META Down Vote Button for Thread OP

Submitted by East Quad on December 7th, 2018 at 7:25 AM

Without MOM intervention, is there a way to down vote OPs that create stoopid threads so that OP cannot create more.  If OP comments on their own thread, it can be done, but only once.  I don't see another way except to look at their account and find all of their comments and downvote each one.

I know one or two satirical threads are interesting but the repetition of Brady Hoke threads is abusive.

Rather than MOM intervention with Bolivian exile, perhaps if there was a way to down vote the OP, it could be self policed.

MGoBoard Hall Monitor



December 7th, 2018 at 9:22 AM ^

We had OP voting on 2.0 and it worked great.  Stupid threads would get heavily negged, sometimes to the point where the user would drop below 100 so they couldn't post again.

I like the idea of voting on the OP.  At a minimum, a reader would neg and leave rather stay and post "this sucks" followed by "then why did you waste your time posting; move on" followed by "no you suck", etc.

The neg level could quickly tell the MOM's that the thread is on fire and should be put out.  


December 7th, 2018 at 7:49 AM ^

It would help a bit if the board was sectioned off. I think people get frustrated sifting through "real" and nonsense threads. As you noted...the nonsense actually isn't all bad I mean hell this is a message board. 

But if there was a "michigan football section",  "michigan basketball", "recruiting", "Other NCAA news", etc. I think it would help somewhat. 


December 7th, 2018 at 8:36 AM ^

It would help more if the "MGoBoard" page sorted itself by most recent comments. Crappy topics would sink down until they were no longer visible, and active topics would remain at/near the top. Since the MGoBoard page is just chronological (and there's no way to see which comments are new), the board is a lot less useful than it used to be.


December 7th, 2018 at 8:49 AM ^

This seems like a fairly easy query action to setup, thus reordering the list of board topics.  I dunno...  I need to sniff through the MGoSticky dealing with the 3.0 upgrade and see if it lists what changes/fixes will be deployed now that football season is essentially over.  Remember, a few weeks back, Seth saying they had a bunch queued up and waiting for football to end (rather than causing confusion and delay with a rollout in the middle of the season).  Will be interesting if this change may be included.


December 7th, 2018 at 10:04 AM ^

How many actual changes do you think we'll see BECAUSE (i remembered) i have a hunch that the good folks at HUEL dont view these as bug/fixes but rather system enhancements.  And enhancements cost money.

If they weren't specked out in the original project design (and therefore not priced accordingly in their bid) no way in hell they're making the changes for free.

My guess is there will be some very minor tweeks but for the foreseeable future MGoBlog HUEL-style is the world we will be living in.


December 7th, 2018 at 12:11 PM ^

+1 for 'because'!!!

Good question, as Seth didn't mention any numbers.  But there is a fairly easy distinction between a bug/fix and an enhancement.  Simply, if something you delivered isn't working properly - this is a bug fix.  Each module should have clearly stated goals as to what it should do.  Points are an easy example here - where you can't vote or create posts until you have 100.  That's not working for a number of people, but was clearly one of the development goals.  Fixing that is certainly a fix.  However, showing the number of upvotes and downvotes is not similar to showing only a running sum of each - so this would be an enhancement.  (Although somewhat specious, considering that you only have to display numbers you already have!)

There is certainly some grey area with a lot of these, but most of them will be fairly easy to differentiate.  And for the tough ones, cost becomes a prime driver.  Now, I'm sure Brian is paying for both, with bugfixes at a lower rate.  But if a bugfix takes a rewrite, that could be considered an enhancement, whereas some clear enhancements that are easy to make could well be charged as a bugfix.  This avoids nickle and diming your client, which (at least for my company) is good business practice.

Nothing is free, but there should be plenty of room for compromising on solutions.

(EDIT:  BY "my company", I mean the company I work for.)


December 7th, 2018 at 1:38 PM ^

I do agree...but the features most talk about wanting here are things even the most basic free message boards have and offer. I mean different topic sections, active threads rising to the top, i can't imagine that would cost much.

Plus, if you want to drive more revenue you've got to get more people involved in the forum. Get them to stay longer, come more, engage etc. A better functioning forum would help that I believe. 


December 7th, 2018 at 8:16 AM ^

To be honest, a "smite" function that caused some very Old World things to happen to the OP might be a very effective solution, but only if I can be there at the customary show trial, which could be trial by ordeal or something along these lines. 

The Mad Hatter

December 7th, 2018 at 8:56 AM ^

Actually, up, and down, votes never counted against the point total in thread OP's.  We always had to wait for the OP to post in thread.

I'd just like to have the votes work like they did in 2.0, where both upvotes and downvotes were shown.   A post with +50 and -50 votes now shows as 0, whereas in the before time we would know that a post generated responses, both positive and negative.

4th and Go For It

December 7th, 2018 at 8:47 AM ^

Not sure. I can't earn points, don't see any up or down votes, am not sure if I exist? That's what I get for not participating until after the new site launch. C'est la vie. 

Maybe we could self moderate with a "group bolivia" function? If a thread is deemed stooopid by a large enough number of users it gets nuked. Would have to be a high enough threshold to avoid a vocal minority taking over and you'd only get one "nuke" vote per account on that thread? I dunno - im sure other sophisticated message boards have solved all these problems.


December 7th, 2018 at 11:16 AM ^

To be honest, I don’t believe the whole “we can’t get points to work” thing. I believe they just don’t want too many new users posting on the boards. There would be double the amount of posts and probably a ton of shit posts so I can understand why they have it disabled. They could just raise the point total to say 1,000 for a board post.


December 7th, 2018 at 8:59 AM ^

I'd love a feature that caved a thread after a certain amount of downvotes. A caved thread then goes against your account; first two strikes knock you down to zero points each time, and a third strike drops the banhammer. 


December 7th, 2018 at 9:36 AM ^

Seems way excessive...

Say, for instance, you start a thread that seems reasonable.  But someone takes a political view - and the flame war begins.  Your thread gets caved, due in no part to the OP/topic having been too dumb, but rather because some idiot went all politics on some other poster.

Your ~25,000 points, along with the reasonable reputation you (seemingly) have based on those points, are now gone.  You have zero points, and your 10 years of good standing are now wiped out because someone posted politics within the comments of an reasonable OP you started.

Not good, Bob...


December 7th, 2018 at 9:02 AM ^

In a perfect world this might be a good thing. The reality is that your OP should qualify you for the very action you are suggesting. Be careful what you wish for.

UM Fan from Sydney

December 7th, 2018 at 9:19 AM ^

This would be nice. I think we at least need the option to vote on threads like in the past. Those votes should count toward points, too. I have a feeling they changed it because it hurt posters' feelings, which does not surprise me in this day and age.