sitebulletins

Usability Improvements Locked In Comment Count

Brian

So this year I implemented a new policy: all donations not ticketed for site contributors or Phil Brabbs get tallied at the end of the year and then I go spend that money on improvements to the site. This year we've made some adjustments to the comment system:

  • Comments have been re-themed to take up less space and hopefully cut down on the phenomenon where a series of replies ends up with comically thin content areas.
  • Comments have been ajaxified: no need to reload the page to post a comment.
  • The voting system has had a major hole closed: votes on items older than a week do not affect userpoints.
  • Another system hole closed: it now costs a point to vote, whether it's up or down. This will prevent people from getting slightly over 20 points with a series of sock puppets and vote-spamming other people. Also, the ratio for posting new threads and diaries has been altered: it's now +1 for up, –1 for down. Comments remain +2 up, –1 down.

There are a couple bugs with the sidebar and placement of some of the new features that should get worked out in the next couple days.

UPDATE: The AJAX was not quite ready for prime time and has been temporarily pulled.

UPDATE II: A lot of users are issuing complaints, which I will address over the next few days. Bear with us.

Comments

Njia

August 13th, 2010 at 7:25 AM ^

/Phone rings.

CALLER: Hello? May I speak with Mr. Njia, please?

NJIA (Groggy from a long night in carnal knowledge with barbeque): This is he.

CALLER: I'm calling on behalf of the MGoCandidate campaign. As you know, Mr. Njia, sites like RCMB, The Only Colors, Eleven Warriors and others have been ....

NJIA: But ...

CALLER: ... Trashing Michigan Football this year. And their minnions in the media, like Valenti and Foster, Michael Rosenberg and Mark Snyder, have been their willing accomplices.

NJIA: Uh, I ...

CALLER: We are asking, Mr. Njia, for a small donation of 1 MGoPoint for every up- or down-vote you make on the site. This will help us keep trolls from those other sites from ...

NJIA: But, sir, I ...

CALLER: ... corrupting the MGoUser community. Can we count on your support?

NJIA: Look, man. I appreciate you calling. I really do. But, the lady of the house isn't in. And besides, we gave to you people earlier in the year and I'm tapped out.

CALLER: I understand that times are hard right now, but Brian Cook, Rich Rodriguez, and the team really need your support, so we're asking for a small donation of one point for every vote, okay?

NJIA: I'm sure they do, and give them my love, but ....

CALLER: Mr. Njia, we're really just ....

/Click.

Joined: 09/15/2009

MGoPoints: 35773

acs236

August 13th, 2010 at 9:20 AM ^

For example, set the max positive/negative points per post at 10.  That way, it will be impossible for a few posts to skew the system. 

Joined: 01/27/2009

MGoPoints: 1021

Raoul

August 13th, 2010 at 10:16 AM ^

I wonder if this idea or some other tweaking of the old voting system might be a less-blunt instrument for resolving the problem.

Also, I'm not sure I entirely understand the rationale behind the change:

Another system hole closed: it now costs a point to vote, whether it's up or down. This will prevent people from getting slightly over 20 points with a series of sock puppets and vote-spamming other people

Has this been a major problem? Is this a case of using a cannon to kill a mosquito?

I know the points are meaningless, but for me the points and the ability to vote at will made this site a lot more fun. I'm still likely to come here for the content on the main page, but I'll probably spend a lot less time on the message board.

Joined: 09/29/2009

MGoPoints: 13957

maizenbluenc

August 13th, 2010 at 9:53 AM ^

FWIW, I think the changes to the point system will incent more superfluous comments.

For example: I currently give a good comment a point when I agree with it, rather than posting "I Agree". Same in the negative direction, though I am more likely to post a counter opinion in addition.

It may reduce grammar nazi negs however.

Then there are the points junkies who will figure out posting is the only way to get points.

Joined: 07/21/2009

MGoPoints: 10630

BeantownBlue

August 13th, 2010 at 10:52 AM ^

Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the old comments maize and blue (background and text)?  Now they're just blue unless you include a blockquote.  Also don't like the lack of boxes.  Or the lack of registration date.  

Please bring back the old comments.  I thought it looked/functioned great.

EDIT:  Comments are actually Blue and White.  WE ARE not PENN STATE.

Joined: 08/25/2008

MGoPoints: 1744

Seth

August 13th, 2010 at 10:52 AM ^

I gave it a day to see if it grows on me at all. It hasn't. Overall, this entire change feels like it's worse than we had before.

Comments have been re-themed to take up less space and hopefully cut down on the phenomenon where a series of replies ends up with comically thin content areas.

The miniturization of threads, I think, wasn't a problem. After enough replies, the posts became too hard to follow, the conversation pretty much dead. Starting a new thread wasn't all that difficult, and the threat of thinning was a check on readers to try to get all of their thoughts out into each post, ultimately raising the quality of posts. In the process, we lost some information that helped qualify commentary, lost the ability to link to each entry (because sometimes there's linkable stuff in replies), and lost the boxes, which made reading threads easier and re-finding where you were much easier.

Comments have been ajaxified: no need to reload the page to post a comment.

We shall see.

The voting system has had a major hole closed: votes on items older than a week do not affect userpoints.

The best change, and perhaps the only one necessary.

Another system hole closed: it now costs a point to vote, whether it's up or down. This will prevent people from getting slightly over 20 points with a series of sock puppets and vote-spamming other people. Also, the ratio for posting new threads and diaries has been altered: it's now +1 for up, –1 for down. Comments remain +2 up, –1 down.

Doesn't seem very well thought out. Economic system, man. People like getting rewarded, but general board doesn't like "I agree" replies, which is the purpose of having up-voting in the first place.
 

Joined: 10/14/2008

MGoPoints: 149219

skunk bear

August 13th, 2010 at 11:56 AM ^

I'll say again that if the ability to anonymously neg someone were taken away, spiteful negs would be greatly reduced. People would either have to have a good reason to neg, or they would be seen as someone who didn't feel the need to have a good reason to neg.

Joined: 03/09/2010

MGoPoints: 1971

champswest

August 13th, 2010 at 5:09 PM ^

is like Yoda.  Wise and all knowing.  Therefore, I am sure that he knows what is best for the Blog and for all of us.  Oh yeah, I also wanted to post something so I could rack up another valuable point.

Joined: 10/04/2009

MGoPoints: 25921

Edward Khil

August 13th, 2010 at 11:34 PM ^

I'm guessing a similar comment has been made elsewhere in the 211 preceding missives.  But, Brian, I'd suggest that it might be a better route if you were to charge a point for each negbang, but don't charge a point for those adding a +1 (posbang).

We've been operating under the new system for a few days now.  I've always been sparing in my negbangs, particularly.  But I have still felt compelled to issue two of them.  I have only issued two posbangs, though.  And I've always been more generous in the past.  I'm a bit of a fledgling (March, '10, although I've been reading for three years).  It's kinda gratifying to get several posbangs for a clever post.  I don't think it's going to happen nearly as much.

In a very vapid, unimportant and mostly inconsequential way, you're creating a society of have's (those who've been posbanging each other for a year now) and have-not's (anyone newer to the board).

Please consider charging a point for a negbang, none for a posbang.

Joined: 03/06/2010

MGoPoints: 1077