Fool,Please consider the following:http://boards.fool.com/the-hc-effect-30398235.aspxI believe that it is in the best interest of the fool to ban certain posters, based on some formula of percent of other posters who have them on ignore, possibly offset by how highly some of their posts get recommended.If I ran the fool, a warning would go out once a month, and posters that persisted in their poor behavior would get perma banded.Thanks,Mark
Very, very bad idea. You cannot ban people as determined by any kind of formula, because any formula can be manipulated. Not only could unpopular individual posters be targeted, but groups that oppose each other, especially on the political boards and/or other active boards or boards where disputes have arisen, could engage in "banning wars" by trying to get their enemies on enough people's Ignored Fools lists. If this became the case, posters could have to walk on eggshells all the time or kiss other posters' butts to avoid getting banned, and when that happens the Fool will no longer be much use to anybody.
Hello Mark,Thanks for your thoughts. I don't believe a formulaic approach is the best solution, but please be aware your immediate concerns are being addressed.Richard
Richard,I seem to recall at least one poster being banned for "stirring the pot," a bit too frequently and vigorously. . .Perhaps that would apply in this case?Chili
I would not recomend 100% reliance on any formula.However formulas can be very comprehensive. If banning wars become a thing, then diminish the value of people that have simalar ignore lists.I have no access to the inside numbers, but if 30% of your posts are to a single board, and 70% of the readers of that board have you on ignore, then you might be a problem.After I made this suggestion, I saw a request that number of posts to certain boards be limited. This I suspect would be a very good idea.Analysis of the existing posting trends would need to be done, but I suspect that you could find that even the most valuable posters only post 4 to 10 posts per day.Each board is different, and some could be set to unlimited.
Chili,We don't reveal actions taken regarding members.Richard
We don't reveal actions taken regarding members.I don't see where Chili asked you to reveal any actions. It seems your response is just a dodge to the suggestion(s). You could address the issue in a general sense without revealing what actions you take for certain offenses or what actions you took against a certain poster. For example, you could say you do take into consideration the cumulative number of issues you've had with a poster before determining what action you take. That sentence does not reveal the action you have taken with past members. It only reveals that you consider the body of work when you make decisions.It seems to me either TMF employees don't respond anymore or blow them off if they do. All you need to do is look at the number of responses from TMF employees from earlier in the history of the company versus the number today. TMF used to engage their reader. Now it seems their readers are a hindrance to their foosball games.PSU
It only reveals that you consider the body of work when you make decisions.===*===Pffft. Sometimes it's Christmas cards one day and the thinking chair the next.
Twitty!! Save us!We all agree we dislike the poster and that he should be ignored, on this we are completely unified. Unfortunately none of us can control our own behavior so we can't ignore him; we need you to do it for us.Thanks in advance.PS - my neighbor is a jerk. Please make him move too.Thanks again!
I don't see where Chili asked you to reveal any actions. Chili was speaking about this specific instance, hence my response.We do in fact consider all relevant factors of posting history, posts removed for cause, board culture environment, number of complaints, etc. It's all part of decision process.It seems to me either TMF employees don't respond anymore or blow them off if they do. All you need to do is look at the number of responses from TMF employees from earlier in the history of the company versus the number today. TMF used to engage their reader. Now it seems their readers are a hindrance to their foosball games.It's not altogether fair to compare staff activity on the free boards now to what it was fifteen years ago; then, it was the only game in town. Now our staff is spread over a larger venue of blogs, CAPS, articles, and premium boards. But I take your point as a valid criticism.If I can offer something, I will. Not every post here requires a response, but they are all read by staff.RichardNon-Foosball Player
Pffft. Sometimes it's Christmas cards one day and the thinking chair the next. Let it go, man. Life is short!The Olde Philosopher
If I can offer something, I will. Not every post here requires a response, but they are all read by staff.There are a number of times when the only response I'm looking for is simply an assurance that my post was read. Would it be possible for the first TMFer on this board to read a post to respond with a simple, "read and noted" type post? Just so that we know someone is there?Sometimes I feel as though I'm shouting into a wind tunnel.Nancy
Sometimes I feel as though I'm shouting into a wind tunnel.===*===Noted!RaggmoppCoiner of Responses
Twitty, I think what Raggs is saying with that line is that TMF staff is seriously inconsistent in its rulings. That has been a festering issue for many years here, and there have been a lot of excuses made as to why it couldn't be changed. I have never seen an acceptable reason offered as to why the inconsistency is as great as it is here, and while we all understand anything done by humans cannot be perfectly 100% consistent, you guys can do a lot better at it than you do, and a lot of members get away with a lot of crap because you guys are too inconsistent.
Let it go, man. Life is short!===*===Revenge is a dish best served cold.Kahn.Wrathfully
TMF staff is seriously inconsistent in its rulings===*===Exactly. Whoever has the big, red, thinking chair button on their console any given day seems to be able to put his or her prejudices into play Torquemada style to the hopeless confusion of the peasantry. And no two Inquisitors appear to operate by the same standards.OFF, with his head.The Red Queen
Hey Raggmop, wasn't John Beresford Tipton the man who signed the checks on the old Millionaire television series from the '50s?Gee, and I thought he was an old fossil then.To what do you attribute your longevity?
OFF, with his head.The Red Queenw00t!Nancy
PS - my neighbor is a jerk. Please make him move too.Perfect analogy.If your neighbor is making noises at all hours of the night, you can have him fined. I don't see MF fining anyone, so banning is the best alt.
Hey Raggmop, wasn't John Beresford Tipton the man who signed the checks on the old Millionaire television series from the '50s?===*===Indeed it was.To what do you attribute your longevity? ===*===Not dying.
Not dying. I'm sure the Miracle Whip helps.
Would it be possible for the first TMFer on this board to read a post to respond with a simple, "read and noted" type post? Just so that we know someone is there?Read and noted ;-) <ducking>
Twitty, I think what Raggs is saying with that line is that TMF staff is seriously inconsistent in its rulings. I don't see that, but I can see why it may appear that way sometimes. Even when it was just one person doing the monitoring, we had complaints about inconsistency, or favoritism, or a bias of some sort or another.We use as much information and past history as we can, and not all outside observers are in on it. All I can say is that the driving motivator is to keep an atmosphere of healthy debate while enforcing minimum levels of civility. If we fall short sometimes, it's not because we don't care; it's because we care enough to weigh all the data points and not just react to complaints, which may or may not be honest and well founded.Richard
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |