GFY Improvement Suggestion: rate this post
 

I know I suggested this in some old thread by Eric and was "taken on board", but really, can we just have a "rate this post" system, so I can automatically ignore people with an average rating of minus-something rating?

Works both ways cos then I don't waste people's time who are not seeing my posts cos I have a "useless poster" rating, but hey.....

Allez, Eric, whatcha think? Would make your job a helluva lot easier to be able to see at-a-glance the most worthless posters on the board?

1 vote per person per day per nic seems reasonable to prevent abuse of the system?

Won't people just have an argument about something and then vote each other down rather than it being about post quality?

Too easy to abuse that. People might vote up if the like something. People will definitely vote down just because they don't like someone.

some members will abuse that to hide some people posts that way

like I said - wouldn't this help?

And mikeyyyy, stop with yer gifs, cos your turnaround to produce them is sick. And it humours me a lot :1orglaugh

interesting idea

interesting but abusable

I like the interest it seeks to promote--quality posts. However, the definition of "quality" varies from person to person. Also, there's the very real possibility of "mob" mentalities and abuse.

You guys seem to care too much about a message board, I'm lonely too.

I suggest not to ignore people. What if someone says something useful rarely?

If a user has been put on more than 50 people's ignore list, ban them. A reason has to be stated why they were placed on ignore in the first place together with proof to stop abuse.

Sig whores are disallowed having sigs. See how much they post then. :321GFY

As a board owner, I hate the thought of having to implement any of the systems suggested by anyone including myself, and know that there's a 99% likelihood that nothing at all will change here.

Or in your case, once in a blue moon.

Post rating systems work amazingly well on another board I post on. Basically, if a thread is retarded, and people rate it as such, it gets shitcanned. Well, not really, but it gets moved to another subforum where the worst threads go. Basically, all the threads in that forum are terrible and no one should be subjected to them.

If a thread is rated as a five (the highest possible) by enough people, mods have the power to move it to the sub forum which is opposite of the shitty one, the place where all the best threads go to spend their elder years.

Basically, if you want to laugh your balls off and waste an entire day, read the best threads in the "best threads" sub forum.

If you want to become enraged and murder a kitten/puppy/schoolbus full of cute kindergarteners, read the shitty sub forum.

The same system should work here, the downside is that 99.9% of all the threads would get shitcanned into the shitty sub forum. Because 99.9% of the threads here are stupid and have nothing to do with anything.

It could work. You would need to weight votes based on a person's voting tendencies. That way you will get some semblance of balance and cut out the abuse of the rating system.

Basically, if someone alway votes a thread 1/5 and the average of the threads he has voted on by the members as a whole is a 3.5 his vote would be weighted higher by +2.5. His rating of 1 would be bumped to a 3.5.

More Megan Fox

Getting rid of, or at least decreasing the amount of useless posters is very very simple. We could spend a day or even an hour tackling this problem and come up with a million perfect solutions. Obviously those in charge here do not give a damn. The end.

sickipedia auto deletes jokes that get enough bad votes.

Trouble with doing that to threads is you would get people crying that they keep losing their precious post-count because they posted in a retarded thread that got deleted :1orglaugh

I've seen a couple of other discussion forums work better by just not displaying Posts: on the page. People tend to then only post to add to the topic rather than up their number. Wouldn't work here though with people wanting sig views.