the recent unpleasantness. Seemed like a legit question then, and it didn't draw any stupid replies, so I was/am confused by it the comment drawing a "Flamebait" tag.
Of course I'm pretty easy to confuse.
It's probably because there is someone who doesn't like you or a comment you made in the past, and, regardless of what you say and how insightful it is, they're going to downvote you.
Ad hominem negs = ubiquitous. But at least under the old point system, such negs didn't have the effect of collapsing your comment and labeling it "trolling," or "flamebait," etc...
For all the talk that the point system was too draconian, we've given more power to people to use on their feelings rather than their reason.
I don't think it's just the short term posters who act on their emotions rather than how good a post is or not. Points don't make you a better poster or person. Just prolific. Or good at funny cat pics. (I mean, look at me!).
The whole thing is too complicated in any regard, but the biggest problem is the first person who posts something gets to label the post, rather than the majority. I mean, you could have a post "5", and be labeled "trolling", if I'm understanding it all correctly (which I may not be...like I said, it's way too complicated for just a posting board. I'm nerdy, but man, does everything have to be a computer programming session?!). Whereas with just points, if someone negged someone because they hate you, but 20 other people plussed because it was a great post, then it still looked good overall. (Not that if 20 people hated you you weren't in trouble, but that's another story). Now something gets these goofy, not really descriptive labels, and it's by a race who can post first.
Which means I guess aamichfan will be the one who gets to label everybody, because that cat is fast with a reply!
But really, we haven't even gotten the basics of the site up and working, and there's changes being installed? I don't know, since last summers "upgrades" all the changes seem to be neutral or negatives. The only improvement was how the posts are colored/readable now, which just basically changes it back to the readability level we had BEFORE last summers changes.
Not my site. Just my view on how there seems to be change for the sake of change.
I will never neg you based on your handle, or based on the fact that I may not happen to like you because of your previous posts.
I will never neg you because you once said something with which I disagree.
I will always distinguish between and separate you from your posts.
Therefore, I will always evaluate the quality of your posts based on your actual posts themselves and not based on the fact that it was you who posted them.
Haha, cheers sir.
I'm afraid my ad hominem detractors won't agree.
Of course, the vows are principly a response to "ad hominem detractor-ism" as such.
I am actually guilty of this in reverse. There are some posters I just like quite a bit, so I guess I'm predisposed to liking things they say, even if not particularly valuable.
The only people I "blacklist" or whatever term you want to use are the people who say things that are way out of line. When you start using (and not in a bad joke kind of way) racist or sexist slurs or something of that nature, you deserve for it to follow you.
I actually like some of the people I consistently disagree with, michgoblue and I hardly see eye to eye on everything, but I like reading what he writes because it's well thought out and it's good to keep up with disagreeing viewpoints.
So in way too many words, I agree in principle with what you've said, but I get away from it and I don't think a little deviation is such a bad thing.
The vows are a reaction primarily to negs and dismissal based upon who one is rather than what one said.
Giving someone the benefit of the doubt and listening to them on the same basis is the opposite of dismissal. So I'm all for reverse ad hominem-ism. It can only serve to encourage listening, dialogue, and exchange of ideas. Of course, its opposite (which I'm warring against) serves only to shut all these things down.
You and BD often come in pairs, and you're both smart. Do you know each other?