The "negative comments" feature

[devildeac]

At least you tried.
Have a spork or three.
Attachment 2187Attachment 2187Attachment 2187

Curse you, CB&B. While I was out getting bizkits for the family this AM you beat me to the punch in sporking the bearded one. Well done. I'll also send my 6.gif and 11.gif.

24.gif

[OldPhiKap]

I tried to spork The Bearded One for proper use of "ululations" but have to spread some love first.

Which I guess stops the gaming of the system one way or the other, kinda.

[feldspar]

I tried to spork The Bearded One for proper use of "ululations" but have to spread some love first.

Harry....I took care of it.

[devil84]

Back on topic...

Complaining about a specific negative comment on the board is frowned upon. Nobody really wants to read, "Who gave me this negative comment? Coward!" However, starting a discussion of how negative comments should be used, even citing a specific example, is OK. It's the only way the community can shape how negative comments are used.

Given that pitchforks points are compiled from the community, it's helpful to know when a poster has three or four (or more) pitchforks, then the community at large feels this poster has a good and trustworthy body of work. If the poster has one or two flames, it also reflects on that poster's body of work. The people with just one pitchfork, which is the default, either don't post a whole lot or don't post at the extremes (either really good or really bad). Reported posts, warnings, or infractions do not affect how many pitchforks (or flames) a poster has.

I find it very helpful when I read a post that seems a bit unusual for the board to see how many pitchforks a person has. Something that's unusually negative from a poster with multiple pitchforks is taken differently than a poster with a flame or two. Perhaps those people with flames will rethink their posting habits, as the community has given substantial negative feedback. Likewise, something really awesome, like tommy's Bucket-by-Bucket Breakdown of the Defense vs. OSU, should have taken tommy from one pitchfork to A LOT (and it did). We hope tommy posts many more analyses like that!

Multiple pitchforks usually can't happen overnight (tommy's excellent post is one example of how to do it -- advance or start a discussion with an outstanding analysis, not to mention the excellent body of work by Jim Sumner, Olympic Fan, and others). Likewise, flames don't happen overnight. It's actually a pretty good indicator of who posts excellent (or poor) posts. That said, there are plenty of one pitchfork people who post very good posts (or not-so-great posts) that just didn't call for lots of good (or bad) feedback.

A refresher course on how this works:
Each poster starts with 10 points. Positive comments add points. When you reach 100 points, you get a second pitchfork, and gain another with every hundred points given by others. After reaching 500 points, it takes another 200 points to gain a pitchfork -- these are indicated with a shadow (line) underneath it. A person with multiple pitchfork shadows have amassed an amazing number of positive comments. Kudos to them!

Negative comments take away points. When a poster's value equals 0, a gray rectangle is shown (meaning neutral). At -1, a flame is shown. If the total point value is -100 or more, there are two flames, -200 is three flames, etc. It takes an extraordinary effort to get to two flames.

How many points are given? It's an algorithm that takes into account longevity, pitchforks (or flames), participation in the commenting system, and a few other variables. It is an algorithm buried in the contents of the board software and not something that's available to either parse out or change. The first few comments a poster leaves are worth 0 points. Once the poster has participated some, they have earned the privilege (according to the software developers) to start amending other people's point count. If they are a member in good standing, they might add 1 point, working up to somewhere around 10 or more points. A negative comment counts only for a fraction, perhaps knocking off fewer than half (maybe even a third) of the points. Again, the algorithm is not exposed, so I apologize for not giving concrete rules. What you can take away is that good comments rack up faster than bad. If a poster has flames, they cannot alter another poster's pitchfork value.

You also have to "spread it around." This helps to prevent artificial inflation amongst cliques. If you comment on a post, you can't give another comment to that poster until you give quite a substantial (but attainable) number of comments by other posters. This does penalize a poster who puts out a lot of very good content. It also spares a poster who posts a lot of poor posts (use the whistle at the bottom of each post to report poor content that you think violates the rules). On the whole, though, it allows the community to give feedback to exceptional posters.

As you can see, it takes more than a comment or two to change the number of pitchforks (or flames). Typically you'd have to have more than one negative comment (usually 2-3) to see a flame, and perhaps 20 or more to get to a second flame. Likewise, it takes 10-20 or more comments to garner another pitchfork. It all depends on who is giving the comments. On the whole, it's a pretty fair system. However, the unsigned negative comments seem to be a sticking point. On the one hand, it give the ability to give constructive criticism, "Your post is one that doesn't fit our community, so shape up," without fear of retribution. On the other hand, it allows someone to privately blast another poster. This is not what it should be used for. If it's not civil, please PM any of the mods and we can take care of that. Board rules apply to comments and we can and will give infractions for comments.

If you receive an anonymous negative comment that does not run afoul of the board rules but does rub you the wrong way, I've got some advice. First, ask yourself: is there any shred of truth to the comment? Is there something I could have done better? If so, consider that the next time you post. If not, assume the coward is is mouthing off because he/she can and move on. Pretend it was something overheard while in a crowd. Let it bother you for a minute, reflect on it a moment to determine if you did cross a line somewhere, then let it go.

And if you don't like anonymous comments, please don't leave them.

Are you reading along wondering whether you've received comments? Go to the Settings link at the very top of the page. You'll see the last 10 comments you've received. A pitchfork gave you points for a positive comment, a flame represents a negative comment that deducted points, and a gray box indicates that it did not alter your point total and you'll need to read it for context.

I hope this helps. Nobody should get too bent out of shape about anonymous constructive criticism -- or even anonymous blathering. First consider if the comment has a point (regardless of how poorly it's articulated), then consider the source. Stupidity by an anonymous source isn't worth getting upset about. If it violates the rules, report it to the moderators. How? Highlight the comment, then cut the text into the copy buffer - ctrl-c on Windows machines. Click on the link to your post (just above the comment), then click on the whistle below your post to report it. Tell us that you received a comment and paste the comment into your explanation -- ctrl-v on Windows machines. This will let all moderators know what you received and an administrator will look into it promptly.

[feldspar]

Awesome explanation, devil84. That really sheds light on the process.

It also tells me that I'm only two points away from earning my second pitchfork. (hint hint)

JUST KIDDING. I'm not trolling for sporks.

Or am I?

No, really I'm not...seriously.

On the other hand...

[devildeac]

Awesome explanation, devil84. That really sheds light on the process.

It also tells me that I'm only two points away from earning my second pitchfork. (hint hint)

JUST KIDDING. I'm not trolling for sporks.

Or am I?

No, really I'm not...seriously.

On the other hand...

Hmmm, looks like it worked. I'll send you the routing # for my checking account for your direct deposit.

[feldspar]

Hmmm, looks like it worked. I'll send you the routing # for my checking account for your direct deposit.

Hahaha...I'll have to use my offshore account so the transaction can't be traced.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

Ha! My Zpork points seems to have pushed Devil84 from 5 to 6 zporkz too!

[A-Tex Devil]

Also, the positive points received from more highly zporked posters seems to have dropped, at least if they regularly zpork you. For example, receiving only 2 points from someone having 5 or 6 zporkz. It used to be comparable to the number of zporkz the poster has, say 4 points for 4 zporkz. Not so much anymore.

Maybe the algorithm has diminishing returns built into it? If you get the same thumbs up from the same person on every post, that would make sense I think. I hadn't ever noticed the comments I get until this thread, but I'm fascinated by the super secret algorithm. I think it may be sentient.

[CameronBornAndBred]

After reaching 500 points, it takes another 200 points to gain a pitchfork -- these are indicated with a shadow (line) underneath it.

I never noticed the shadows until your post.
nissen-k5.gif

[devil84]

I'm glad that many of you have publicly and privately expressed your opinions of my explanation (all comments are signed, I might add!). I hope it sheds some light on how and why it works the way it does.

Also, the positive points received from more highly zporked posters seems to have dropped, at least if they regularly zpork you. For example, receiving only 2 points from someone having 5 or 6 zporkz. It used to be comparable to the number of zporkz the poster has, say 4 points for 4 zporkz. Not so much anymore.

Maybe the algorithm has diminishing returns built into it? If you get the same thumbs up from the same person on every post, that would make sense I think. I hadn't ever noticed the comments I get until this thread, but I'm fascinated by the super secret algorithm. I think it may be sentient.

I don't know what the algorithm actually is. All I can go on is the (very sparse) documentation. And, quite frankly, I kind of like the "not knowing." It seems like there are a lot of checks and balances built in to keep from gaming the system and documenting them would actually be counter-productive. Besides, it's kinda fun to watch everyone speculate on how they work. A-Tex's response to Ozzie's comment sure sounds plausible...

Anyway, I hope nobody's taking these pitchforks too seriously. The number of times one has posted and the number of pitchforks one has are not the only yardsticks with which to measure a post. The reason many of us hang out here is the overall quality of the discussion, so I'm hoping people are more concerned with the quality of their posts than the quantity of their pitchforks. Quality posts tend to add pitchforks (and douse any flames one might have accrued, if that's the case).

[Indoor66]

I never noticed the shadows until your post.
nissen-k5.gif

All right, Lamont, back to the shadows.

[OldPhiKap]

The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us. Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work... when you go to church... when you pay your taxes... when you post on DBR. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.


(Sorry to call out DBR, but it's time everyone knew)

[snowdenscold]

I find it very helpful when I read a post that seems a bit unusual for the board to see how many pitchforks a person has. Something that's unusually negative from a poster with multiple pitchforks is taken differently than a poster with a flame or two.

I think there is a lot of truth to this statement. Just as a person's tone of voice while speaking can alter the perception of the same sentence, so can seeing 5 pitchforks as opposed to 2 flames.

I also would like to echo CB&B, in that I never would have noticed those shadows underneath the pitchforks had I not taken the time to read your giant long post =)

I also find it intriguing (but appreciated) that the software designers put so much effort and consideration into the algorithm - with all sorts of checks and balances, diminishing returns, obscurity to avoid gaming it, etc.

[JasonEvans]

One important fact to add from Devil84's fine explanation...

A positive comment from Patrick Davidson is worth 6347 points. A negative comment from him instantly reduces your point total to zero... where it shall remain for all eternity.

-Jason

[hurleyfor3]

A positive comment from Patrick Davidson is worth 6347 points. A negative comment from him instantly reduces your point total to zero... where it shall remain for all eternity.

And every time you neg someone, Daniel Ewing gets a technical. And God kills a kitten.

[bjornolf]

And every time you neg someone, Daniel Ewing gets a technical. And God kills a kitten.

God kills a kitten, or Nancy Grace r***s a puppy?

[OldPhiKap]

One important fact to add from Devil84's fine explanation...

A positive comment from Patrick Davidson is worth 6347 points. A negative comment from him instantly reduces your point total to zero... where it shall remain for all eternity.

-Jason

The algorithm exists because Nate James allows it to exist.

[bjornolf]

The algorithm exists because Nate James allows it to exist.

Is that like the commercial telling us how millions of people play WoW because Chuck Norris allows their character to live?

[whereinthehellami]

As someone who has amassed alot of pitchforks, my advice for those looking to add some utensils to their proverbial drawer need only be patient and try not to game the system. Be the spork!