Introducing...

[AZLA]

Holy cow -- FOUR pitchforks -- that's what I call a must read post!

Besides, I know that there's no way more established folks would have their pitchfork counts go up because their other buddies are giving them unbiased kudos. Unheard of.

This new system is awesome. Now I never need to waste my time reading one- or two-pitchfork posters' "noise."

Can we please add a filter so I can set my threshold to only being able to see three-pitchfork posters and above?

Then I only have to read about 3 posts a week and get more time back in my day.

Wait a sec, I only have one pitchfork -- What the (BLEEP).

Allenmurry is my martyr!



In all seriousness, I'd recommend the pitchfork count be applied to individual articles, not the individual. There are plenty of thoughtful contributors who don't always toe the line and who spark thoughtful debate by questioning the status quo. Which is what makes this board so interesting. On a fan-based site, it's impossible to receive truly impartial ratings. This could aleniate some and lead to a conforming, collective point of view.

[SilkyJ]

Besides, I know that there's no way more established folks would have their pitchfork counts go up because their other buddies are giving them unbiased kudos. Unheard of.

There is a part of the algorithm that accounts for this: you can't comment on someone more than once until you have commented on 20 or 30 other people. Same for the reverse trend- you can't bash on someone constantly just b/c they are a UNC fan or whatever. You have to spread your comments around.

In all seriousness, I'd recommend the pitchfork count be applied to individual articles, not the individual.

I actually like the pitchforks for people, but I kind of like where you are going with this. What if there was a daily or weekly summary of the "top-rated posts?" Maybe a sticky at the top of the board that is updated every Friday (or Monday or whatever) with the posts that received the most positive comments from the week before. This would take some thought to make sure context was provided (probably just include a link to the original thread) but I think this idea has a lot of potential!

[-jk]

...

In all seriousness, I'd recommend the pitchfork count be applied to individual articles, not the individual. There are plenty of thoughtful contributors who don't always toe the line and who spark thoughtful debate by questioning the status quo. Which is what makes this board so interesting. On a fan-based site, it's impossible to receive truly impartial ratings. This could aleniate some and lead to a conforming, collective point of view.

One of our near-term goals it to use the comments to highlight posts that get multiple positive comments. And also do something with posts that get a lot of negative comments, possibly even automagically deleting the post so a mod doesn't have to.

-jk

[CameronBornAndBred]

One of our near-term goals it to use the comments to highlight posts that get multiple positive comments. And also do something with posts that get a lot of negative comments, possibly even automagically deleting the post so a mod doesn't have to.

-jk

I would hate to see y'all actually do that. As some have well pointed out, the post doesn't always rate negative comments because it is "noisy" (such as "I agree."), it rates negatives because it is an unpopular opinion. I guarantee you that if I put up a post about how I think Roy Williams did something smart on the court or about why I think Austin Rivers should not come to Duke then those posts will get slammed not becuase they aren't valid points but because people just don't agree with them. And then my valid point would be kicked off to the cornfield.
twilight-zone-billy-mumy-go.jpg

[DukieInKansas]

I'm fine with the pitchforks - mainly because I don't seem to notice how many people have. However, it would be nice if the comment feature could also be tied in with the amount of time that has passed between comments. For example. if I give a post a positive comment today but don't see another post worthy of a positive comment for another week or two and it happens to be by the same poster, I can't give them another positive comment until I spread the comments around. I don't keep track of who and when I post positive comments so it is frustrating to write a comment only to be told I need to spread them around before I can comment on that person again.

(It's easier to keep track of the negative comments I've given as there has only been one. And you deserved it Jason! )

[Lord Ash]

(It's easier to keep track of the negative comments I've given as there has only been one. And you deserved it Jason! )

Guess we know who is getting a negative comment!

I've never used the comments to disagree with a statement; that is what a post is for, I think. I'd only use it, I think, if I felt a post was simply out of place or out of the general tone of the discussion.

[DukieInKansas]

Guess we know who is getting a negative comment!

I've never used the comments to disagree with a statement; that is what a post is for, I think. I'd only use it, I think, if I felt a post was simply out of place or out of the general tone of the discussion.

Jason acknowledged that he deserved the negative feedback. He gave LSU the win too early and unc mounted a comeback.

[Son of Mojo]

Agreed on the "automagical" deleting of posts being an awful idea. Just because someone has written something inflammatory or is in disagreement with the masses does not mean that it needs to be invalidated by making it just go away. It either needs to be remembered for bringing up a divergent point of view or to show that whomever wrote it is (possibly) a quack. I'd hate to think what would've happened with my Bilas posting from '09 under such a set up....And I honestly never even noticed the pitchforks (which I have always referred to as a trident) until Capt. brought it to my attention. I did instantly notice my status was gone. I miss not knowing what it is with this being my 217th posting on here (although # 216 wasn't even commented on...burrrrrrr on that cold shoulder there, guys ). Will I ever become a starter? Can I gain the level of Grant Hill or Greg Newton or Wojo? That is really missed and is not understood yet why it has been lost--was there really no way to keep it integrated on here?

[SilkyJ]

Will I ever become a starter? Can I gain the level of Grant Hill or Greg Newton or Wojo? That is really missed and is not understood yet why it has been lost--was there really no way to keep it integrated on here?

It is still integrated, but in a different way: if you hover the mouse over your Tridents (I like that much better than pitchforks, come to think of it!), you'll see that "Crazie" or "Starter" comes up.

Its not as obvious and I like the way you used to get player's names based on post count too, but you win some you lose some. I think in the long run this system will eliminate some needless posting and improve the quality of content on the board. At least I hope so. And to me, that's more important than the "Starter" or player name, which, while a cool feature, isn't a core asset.

[Newton_14]

Guess we know who is getting a negative comment!

I've never used the comments to disagree with a statement; that is what a post is for, I think. I'd only use it, I think, if I felt a post was simply out of place or out of the general tone of the discussion.

Bingo! Winner winner! I totally agree. There is nothing at all wrong with disagreeing with the content of a post and posting a reply with a differing stance. That is called good debate which we often have here, and should not garner a negative comment.

Negative comments should only be given, as you suggest, for a post that is over the top, or way out of line, excessive ranting, etc etc. I would think most people would provide positive comments many times more than ever providing a negative comment, if they act like adults and use the system as intended.

Also, like many of us have requested numerous times, folks should not provide a negative comment unless they have the stones to sign the comment.

[OldPhiKap]

Bingo! Winner winner! I totally agree. There is nothing at all wrong with disagreeing with the content of a post and posting a reply with a differing stance. That is called good debate which we often have here, and should not garner a negative comment.

Negative comments should only be given, as you suggest, for a post that is over the top, or way out of line, excessive ranting, etc etc. I would think most people would provide positive comments many times more than ever providing a negative comment, if they act like adults and use the system as intended.

Also, like many of us have requested numerous times, folks should not provide a negative comment unless they have the stones to sign the comment.

X2.

Before everyone jumps up and down, let's see how it plays out when the hoops season starts and there is more of a regular ebb and flow. Everything finds its own level.

We have a big game against Wake coming up, and great hoops starting soon. Accentuate the postive, eliminate the negative . . . .

[kong123]

i think Coach K is a better coach than Roy!

[Greg_Newton]

i think Coach K is a better coach than Roy!

Silly kong, stating obvious facts as opinion won't get you tridents!

[DevilHorns]

i think Coach K is a better coach than Roy!

You are completely right kong. Completely right. I remember a post from last year where uh, you were completely wrong:

06-30-2009 09:39 AM #19 kong123
Member

Join Date
Jun 2009
I think the members of this forum are being more optimistic than they should be. Sure, we all hope that Duke wins as many games as possible, but over a 30+ game season, our 3 guards must averaged 55+ points per game combined. Jon and Kyle shouldn't have a problem holding up their end, but is Smith up to the task? Sure, we have some highly regarded freshman coming in, but one of them will have to have an "ACC freshman of the year" type year for Duke to be a contender. Its all about how consistent our team can score and how deep our bench can go, if we do not go deep enough, look for a late season drop off like we have had for the last 5 years. Am I being a touch pessimistic? Perhaps...

all in good fun my tarheel friend

[kong123]

good lord that was well written and right on the money!!!

[devil84]

A number of you have noted that the button at the bottom of each thread labeled with the forum name simply opens up a drop down menu, requiring you to find the forum name from the list to get back to the forum. Y'all would like a one-click solution.

We listened, and you've got it! Under that series of buttons are some that look like this (links removed from the example):

« Previous Thread | Return to Forum | Next Thread »

The Return to Forum will take you to back to the list of threads in the forum you're reading.

Many thanks to -jk for his help on this!

[OldPhiKap]

A number of you have noted that the button at the bottom of each thread labeled with the forum name simply opens up a drop down menu, requiring you to find the forum name from the list to get back to the forum. Y'all would like a one-click solution.

We listened, and you've got it! Under that series of buttons are some that look like this (links removed from the example):

« Previous Thread | Return to Forum | Next Thread »

The Return to Forum will take you to back to the list of threads in the forum you're reading.

Many thanks to -jk for his help on this!

Thanks for adding that feature!

[ArnieMc]

A number of you have noted that the button at the bottom of each thread labeled with the forum name simply opens up a drop down menu, requiring you to find the forum name from the list to get back to the forum. Y'all would like a one-click solution.

We listened, and you've got it! Under that series of buttons are some that look like this (links removed from the example):

« Previous Thread | Return to Forum | Next Thread »

The Return to Forum will take you to back to the list of threads in the forum you're reading.

Many thanks to -jk for his help on this!

Thank you for that and thank you for fixing the alignment problem with "View First Unread."

[Lord Ash]

Oh, I had missed that post... very helpful!

Can I ask actually another question? Is there an ombudsman here at DBR, or a "moderator of moderators" or someone like that who a member can go to regarding something they felt was not handled appropriately by the involved moderator? I know disputes like this are not usually made publicly on DBR, so I was wondering how it would be handled?

Thanks for keeping this thread open and being open to our ideas/gripes!

[weezie]

The "previous thread" "forum" and "next thread" additions are a nice touch. Really makes the place better for entertaining family and friends!