PDA

View Full Version : Introducing...



Pages : [1] 2

-jk
07-22-2010, 01:44 PM
As some you may have noticed, we've made a few changes around here.

The obvious one is cosmetic: we've changed the overall look and feel, and also added a separate front end for smart phones. We'll be tweaking these a bit as we get feedback, especially the mobile look which will probably undergo a complete overhaul or two before we're content.

We ran into a lot of issues with Internet Explorer 6 - that 10 year old version that was never quite right. If you're still using IE6 (and you really shouldn't be), you'll see the mobile look. If you want the full look and can't upgrade from IE6, try Firefox, Chrome, or some other browser. If you get the mobile look and you aren't using a mobile device or IE6, please contact me via PM.

And if you notice anything else odd with the new look, PM me. We've done a fair bit of testing, but tests can never replicate the real world.

Not all of the changes are cosmetic.

We have a new Posting Guidelines sticky; please take a few minutes to read through it. Nothing revolutionary - the DBR Boards have evolved and the guidelines needed to evolve as well. We reaffirm our commitment to civility and rational discourse while having fun talking Duke, sports, and other stuff too.

We're introducing a brand new feature, Comments. On posts especially better or worse than average, rather than saying "POTW" or jumping on someone, you can give a thumbs-up or thumbs-down and add a comment for the original poster. There is an icon, :) :(, in the lower, left part of each post for this. When you float your mouse over it, you'll see "What do you think of this post?" Remember, civility apply here, too!

We're going to play with comments a lot more in the future. For instance, we'll automatically highlight posts that get a lot of positive comments and automatically delete posts that are overwhelmingly panned. For now, give some feedback to the posts as you feel appropriate. Comments are reflected in points, and points are reflected in pitchforks by your username. You can only comment on recent posts, only a few times a day, and you have to spread 'em around between different members. You can see the last few comments you've received on your settings page.

So, come on in, poke around, and let us know what you think.

-jk

moonpie23
07-22-2010, 03:15 PM
the site looks awesome....i really dig the new style!!


should we pm you with any little buggys that we run across?

-jk
07-22-2010, 03:17 PM
Thanks, and please.

Lots of credit to devil84 for a ton of help with it.

-jk

Duvall
07-22-2010, 03:27 PM
the site looks awesome....i really dig the new style!!

Really? Why?

I think the new site looks horrible, and putting Google Ads inside posts is just embarrassing.

JasonEvans
07-22-2010, 03:55 PM
putting Google Ads inside posts is just embarrassing.

Unless you are willing to fund the site out of your own pocket, I think criticizing the revenue model for the owners is not quite fair.

-Jason

Duvall
07-22-2010, 04:07 PM
Unless you are willing to fund the site out of your own pocket, I think criticizing the revenue model for the owners is not quite fair.

-Jason

Is there another message board that does this? I don't think I've ever seen it before, and it's remarkably distracting. And ugly.

Greg_Newton
07-22-2010, 04:30 PM
Would there be a way to wrap the text of posts around the ads? As it is, it makes threads fairly hard to read because you have to scroll past these long, vertical posts.

MisterRoddy
07-22-2010, 04:45 PM
The mobile site is really bugging me, I am usually on my iPad and now I have to deal with it on here and my iPhone, is there any way You guys can add a Switch to desktop button at the bottom of the page like most mobile sites do?

DukieInKansas
07-22-2010, 04:55 PM
Would there be a way to wrap the text of posts around the ads? As it is, it makes threads fairly hard to read because you have to scroll past these long, vertical posts.

The ads are horizontal on my view. And not all posts get an ad. How is that determined?

eta: Never mind - Your comment just finally sunk in. Your ads are horizontal also - which makes the post long vertically. I'm going back for reading comprehension lessons. :-(

MisterRoddy
07-22-2010, 04:55 PM
The mobile site is really bugging me, I am usually on my iPad and now I have to deal with it on here and my iPhone, is there any way You guys can add a Switch to desktop button at the bottom of the page like most mobile sites do?

Now that I'm on my desktop, I see that it is pretty much the same. I really liked the old site, why fix something that isn't broken?

Ultrarunner
07-22-2010, 05:02 PM
I like the look and it looks like we may have a few new tools to work with which is nice.

The ads don't bother me but I'm on a computer whenever I'm here rather than mobile. I have seen other sites place them into the comments threads. Whatever it takes to make a buck and keep the site up.

Seems to load faster too.

-jk
07-22-2010, 05:19 PM
The mobile site is really bugging me, I am usually on my iPad and now I have to deal with it on here and my iPhone, is there any way You guys can add a Switch to desktop button at the bottom of the page like most mobile sites do?

I said in another post we would make it optional. We just have to work it out. It might take a day or two.

-jk

Oriole Way
07-22-2010, 05:51 PM
I like the old board layout much, much better.

dw0827
07-22-2010, 05:58 PM
For me, one of the most useful features had been to go to the last post read in a particular thread. Does this new format also provide this function? I haven't found it yet.

My immediate reaction is that I'm not overly fond of the look . . . in part because the font is smaller and I'm an old fart with failing eyesight.

But I'll get used to it so no problem.

Taco
07-22-2010, 06:01 PM
Haha. To the site staff & moderators let me just say: buckle up. People hate change and will complain to high heaven when this sort of thing happens to a site they visit every day. Take suggestions with a grain of salt, especially this early on. Some are no-brainers, like adding an option on the mobile site to switch to the main view, but for general "I HATE IT AND IT'S UGLY" stuff, people just need time to settle down and adjust. If the level of discussion stays high, people will get used to the new layout in no time. Good luck.

devil84
07-22-2010, 06:28 PM
For me, one of the most useful features had been to go to the last post read in a particular thread. Does this new format also provide this function? I haven't found it yet.

It's still here. On both the regular and the mobile version, note the blue "NEW" button next to the thread heading. On the "Blue" style (for regular old computers), when viewing the thread, there's a menu bar just under the thread title that has a "View First Unread" link with the NEW button next to it.

Bluedog
07-22-2010, 06:37 PM
Haha. To the site staff & moderators let me just say: buckle up. People hate change and will complain to high heaven when this sort of thing happens to a site they visit every day. Take suggestions with a grain of salt, especially this early on. Some are no-brainers, like adding an option on the mobile site to switch to the main view, but for general "I HATE IT AND IT'S UGLY" stuff, people just need time to settle down and adjust. If the level of discussion stays high, people will get used to the new layout in no time. Good luck.

While I agree with your premise, I'd say the board was overwhelmingly positive when the last major change occurred in 2007 using new board software that allowed additional functionality. So, it's not always true that "people hate change."

I do like the ability to comment/agree/disagree with posts with this new software. I'm not the biggest fan of the new layout/look, but we'll all get used to it. The font is definitely smaller, though. And I am a bit confused about the # of pitchforks. 1 = highest? Looks like some really frequent posters have 3 and others have 1. Not that it really matters, just interesting.

Merlindevildog91
07-22-2010, 06:39 PM
I, too, find the ads distracting when embedded in a reply. Not only are they distracting, but they detract from the message.

Case in point: On both my work and home computers, in the "Decorum and Posting Guidelines" thread, next to the Category X warning description, is an ad for "DateMrsRobinson.com". I don't offend all that easily, but I found this quite offensive.

I know you must have ads to run. I know your control over Google ads is limited. But good grief! "DateMrsRobinson.com"? What's next? PimpsRUs?

I have been reading DBR for ages and have been reading the forums for long before I started to post. It seems to me that the demographic here is NOT 18 year old lads seeking sugar mama cougars. It would seem if you want your board to be PG-13 and nothing you would want your mother to experience, this is the type of thing that is completely inappropriate.

I was frankly embarrassed to be on DBR at my work this afternoon when I saw this.

-jk
07-22-2010, 06:43 PM
While I agree with your premise, I'd say the board was overwhelmingly positive when the last major change occurred in 2007 using new board software that allowed additional functionality. So, it's not always true that "people hate change."

I do like the ability to comment/agree/disagree with posts with this new software. I'm not the biggest fan of the new layout/look, but we'll all get used to it. The font is definitely smaller, though. And I am a bit confused about the # of pitchforks. 1 = highest? Looks like some really frequent posters have 3 and others have 1. Not that it really matters, just interesting.

Your pitchforks are somewhat relative to the comments you have received. They'll be fairly meaningless for a few weeks until people comment on enough posts. As time goes on, and people comment on others' posts, they will take on meaning. So comment away!

-jk

DukieBoy
07-22-2010, 07:14 PM
I have a Mac and the site looks 100% different. Nothing is the same. I don't know if this is what it's supposed to look, but I don't know if I like it

FireOgilvie
07-22-2010, 07:14 PM
I think the one main change I would make would be an option to change the font on the message board. This font is too narrow... maybe something with some girth.

The font on the signatures is actually very nice.

gep
07-22-2010, 08:17 PM
The new look is OK for me... except, as has been mentioned, a "wider" font would be nice. Also, I looked at the site on my iPhone, and it looks just like the desktop, so no problems for me there. But what I really like is that on the thread list, the "New" button is by itself. In the former site, the thread starter link was immediately below the "New" button, and on the iPhone, I had a hard time tapping/clicking on the "New" button without touching the thread starter link without zooming way in (yeah, I've got fat fingers). Seems easier for me now.

devil84
07-22-2010, 08:34 PM
There's a temporary fix for those of you wanting a larger font. If you're on a Windows machine, use Ctrl-+ to increase the font size. Ctrl-- (Control-Minus) decreases. It's not a perfect fix, but it's a band-aid you can use right now while we look for a more permanent solution.

Mike Corey
07-22-2010, 08:57 PM
Best part about the new boards?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AY-iq58_oz4

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
07-22-2010, 10:51 PM
Haha. To the site staff & moderators let me just say: buckle up. People hate change and will complain to high heaven when this sort of thing happens to a site they visit every day. Take suggestions with a grain of salt, especially this early on. Some are no-brainers, like adding an option on the mobile site to switch to the main view, but for general "I HATE IT AND IT'S UGLY" stuff, people just need time to settle down and adjust. If the level of discussion stays high, people will get used to the new layout in no time. Good luck.

Exactly this.

I work in internet marketing and I see it all the time. Best of luck, DBR! I'm still with you.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
07-22-2010, 10:53 PM
That is an excellent feature indeed... we can all look forward to everything this will be used for...

Lord Ash
07-22-2010, 11:17 PM
Can I ask... we have one pitchfork members, and two pitchfork members... three seems to mean moderator. What is the story there? I was always very interested in getting beyond All-ACC Second Team!:(

-jk
07-22-2010, 11:22 PM
Can I ask... we have one pitchfork members, and two pitchfork members... three seems to mean moderator. What is the story there? I was always very interested in getting beyond All-ACC Second Team!:(

Pitchforks are mostly relative to the number of posts with positive comments.

-jk

Lord Ash
07-22-2010, 11:25 PM
Really? Hm, strange... so basically the more "Happy Face" ratings you get, the more pitchforks?

Man I miss the old rating method... loved when random names popped up, and I had to figure out how I earned that particular name.

-jk
07-22-2010, 11:30 PM
Really? Hm, strange... so basically the more "Happy Face" ratings you get, the more pitchforks?

Man I miss the old rating method... loved when random names popped up, and I had to figure out how I earned that particular name.

Something like that. It's a work in progress. We'll see where it leads us.

-jk

CameronBornAndBred
07-22-2010, 11:30 PM
I don't know where to start, so I'll just offer this. This is a huge mistake. I've had my problems with DBR in the past, but they were only with the mods..this new look is outlandish..but maybe I could get used to that..but the ads..you've got to be kidding. I don't want my thoughts tied into some product that I don't know or care about. This is a really sad day. A website and a forum can be run with minimal money and no need for ads. Especially not to the level it is now brought. Big, Big mistake.

Taco
07-22-2010, 11:40 PM
A website and a forum can be run with minimal money and no need for ads.

Okay, you do it then.

Eckster
07-22-2010, 11:45 PM
I think the site looks great and the new features will be a nice addition. Of course you all loved the old site, as did I. But I also loved my 1991 Honda Prelude before I upgraded and now I'm wondering why I waited so long to do it. The new ride has navigation, satellite radio and a bunch of other things that I love. I think with time, the setup on the site will become the new normal and everyone will forget about the old Prelude... I mean message board. Thanks guys!

MisterRoddy
07-23-2010, 12:03 AM
After only a day and a few updates (thanks Devil84 and -jk), I think I will grow to like this new format. I'm glad you guys gave the option to have the regular optimization on mobile devices, that's a big plus seeing as I use my iPhone a lot. Overall, thumbs up to the DBR mods who put this together, you guys did a great job.

Edouble
07-23-2010, 12:44 AM
Really? Hm, strange... so basically the more "Happy Face" ratings you get, the more pitchforks?

Man I miss the old rating method... loved when random names popped up, and I had to figure out how I earned that particular name.

I don't mind the ads so much, but I really enjoy the old post count too, for a couple of reasons.

I love the different player names that would pop up and the puzzle/riddle that entailed.

I also thought that the post count makes it alot easier to sniff out a troll.

Also, I'm not familiar with all of the posters here, but if someone posts something and I'm not familiar with that poster, but I see that they've posted hundreds or thousands of times, I would take their post a little more seriously than if the poster had only posted two times.

ricks68
07-23-2010, 01:54 AM
I don't mind the ads so much, but I really enjoy the old post count too, for a couple of reasons.

I love the different player names that would pop up and the puzzle/riddle that entailed.

I also thought that the post count makes it alot easier to sniff out a troll.

Also, I'm not familiar with all of the posters here, but if someone posts something and I'm not familiar with that poster, but I see that they've posted hundreds or thousands of times, I would take their post a little more seriously than if the poster had only posted two times.



O. K. I just got kicked out when I tried a quick reply to this. I have to agree with Edouble on this one. How about getting the designations back?

ricks

brevity
07-23-2010, 02:11 AM
I think the one main change I would make would be an option to change the font on the message board. This font is too narrow... maybe something with some girth.

Not speaking for others, but today marks the day that I consider myself one of the older members of this board. The new font, while crisp, is harder to read.

MisterRoddy
07-23-2010, 02:25 AM
I don't know where to start, so I'll just offer this. This is a huge mistake. I've had my problems with DBR in the past, but they were only with the mods..this new look is outlandish..but maybe I could get used to that..but the ads..you've got to be kidding. I don't want my thoughts tied into some product that I don't know or care about. This is a really sad day. A website and a forum can be run with minimal money and no need for ads. Especially not to the level it is now brought. Big, Big mistake.

Lighten up, there is only 1 or 2 ads per page and everyone knows the ads have nothing to do with your posts. In fact, I don't even notice the ads most of the time so it really isn't something to worry about.

gep
07-23-2010, 03:45 AM
Lighten up, there is only 1 or 2 ads per page and everyone knows the ads have nothing to do with your posts. In fact, I don't even notice the ads most of the time so it really isn't something to worry about.

Actually... the posts with the ads are somewhat easier for me to read. The columns are half the width instead of being across the entire page... more like a "newspaper" or "magazine" column format. And, like online newspapers or magazines, I don't even notice the ads... except for the ones that flash bright colors, lots of movement, etc.:cool:

papa whiskey
07-23-2010, 04:41 AM
I don't really mind the ads. In this day and age they are pretty much everywhere so you kind of get used to them. One thing I am torn about is the lack of how many posts each user has. At first I thought it was a good thing because it would cut down on people posting mindless, useless comments on every topic just to up the number. However, when I first came to this forum several months ago, the count did make it easier to tell the difference between seasoned observers and hacks who like to yell and hide behind a user name. For me, the jury is still out.

blazindw
07-23-2010, 09:10 AM
FYI, as -jk said, pitchforks are related to the number of positive comments received about posts. Moderators don't automatically have 3, as evidenced by yours truly.

JohnGalt
07-23-2010, 09:24 AM
Also, I'm not familiar with all of the posters here, but if someone posts something and I'm not familiar with that poster, but I see that they've posted hundreds or thousands of times, I would take their post a little more seriously than if the poster had only posted two times.

I'm relatively new to the site, but in my short time onboard I've noticed...hmm how shall I say...misguided... posts coming from those who've tallied a 2 post count all the way to those who've tallied a 1000 post count. I understand the 'old timer's' connection with the post count as it's sort of a badge of honor and respect within the community, but I think it's also important to realize that new members are certainly capable of rational (and pertinent) opinion.

NSDukeFan
07-23-2010, 09:49 AM
I completely agree that new members are very capable of rational and pertinent opinion, but it is much less often that you see someone who has been here for awhile (e.g. Feb07 was the earliest on the last upgrade, I believe) making an irrational or senseless post, or posting an opinion that didn't seem at all credible. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, but much less often, IMO. I don't think it is unreasonable that your posts may not carry as much credibility or be trusted as much until you have made a few quality posts and added to the discussion(s) a few times.

NSDukeFan
07-23-2010, 10:09 AM
I was going to add this to my last post, but saw that I was past the 15 minute auto editing timeline. Interesting that we are now given the option of editing after that timeline has expired which wasn't the case in the old format, with a link to send it to an administrator. I don't have a problem with the new design, though like all change, requires some getting used to. I like the idea of commenting on posts (may lessen some needless posting) and will be interested to see how that works out. I also remember someone commenting in the past few months how it was not that easy to get back to the main page from the bottom of a thread. I see that has been made easier with the quick navigation bar right after the end of the thread. Thanks for that small improvement.

OZZIE4DUKE
07-23-2010, 10:31 AM
A website and a forum can be run with minimal money and no need for ads.


Okay, you do it then.
He has (http://crazietalk.net/blog1.php), and very successfully. Many posters here are posters there too. And some former posters here only post there. The big difference is content. The DBR has lots of great daily content and CTN is mostly, although not exclusively, about the boards, and primarily the "Our House" off topic board. We have fun, are civil, and self moderate, although there are no "wanker" filters and we will occasionally go (way) beyond PG13, and yes, there are several grandmothers who read and participate (post) on the boards.

For the record, I'm fine with the new format here, using the "Blue" option, and on the mobil version I have trouble reading my Droid on every web site if I don't "pinch expand" the displays. I'd like to see the poster's post count displayed, but then, I'm #7 (4,638 posts). And I'd like to see the posting smilies displayed without having to click "Go Advanced". :cool:

Duvall
07-23-2010, 11:15 AM
Some of the dialog boxes on posts seem a little buggy in IE 8. If you click on the Username to access functions like private messaging and e-mail, the window with those functions pops under any quoted text in the post and makes the window inaccessible. Something similar can happen when you try to comment on a post within a thread; sometimes the comment window pops under the following post and is inaccessible, sometimes it doesn't.

-jk
07-23-2010, 11:28 AM
Some of the dialog boxes on posts seem a little buggy in IE 8. If you click on the Username to access functions like private messaging and e-mail, the window with those functions pops under any quoted text in the post and makes the window inaccessible. Something similar can happen when you try to comment on a post within a thread; sometimes the comment window pops under the following post and is inaccessible, sometimes it doesn't.

I can't duplicate this in my IE 8. Can you relaunch IE with all add-ons disabled? On my box it's Programs > Accessories > System Tools > Internet Explorer (No Add-ons).

thanks,

-jk

Duvall
07-23-2010, 11:36 AM
I can't duplicate this in my IE 8. Can you relaunch IE with all add-ons disabled? On my box it's Programs > Accessories > System Tools > Internet Explorer (No Add-ons).

thanks,

-jk

Didn't seem make a difference.

bluebutton
07-23-2010, 11:37 AM
So about the ads--

I browse with chrome and have an ad blocker add-on and I don't see any ads. I think adblocker is an easy extension to add for all firefox or chrome users. If ads are the primary reason you're upset, I recommend this route. Linky link (http://www.google.com/search?aq=0&oq=adblocker&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=ad+blocker)

However, since I do want to support DBR, do y'all mods know if having my ad-blocker on when I surf the site reduces revenue for DBR?

-jk
07-23-2010, 11:38 AM
Didn't seem make a difference.

Odd. Can anyone else replicate this?

-jk

Taco
07-23-2010, 11:41 AM
However, since I do want to support DBR, do y'all mods know if having my ad-blocker on when I surf the site reduces revenue for DBR?

I'm pretty sure it does. You can whitelist however, which I do for a lot of smaller "mom n pop" sites like DBR that I want to support. Assuming you're using AdBlock with Chrome -


Click the wrench -> Extensions
Click 'Options' under AdBlock
Click the 'Excluded Sites' tab
add 'dukebasketballreport.com'


Any adblocker worth a crap should have a similar interface/option.

ice-9
07-23-2010, 01:11 PM
It's still here. On both the regular and the mobile version, note the blue "NEW" button next to the thread heading. On the "Blue" style (for regular old computers), when viewing the thread, there's a menu bar just under the thread title that has a "View First Unread" link with the NEW button next to it.

Something I never quite understood about the DBR forums is why a "New" button is required to jump to the last post that you read. In the two other forums that I frequent, the title of the thread on the main forum listing automatically takes you to the last post that you read.

If you want to start from the very beginning, in a multi-page thread there's links to specific pages in the thread; you can simply click on "1" if you want to start from the beginning. If it's a single page thread, well it's not very difficult to just scroll up.

The "New" button is simply redundant. It wouldn't necessarily be a bad redundancy on the desktop, but on a mobile phone where the button is small I often accidentally hit something else. Wouldn't it make so much more sense to make the title of the thread the hyperlink that takes you to the last post you read? That's by far the most common user scenario.

I hadn't said anything before because I joined the forums much after it got started; but since this is new is it possible to consider making that change?

moonpie23
07-23-2010, 01:17 PM
I'm using safari. the OLD board took me str8 to the last post when i clicked on the "last posted" icon next to the posters name....this new one does not.....this one takes me to the top of the last page.....so i guess an extra click is needed to get to the last post...

devil84
07-23-2010, 01:27 PM
The fonts on the Blue style (default style on a regular ol' computer) should be a bit more readable in most places. The Mobile style has not changed (yet).

For those of you "stuck" on the Mobile style and want to get back to Blue, click on the UserCP, and you'll see a dropdown that will allow you to select the Blue style.

And just a reminder (most of you are doing a great job on this), let us know what browser you're working on and tell us whether you're on a computer or specify the kind of mobile device you're using. There's a bit more complexity behind the scenes than the last board.

We're listening! Keep on letting us know what you find. Thanks for your patience!

allenmurray
07-23-2010, 01:36 PM
I don't want to date Mrs. Robinson - I am more than happy with Mrs. Murray. More to the point I find that ad to be in incredibly poor taste. But I guess SBNation is okay with it.

You get what you pay for.

ncexnyc
07-23-2010, 01:39 PM
Is there another message board that does this? I don't think I've ever seen it before, and it's remarkably distracting. And ugly.

Yes, unfortunately the site for Non-Sport Update, which is a site devoted to trading cards has also started running ads in the middle of threads. As for your original comment, I believe they are spot on and justified. You expressed an opinion of the new format and gave your reason why.

weezie
07-23-2010, 02:08 PM
Really? Hm, strange... so basically the more "Happy Face" ratings you get, the more pitchforks?

Man I miss the old rating method... loved when random names popped up, and I had to figure out how I earned that particular name.

I'm with you, Your Lordship. Here, I'll give you a pitchfork for your troubles....or maybe next time since it would be needless posting to just say what I'm saying here again when giving you the positive comment. I'm a little unclear yet.

Duvall
07-23-2010, 02:34 PM
Some of the dialog boxes on posts seem a little buggy in IE 8. If you click on the Username to access functions like private messaging and e-mail, the window with those functions pops under any quoted text in the post and makes the window inaccessible. Something similar can happen when you try to comment on a post within a thread; sometimes the comment window pops under the following post and is inaccessible, sometimes it doesn't.

This seems to be fixed now, unless it was a problem with my browser. But either way, thanks.

Exiled_Devil
07-23-2010, 02:55 PM
Can I ask... we have one pitchfork members, and two pitchfork members... three seems to mean moderator. What is the story there? I was always very interested in getting beyond All-ACC Second Team!:(

I want to chime in with missing the special names based on post counts. That was very fun.

Other than that, this seems to be a pretty innocuous change, which is inevitably going to happen every 2-3 years.

I'm surprised no one has called for codes to come back yet.

devil84
07-23-2010, 02:58 PM
I'm with you, Your Lordship. Here, I'll give you a pitchfork for your troubles....or maybe next time since it would be needless posting to just say what I'm saying here again when giving you the positive comment. I'm a little unclear yet.

Hmmm...it looks like there's a little clarification needed on how the pitchforks and comments are related. While accolades and encouragement in posts are strongly encouraged on the board (and needless posting discouraged), there is a new system for giving comments. It allows posters to give positive (or negative) comments to each other, and it does affect the number of pitchforks. How do you use this system, you ask? Click the comment button on the bottom of each post. It's the : ) : ( characters in a talk bubble button. If you hover over it, it says, "What do you think of this post?"

We're hoping that this will cut down on some of the needless posting. You can see the last few comments you've received on your User Control Panel (see Settings link at the top), so you can see who said what about your posts. If you see a post that is a well written post that gives great insight, go ahead and give it a positive comment! (There's a negative option, too, in the event you need it.)

Wildling
07-23-2010, 03:04 PM
As a vBulletin forum owner for the past 7 years with an active community, I hope you take what I have to say seriously.

#1. The ad's in the posts need to go. It will only run people off and point blank won't bring any substantial income at all. New people wanting to join the forum will be completely turned off by these ad placements.

#2 The banner in the footer you can remove too. Two reasons. One, they rarely get any clickthru's. Your CPC income is minimal at best. Number two, your CPM won't pay that much because google publishers don't want their ad's displayed at the bottom of websites where they are rarely seen or ignored.

#3 If you need some help on where to insert your google ads, this would be a good place to start. (https://www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=17954)

I would suggest going to vb.org where I assume you got this latest ad plugin, and find the one where you can put an ad in after the 1st post. It's less obtrusive and blends in a little better with the postbit template.

Google ad's, when placed right, have a effective way of working for you without being obnoxious to the end user.

#4 While I applaud your effort in customizing vB4 (this is no easy task, coming from a vb3 owner who refuses to upgrade to vb4, so I feel your pain.), I think you would have been better off with a premade skin and customize it to your liking. This current skin I would have to say is sub par with what you can spend $35 on, and it look 10 times better. I really mean no offense :) I know how hard it is to customize vB4, that's why I suggested a premade skin.

And to those saying you can run a vB website without running ad's to support it, I would like to see another forum of this size without any ad's on it and without asking for donations.

vB costs $200 brand new, I think it's 20% less if your just upgrading. Then you have to pay for at least a VPS (Virtual Private Server) plan. This cost's at the minimum at a reliable hosting company $50 a month. And looking at the traffic DBR gets, I don't think a VPS plan is enough, so your looking in upwards to $75-$100 a month plan to support the traffic DBR gets without having downtime.

As far as the skin goes, I don't want to spam website links to premade vb forum skins, but there are some really nice ones out there you could customize just a tad and give this place a nice face lift. It's not bad, but it could be much better.

There is my less than shiny two pennies :)

-jk
07-23-2010, 03:07 PM
Thanks for the thoughts. There will be some tweaking as we move forward.

-jk

Jarhead
07-23-2010, 03:07 PM
Adding another straw to the haystack, I'll just say that I am not pleased with the new layout. I'd come up with a reason, like it hurts my eyes, or something as pitiful, but there is only one thing that I can specifically complain about. The quick navigation button annoys me. I click on Elizabeth King Forum and a list appears on which I must click on Elizabeth King again. I could do that in the old system, but not in this one. Why is that? Why not a button for each of the two forums, and a third smaller button for those needing help in finding their way? It angers me so much that on a scale of one to ten it registers at point oh five. That's as high as annoy should go.

Oh, wait a minute, there's no button to preview my post. My anger has climbed to point oh eight. If nobody else noticed that shortcoming then nobody is screening their posts before submitting them, as required by the rules. :cool:

Sheeesh, there it is . You have to use the advanced button to get to the preview post button. Guys, that's point oh nine.;)

CameronBornAndBred
07-23-2010, 03:07 PM
Okay, you do it then.

I have, and still am. The site works great, and it's ad free.

Edit.. I just read Ozzie's reply. He said it better...lol.

monkey
07-23-2010, 03:17 PM
Best part about the new boards?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AY-iq58_oz4

Ok I agree this is pretty awesome. On the other hand, I totally agree with all those folks who want post-count and special names ("Shane Battier") back. Those were cool.

Also, and just MHO, but I agree with the person who suggested this particular interface actually looks "older" in internet time than the last iteration of the message boards. I will get used to it, but wonder if it would be very difficult to update the "look" while leaving the tech stuff in the background essentially the same. BTW, I thought the last iteration of the message boards was a great improvement over the old "Sagarmatha" experience....

monkey
07-23-2010, 03:18 PM
I have, and still am. The site works great, and it's ad free.

Edit.. I just read Ozzie's reply. He said it better...lol.

This is interesting - apparently when you edit the old post it doesn't show it as edited - anyway to bring this feature back?

Faison1
07-23-2010, 03:55 PM
I am really bad at switching grocery stores....therefore, take my opinion with a grain of salt. But can we go back to the last iteration?

CathyCA
07-23-2010, 04:08 PM
I'm getting old, my eyesight is poor, and I had a hard time reading the fonts. Fortunately, Devil84 had a great suggestion with the "Control +" thing. I never knew that before. Thank you for helping an old lady read the boards easier.

And while I'm on the topic of old ladies, I likely won't be reading DBR at work any more because of the content of the cougar ads. I'm wondering how many DBR posters actually click on them.

Jarhead
07-23-2010, 04:15 PM
Ok I agree this is pretty awesome. On the other hand, I totally agree with all those folks who want post-count and special names ("Shane Battier") back. Those were cool.

Also, and just MHO, but I agree with the person who suggested this particular interface actually looks "older" in internet time than the last iteration of the message boards. I will get used to it, but wonder if it would be very difficult to update the "look" while leaving the tech stuff in the background essentially the same. BTW, I thought the last iteration of the message boards was a great improvement over the old "Sagarmatha" experience....

That's interesting. Your post ought to be all alone in a sticky thread permanently at the top of the board.

I kinda' liked the Sagarmatha software. It reminded me of my old Hazeltine dumb terminal back in the day with the ARPA Net. Anybody remember that experience.

gep
07-23-2010, 05:13 PM
As a vBulletin forum owner for the past 7 years with an active community, I hope you take what I have to say seriously.

#3 If you need some help on where to insert your google ads, this would be a good place to start. (https://www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=17954)

I would suggest going to vb.org where I assume you got this latest ad plugin, and find the one where you can put an ad in after the 1st post. It's less obtrusive and blends in a little better with the postbit template.

I've recently seen boards like this... with the ad after the 1st (or 2nd?) post spanning across the entire page. It did seem less obtrusive.

gep
07-23-2010, 05:17 PM
Oh, wait a minute, there's no button to preview my post. My anger has climbed to point oh eight. If nobody else noticed that shortcoming then nobody is screening their posts before submitting them, as required by the rules. :cool:

Sheeesh, there it is . You have to use the advanced button to get to the preview post button. Guys, that's point oh nine.;)

Interesting... I thought that I saw the "preview post" button when doing the quick reply when this new board first went active.... but now it's in the advanced button. Did it move? Was it ever there?

pfrduke
07-23-2010, 05:25 PM
So, the comment function allows people to like/dislike, and then provide comments. I can only assume that people have been taking advantage of it thus far. Other than the pitchforks, though, does it show in any way? Are the comments sent to the poster?

ETA: Hmm, I see I have two pitchforks (which can only come as a result of comments/ people clicking on the smiley faces, right?), but was unaware of any comments on my posts. I'm guessing that means posters aren't made aware of positive or negative responses (other than in the obvious way, by someone telling them they are a genius/idiot).

-jk
07-23-2010, 06:10 PM
So, the comment function allows people to like/dislike, and then provide comments. I can only assume that people have been taking advantage of it thus far. Other than the pitchforks, though, does it show in any way? Are the comments sent to the poster?

ETA: Hmm, I see I have two pitchforks (which can only come as a result of comments/ people clicking on the smiley faces, right?), but was unaware of any comments on my posts. I'm guessing that means posters aren't made aware of positive or negative responses (other than in the obvious way, by someone telling them they are a genius/idiot).

If you click on Settings at the top, you can see the comments you've received.

-jk

devil84
07-23-2010, 10:47 PM
We've tweaked the Blue style a bit. We hope you find the look easier on the eyes. There are still a few quirks that need to be worked out (for example, there are a couple of buttons that when you hover over them, the text and button colors are just a few shades of blue off from each other). But hopefully it's much more usable.

Newton_14
07-23-2010, 10:58 PM
We've tweaked the Blue style a bit. We hope you find the look easier on the eyes. There are still a few quirks that need to be worked out (for example, there are a couple of buttons that when you hover over them, the text and button colors are just a few shades of blue off from each other). But hopefully it's much more usable.

Nice work on the background color. That helped quite a bit in my opinion!!

RelativeWays
07-23-2010, 11:20 PM
Not sure how I feel. This place was my haven from the unhappy 2007 season, I found solace here. I am reticent to change...but I'm sure I'll grow accustomed.

-jk
07-24-2010, 12:41 AM
We're still tuning it a bit. Please continue with the feedback! It's helpful.

-jk

gep
07-24-2010, 02:53 AM
What happened to the ads in the 1st and last post on a page? Gone? For good? I'm using the "Blue" skin, Firefox... page navigation buttons are much improved... easier to see..

Jarhead
07-24-2010, 07:37 AM
We've tweaked the Blue style a bit. We hope you find the look easier on the eyes. There are still a few quirks that need to be worked out (for example, there are a couple of buttons that when you hover over them, the text and button colors are just a few shades of blue off from each other). But hopefully it's much more usable.

I just noticed that links are not underlined until you hover over them with the pointer. I have missed some links because of that, but I now know that text of a different color may be a link. For clarity, wouldn't it be better if links were underlined by default? That's from a user who declines to even own a mobile phone. Firefox 3.6.7 is my way of texting.

Merlindevildog91
07-24-2010, 09:12 AM
Without the embedded ads, I can live with the changes in format.

Lord Ash
07-24-2010, 11:14 AM
I don't get how people got to two and three pitchforks within a day of the forum going up. Is there any clarification about that?

Lord Ash
07-24-2010, 11:55 AM
And there are already people with four and five pitchforks? I don't get it... were they assigned those when the new forums were made? Is this really based on reactions to posts?

And, and this sounds silly, but what is the graphic for reporting posts? A street lamp? A shower nozzle?

DevilAlumna
07-24-2010, 12:37 PM
I understand the need to change and upgrade, etc., so no qualms there. The forums look much better this morning than they did a couple days ago - thanks for taking out the per-post ads!

The only thing that really irks me (and this is somewhat trivial, I understand) is that in the top navigation ("Home" "Basketball" "Off-Topic" "Ticket Exch") - shouldn't "Basketball" be "EK Forum"?

Or at least broaden a bit to "Sports"? We will be discussing the resurgence of Duke Football next month - woohoo! ;)

FireOgilvie
07-24-2010, 12:43 PM
Someone mentioned this already, but it would be great if the "Quick Navigation" to the different forums had an option to make one click to the main page of the current forum. The old board had this, and it was nice, especially on my phone, to click "Go" instead of pulling down a menu, scrolling down so I can see the bottom of the pop-up menu, and then clicking the same forum that was already shown in the window.

I really appreciate all of the other changes that have already been made.

Lord Ash
07-24-2010, 12:58 PM
Okay, sorry, another pitchfork question... how can you tell who made the comment? For example, someone made a neutral comment (I think? It showed up gray, rather than green or red...) saying they agreed on the names... but I click the comment, and I can't see who said it. What am I doing wrong?

94duke
07-24-2010, 01:46 PM
And there are already people with four and five pitchforks? I don't get it... were they assigned those when the new forums were made? Is this really based on reactions to posts?

And, and this sounds silly, but what is the graphic for reporting posts? A street lamp? A shower nozzle?

It looks like a whistle to me.

94duke
07-24-2010, 01:49 PM
Is there a way to make "Go Advanced" the default instead of quick reply?

I know we encourage people to think before they post. The quick reply makes it a lot easier to post knee-jerk reactions. Advanced post with the preview button encourages people to think before they post.

allenmurray
07-24-2010, 01:51 PM
Okay, sorry, another pitchfork question... how can you tell who made the comment? For example, someone made a neutral comment (I think? It showed up gray, rather than green or red...) saying they agreed on the names... but I click the comment, and I can't see who said it. What am I doing wrong?

What are you doing wrong? YOu mean other than actually taking the reputation points thing seriously? It must be a joke, right? It simply screams of Junior High School.

Lord Ash
07-24-2010, 01:56 PM
It looks like a whistle to me.

Oh lord... am I that dense?:)

As for the reputation thing... I dunno, after years and years of hearing about how DBR is like the local pub and you have to work your way in, and being here for like 12 years and eventually feeling like I "belonged" after thousands and thousands of carefully-considered posts and contributions, and now I suddenly I feel like some newbie who just joined... but there are other folks who now have more "reputation" (in some cases MUCH more) despite being around less time and contributing less? I am just curious about the process behind that.

I know it is silly, but so be it... DBR is my primary online home where I spend the most time, made even more so because I am a Duke alumnus and a former Duke athlete. And if the system exists, than it must be for a reason:) Personally I liked post count... no opinions, just numbers, which at DBR I always felt was FAR more indicative of contribution than any other website where people just spam and spam... and we some neat names to link to events:)

pfrduke
07-24-2010, 06:33 PM
Is there any way to reintroduce the dividing line between post and signatures? It is easy enough, I suppose, to tell the difference once you start reading the signatures, but the visual break of the line was helpful.

-jk
07-24-2010, 06:52 PM
Is there any way to reintroduce the dividing line between post and signatures? It is easy enough, I suppose, to tell the difference once you start reading the signatures, but the visual break of the line was helpful.

Sounds quite reasonable. We'll look into it.

Thanks,

-jk

Newton_14
07-24-2010, 10:52 PM
Sounds quite reasonable. We'll look into it.

Thanks,

-jk

The changes made since opening day have helped a lot. You guys are on the right track. Thanks for listening to the feedback and having the willingness to institute some of the requested changes. A few more "tweaks" and the finished product will look and function fine.

gep
07-25-2010, 12:05 AM
The changes made since opening day have helped a lot. You guys are on the right track. Thanks for listening to the feedback and having the willingness to institute some of the requested changes. A few more "tweaks" and the finished product will look and function fine.

I echo this sentiment. You guys "are the BOMB". Thanks for all your efforts, and willingness to persevere through all criticisms. I got used to the new look, and it's just fine. Most of all, the mobile skin on my iPhone works really well for me.:cool:

BlueintheFace
07-25-2010, 09:09 AM
I've taken a break from DBR this summer, but I thought I'd stop by and congratulate Carlos and everyone on a job well done. Great changes.

Also, I still can't edit my sig (no little yellow pencil on edit my profile). If anybody figures out how to do that, let me know.

Great Job Guys.

ETA: I miss the post count's too. (except now I can pretend Jumbo, CameronBorn, LordAsh, etc...) are just newbies.... which is nice

Dev11
07-25-2010, 11:42 AM
I know SB Nation bought DBR some time ago, and now I guess this is 'their' version of it, so how come when I am scrolling through SB Nation, they don't have a link to DBR? Here is the Duke page (every team, regardless of whether or not it has a blog devoted to it, has a page):

http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-basketball/teams/Duke

On the right, you see the ACC standings (oh look, there we are at the top!), and next to all but Duke and UVA there is the SB Nation star indicating a link to that team's SB Nation blog. How come there is no link to DBR?

DrChainsaw
07-25-2010, 12:00 PM
I'm the first to admit that I'm a Fossil and I don't like change, but after trying to adjust to the new "look" I still think there are issues that are real.

The main page of the forums is just very difficult to read - I think there are a number of factors involved, and wish I could hold up the old format to the new format for comparison, which would make the comments more valid:

1) There seems to be too much "white". The titles and icons seem to get lost on the page. I think part of this is the contrast between white and blue. While we need Blue, I seem to remember a physiologic reason why it is a bad color for displays in general - too few cones in the retina, or something like that. I think there was more gray in the olfder verion - perhaps that made the difference?
2) I think the delimiters (lines, boxes,etc). are too thin and also get lost in the whiteness of it all.
3) I think the boxes for each thread are too wide - the info is too "spread out" and the use has to read across the entire screen.

I can't say much about the mechanicals of it all - this is my first post. It does appear as though this new format is not friendly to older versions of Internet Explorer, as the formatting is a little "off" on mine (not my fault - a computer at work that I can't update. Even I can handle a LITTLE change).

Finally, let me say that I appreciate the moderators & web geeks responding to user comments - it will go a long way in making the site a better place. And to disagree with with a moderator's comment very early in the thread - I do think it is fair to criticize elements of how the website generates revenue - even though they are not paying out of pocket, the users of the site do help generate that revenue & their continued interest & satisfaction with the site should be important.

allenmurray
07-25-2010, 12:22 PM
And to disagree with with a moderator's comment very early in the thread - I do think it is fair to criticize elements of how the website generates revenue - even though they are not paying out of pocket, the users of the site do help generate that revenue & their continued interest & satisfaction with the site should be important.

Bingo - the ads only generate revenue if we come to the site. If we find the ads so bothersome or so offensive that we no longer come to the site, the ads generate no revenue. So Jason Evans' comment "Unless you are willing to fund the site out of your own pocket, I think criticizing the revenue model for the owners is not quite fair." doesn't actually make a lot of sense. The revenue is dependant our our coming to the site. Therefore SBNation does have an interest in making sure that the ads are not so overly distracting or offensive as to cause folks to go elsewhere. But that is what the decision will rest on - not whether we like them or find them offensive, but whether they are making any money.

There was a time when the owneres and moderators stressed that while unofficial, the site was closely associated in many people's mnds with Duke University. That was often given as the reason for strict moderation and encouragement of keeping a civil and respectful tone. Does SBNation care about the association that folks may draw between the featured ads and the university many of us care about? I doubt it.

MisterRoddy
07-25-2010, 07:19 PM
Bingo - the ads only generate revenue if we come to the site. If we find the ads so bothersome or so offensive that we no longer come to the site, the ads generate no revenue. So Jason Evans' comment "Unless you are willing to fund the site out of your own pocket, I think criticizing the revenue model for the owners is not quite fair." doesn't actually make a lot of sense. The revenue is dependant our our coming to the site. Therefore SBNation does have an interest in making sure that the ads are not so overly distracting or offensive as to cause folks to go elsewhere. But that is what the decision will rest on - not whether we like them or find them offensive, but whether they are making any money.

There was a time when the owneres and moderators stressed that while unofficial, the site was closely associated in many people's mnds with Duke University. That was often given as the reason for strict moderation and encouragement of keeping a civil and respectful tone. Does SBNation care about the association that folks may draw between the featured ads and the university many of us care about? I doubt it.

Jason Evans' comment actually does make sense. Some want the adds gone. The adds, I'm guessing, are what's helping pay for the site. If the adds go then there will need to be another source to help pay, therefore, if you want the adds gone, then you better find another way to help pay for the site, even say...out of your own pocket.

CameronBornAndBred
07-25-2010, 07:39 PM
I made response to post in another thread, but since the post I responded to was deleted, so was mine. I was making a valid point though, which is that the comments now actually encourage negative responses...due to the anonymity of them. While it is against board decorum to attack another poster, it can now be done without consequences. Before, at least the negative input had a face, and was subject to scrutiny by not only the moderators but the general membership. Because of that public scrutiny, it was pretty well self policed; now it's wide open for any negative input for any reason...it might not even have anything to do with the comment itself. I can pick any post from a person that I don't care for and give it a negative, just because I don't care for what they say in general. They don't know it was me, and if I'm in their shoes I don't know it's them..nor do I have a way to stand up for my original post.

JBDuke
07-25-2010, 08:10 PM
I made response to post in another thread, but since the post I responded to was deleted, so was mine. I was making a valid point though, which is that the comments now actually encourage negative responses...due to the anonymity of them. While it is against board decorum to attack another poster, it can now be done without consequences. Before, at least the negative input had a face, and was subject to scrutiny by not only the moderators but the general membership. Because of that public scrutiny, it was pretty well self policed; now it's wide open for any negative input for any reason...it might not even have anything to do with the comment itself. I can pick any post from a person that I don't care for and give it a negative, just because I don't care for what they say in general. They don't know it was me, and if I'm in their shoes I don't know it's them..nor do I have a way to stand up for my original post.

To some extent what you say is true. However, the number of comments one person can make in a day is limited, and the number of times one person can comment on a particular poster's posts is limited. This means that it is tough for one person to carry a grudge against another and make it meaningful.

If the comments get out of hand, let us know, and we'll try to address it.

-jk
07-25-2010, 08:39 PM
I made response to post in another thread, but since the post I responded to was deleted, so was mine. I was making a valid point though, which is that the comments now actually encourage negative responses...due to the anonymity of them. While it is against board decorum to attack another poster, it can now be done without consequences. Before, at least the negative input had a face, and was subject to scrutiny by not only the moderators but the general membership. Because of that public scrutiny, it was pretty well self policed; now it's wide open for any negative input for any reason...it might not even have anything to do with the comment itself. I can pick any post from a person that I don't care for and give it a negative, just because I don't care for what they say in general. They don't know it was me, and if I'm in their shoes I don't know it's them..nor do I have a way to stand up for my original post.

Civility rules still apply. If anyone receives an uncivil comment, please bring it to my attention and we'll handle it.

-jk

Jarhead
07-25-2010, 11:29 PM
How would I access comments, or even know that comments have been made?

airowe
07-26-2010, 12:54 AM
I understand the need to change and upgrade, etc., so no qualms there. The forums look much better this morning than they did a couple days ago - thanks for taking out the per-post ads!

The only thing that really irks me (and this is somewhat trivial, I understand) is that in the top navigation ("Home" "Basketball" "Off-Topic" "Ticket Exch") - shouldn't "Basketball" be "EK Forum"?

Or at least broaden a bit to "Sports"? We will be discussing the resurgence of Duke Football next month - woohoo! ;)

I agree with this completely. Does this mean there will be a separate board for Duke Football coming? Has Cut brought the program to that level?!?

elvis14
07-26-2010, 01:27 AM
I figured I'd add my two cents worth since everyone else has :). First of all, I read several forums pretty regularly and I'm pretty used to the ads so they dont' bother me. I'll admit that the general look and feel may get some getting used to and I hope I like it more once I'm used to it. I like the simple approve/disapprove with comment option but it would be even cooler if the approve/disapprove count was displayed with the post and on the main board where all the threads are listed.

One thing I can't seem to find, however is a "new posts" link. Generally when I read a web site that has multiple forums, I like to use the "new posts" button/link (it's essentially a search) to create a list of thread to pick from as opposed to picking from the list that you get from reading a single forum. This way I don't have to jump around to see who's saying what on each forum. DBR boards had this but I can't find it on the new page. Is it there and I'm just missing it or did we lose that? If we lost it, can we get it back?

Thanks guys for your work and for being open to all the feedback. I know it's not easy to keep making things better and I'm glad you're trying. As usual, some things will be better, some won't and you can't please everyone.

9F

airowe
07-26-2010, 10:02 AM
Possible bug:

If I click Reply under a post (not sure about Reply To Thread) on my Blackberry Curve, it defaults to Reply With Quote.

Chard
07-26-2010, 12:44 PM
Someone mentioned this already, but it would be great if the "Quick Navigation" to the different forums had an option to make one click to the main page of the current forum. The old board had this, and it was nice, especially on my phone, to click "Go" instead of pulling down a menu, scrolling down so I can see the bottom of the pop-up menu, and then clicking the same forum that was already shown in the window.

I second this...or third or whatever. It would be a welcome change.

-jk
07-26-2010, 02:40 PM
I second this...or third or whatever. It would be a welcome change.

We'll see what we can do with this. vBulletin dropped this in the new version, but we may be able to add it back in.

-jk

rthomas
07-26-2010, 04:44 PM
As a regular of DBR since sometime in 95 or 96 and the early days of sagarmatha, all I can say is ugh. see ya!

DukieInKansas
07-26-2010, 04:59 PM
See #132.


http://crazietalk.net/ourhouse/images/smilies/77.gif

Congratulations!
http://crazietalk.net/ourhouse/images/smilies/clap.gif

I'm getting used to the new look. Thank you for responding to comments and tweeking the overall change. As mentioned by others, I miss the post count and corresponding names/events.

I have more reputation points than comments. Did we start out with a number of ppoints?

weezie
08-02-2010, 08:03 AM
I have more reputation points than comments.

That's because you are a congenial person! :)

moonpie23
08-02-2010, 08:40 AM
C

I have more reputation points than comments. Did we start out with a number of ppoints?


where do you see your reputation points?

devildeac
08-02-2010, 09:05 AM
where do you see your reputation points?

Click on the settings, next to My Profile (or in your case, Your profile;)). Or, click on the icon in the lower left corner of any of your posts for points/comments to be made or that you're not allowed to make cuz you haven't spread the reputation around enough:rolleyes:.

yancem
08-02-2010, 09:20 AM
I haven't had time to read this whole thread so I apologize if this has already been asked but where has the post count been moved to. I know that this isn't probably all that important, but I like to see how many times a person has posted when I am reading through posts. Its probably not proper but how I respond is somewhat dictated by how "experienced" a poster is. I'm generally more willing to let some comments go when I know it is a newbie.

roywhite
08-02-2010, 10:39 AM
Sorry is this has already been addressed....is there a way to increase the size of the font?

-jk
08-02-2010, 10:55 AM
Sorry is this has already been addressed....is there a way to increase the size of the font?

Ctrl-+ on most browsers.

-jk

94duke
08-20-2010, 01:48 PM
I apologize in advance for starting a new thread for this, but the one Lord Ash started yesterday (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?22042-I-really-miss-post-count) is already locked.

Anyway, I learned that when you hover over the pitchfork, you get a little tool tip that says your classification ("Starter," "In the Rotation," etc.). IIRC, these are linked to your post count with some little bonuses every now and then (player's names instead of "Starter").

How hard would it be to have the tool tip change from:
94duke is in the Rotation

to:
94duke is in the Rotation (237 posts)

??

The post count would still be de-emphasized, but if you were curious, you could hover over the pitchforks and see the post count without clicking on someone's profile.

Just a question.

Thanks.
:)

Kedsy
08-20-2010, 02:16 PM
I apologize in advance for starting a new thread for this, but the one Lord Ash started yesterday (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?22042-I-really-miss-post-count) is already locked.

Anyway, I learned that when you hover over the pitchfork, you get a little tool tip that says your classification ("Starter," "In the Rotation," etc.). IIRC, these are linked to your post count with some little bonuses every now and then (player's names instead of "Starter").

How hard would it be to have the tool tip change from:
94duke is in the Rotation

to:
94duke is in the Rotation (237 posts)

??

The post count would still be de-emphasized, but if you were curious, you could hover over the pitchforks and see the post count without clicking on someone's profile.

Just a question.

Thanks.
:)

Well, I could be wrong, but I don't think the classification is entirely related to post count, because when the updated site first started, people with 1000+ post counts were classified as "bench warmers," etc., rather than "in the rotation." But I don't really understand it, so I could be off-base.

Lord Ash
08-20-2010, 02:27 PM
I didn't know about that until Dave or whomever it was mentioned it!

Right now the pitchforks/approvals are connected to the status, not post count. I still am not sure how some folks got to four and five pitchforks so quickly (within a day or two of the new forum going up.) Are there guidelines somewhere about how many "approval points" you need to bump up? The only real thing about the pitchforks is it really does require everyone to approach reading with a lot more thought... I know I am certainly not in the habit of approving/disapproving posts right now and really need to get into that. Also, I am not totally sure how long I need to wait before making another comment; I know it won't let me approve of 94Duke's posts or Watzone's posts anymore, because it says I have to spread the comments around before being able to comment on their posts.

I would love to see your suggestion... it is a pain to have to click on profiles each time to see if the post is coming from someone with 32 posts or someone with 3,000. I think it is especially tough for me because I have a hard time remembering/keeping names in mind:)

Lord Ash
08-20-2010, 02:56 PM
Gotta say, also not a fan of getting comments like "Boo hoo" and not being able to see who said it.

CameronBornAndBred
08-20-2010, 03:15 PM
Gotta say, also not a fan of getting comments like "Boo hoo" and not being able to see who said it.
I agree with that...if you are going to bother to make a negative comment, be brave enough to back up your thoughts in the forum with a post.

yancem
08-20-2010, 03:51 PM
I didn't know about that until Dave or whomever it was mentioned it!

Right now the pitchforks/approvals are connected to the status, not post count. I still am not sure how some folks got to four and five pitchforks so quickly (within a day or two of the new forum going up.) Are there guidelines somewhere about how many "approval points" you need to bump up? The only real thing about the pitchforks is it really does require everyone to approach reading with a lot more thought... I know I am certainly not in the habit of approving/disapproving posts right now and really need to get into that. Also, I am not totally sure how long I need to wait before making another comment; I know it won't let me approve of 94Duke's posts or Watzone's posts anymore, because it says I have to spread the comments around before being able to comment on their posts.

I would love to see your suggestion... it is a pain to have to click on profiles each time to see if the post is coming from someone with 32 posts or someone with 3,000. I think it is especially tough for me because I have a hard time remembering/keeping names in mind:)

I guess I need to go back and read the thread about the new format, I had no idea that the pitchforks were related to positive/negative comments. I also would like to see the post count numbers come back.

brevity
08-20-2010, 03:53 PM
Before this thread gets locked as well, I was wondering if we could get a post count when we hover the cursor over the DBR member's name. Right now it just indicates whether the member is online or offline, which the green light (or gray circle) already tells us.

SilkyJ
08-20-2010, 04:12 PM
Something for the mods, not post count related (get over it guys, it aint coming back)-

It seems that the comments are getting assigned different point values. How are those point values determined? Is it by the length of the comment?

94duke
08-20-2010, 04:24 PM
Something for the mods, not post count related (get over it guys, it aint coming back)-

It seems that the comments are getting assigned different point values. How are those point values determined? Is it by the length of the comment?

Oooooh, good question!
More Pitchfork Points for you!! :)

JasonEvans
08-20-2010, 04:54 PM
Just so folks know, I have asked some of the mods who understand this better than I do to come here and answer some of the questions in this thread. I would happily give more insight if I had any ;)

--Jason "Oly Fan is gonna get 50 pitchforks before most of us have 3" Evans

left_hook_lacey
08-20-2010, 05:15 PM
I didn't know about that until Dave or whomever it was mentioned it!

Right now the pitchforks/approvals are connected to the status, not post count. I still am not sure how some folks got to four and five pitchforks so quickly (within a day or two of the new forum going up.) Are there guidelines somewhere about how many "approval points" you need to bump up? The only real thing about the pitchforks is it really does require everyone to approach reading with a lot more thought... I know I am certainly not in the habit of approving/disapproving posts right now and really need to get into that. Also, I am not totally sure how long I need to wait before making another comment; I know it won't let me approve of 94Duke's posts or Watzone's posts anymore, because it says I have to spread the comments around before being able to comment on their posts.

I would love to see your suggestion... it is a pain to have to click on profiles each time to see if the post is coming from someone with 32 posts or someone with 3,000. I think it is especially tough for me because I have a hard time remembering/keeping names in mind:)

Why should it matter how many posts someone has posted? Just wondering. Maybe you know something about post counts that I don't, but to me it seems like a post is worth commenting on if it's of good quality and thought provoking no matter how many times he/she has posted in the past.

gep
08-20-2010, 05:25 PM
I think this was mentioned somewhere else... if you click on the poster's name (with the underline), there are a few options, one of which is "view profile", which shows the post count, posts per day, etc. As others have mentioned with other navigation "aids" that require additional clicks in this new board, the post count also requires additional clicks, but it's there...:cool:

SilkyJ
08-20-2010, 06:03 PM
Why should it matter how many posts someone has posted? Just wondering. Maybe you know something about post counts that I don't, but to me it seems like a post is worth commenting on if it's of good quality and thought provoking no matter how many times he/she has posted in the past.

I would tend to agree. The pitchforks clearly emphasizes "quality over quantity" and should also discourage needless posting just to "pad your postcount," which, sadly, I'd bet some people do.

That said, sometimes post count can also tell you some things about a poster like how active they are on the board, for example. But the pitchforks idea makes much more sense to me.

Oh, and thank you to Jason for forwarding this to -jk and others. I hope you guys are finding our feedback and questions constructive as you iron out the details.

Lord Ash
08-20-2010, 08:06 PM
Why should it matter how many posts someone has posted? Just wondering. Maybe you know something about post counts that I don't, but to me it seems like a post is worth commenting on if it's of good quality and thought provoking no matter how many times he/she has posted in the past.

I'll be frank; on almost every other forum I've visited, I would say it doesn't.

However, on DBR it has always seemed to me that post count is actually VERY representative of how much someone has contributed. DBR has always been very much a "don't post just to hear yourself post; post if you have something to say" sort of place, and I've found that, after years of enforcement of this rule, it really seems to have worked; people like Greybeard or whomever, who have a lot of posts, have contributed a lot. On top of that the current board is very young, so most folks have vaguely similar join dates, AND not everyone is really used to using the "comment" bit yet, so plenty of good posts, I am sure, don't get lots of people saying "Thumbs up, good post."

DBR is maybe the ONLY forum I've ever been a member of that I find post count to be a very good reflection of contribution to the board and deep, devoted membership. Join date is not very useful, and frankly the pitchforks aren't (yet) useful, as judging by how many really valued contributors are sort of hovering around the two-fork level without any seeming movement.

weezie
08-20-2010, 08:36 PM
I agree with that...if you are going to bother to make a negative comment, be brave enough to back up your thoughts in the forum with a post.

Yeah, even the US Senate is moving towards doing away with the silent hold on votes.

It's the judgment aspect of the pitchforks that seems to rankle people. I guess it's something about living in a country that was founded on the principles of freedom plus democracy and not class structure.
Wow! Look at me, a veritable weezie Jefferson (and I DON'T mean the "Movin' On UP" weezie, either!) :o

devil84
08-20-2010, 11:22 PM
Post count is one metric on which you can judge a poster. It's quite helpful to know if it's a person's 1st, 100th, 1000th or more post. However, what it doesn't tell you is if whether those posts are usually excellent content or if they are from a poster who likes to argue or likes to hear themselves talk. Here's one example: Jay Bilas has posted here 7 times, and each of his posts have been phenomenal. Should he be judged by his post count? I think not.

There have been a number of complaints from our readers that the quality of the posts on this board have declined over the past year or so. Many of the concerned readers have indicated several points of annoyance: needless posts, particularly those suited to drive up post counts; people who are posting just to be argumentative; people argue with known experts (possibly not knowing who they are arguing with, even if the expert posted by his/her real name); and other similar issues. Many of these posts aren't really ones moderators can cite for running afoul of our rules, yet it's clear that our readers would like an even higher standard for discussion. In other words, we need a way for the community to help collectively determine those pillars of our society and challenge everyone to become an equally valued member of our community.

The vBulletin software that we use has a very full-featured ability to do this. It can collect comments and mathematically compute a status. We have implemented this feature with very little customization -- only some window dressing in that we've chosen titles for the status levels, and created pitchfork icons instead of little green boxes. Other than that, we're using it straight out of the box, like many, many other sites who have not turned off that feature.

Before we go about making programmatic changes to the system, we'd like to see how you, the DBR community, use it. There are some checks and balances to the system to prevent "gaming" the system. We've not picked apart the algorithm to understand its every nuance (it's quite complex), but we can offer these guidelines.


Approving of a posts adds to the recipient's status while disapproving of it subtracts from it.
How much it adds and subtracts depends on the giver's status. Those who are most valued in the community (i.e., those with lots of pitchforks) will give more status than those who haven't achieved it quite yet (those with fewer pitchforks). There are other factors, too, such as longevity and post count.
Pitchforks equate to numerical levels. Quite a few comments are needed to add a pitchfork. Just how many comments depends on who is giving them, which is why it's hard to say you need 10, 50, or 100 comments to get to the next level.
You can comment on an individual post once.
Once you comment on a post, you cannot give that same poster another comment until you give other members some comments. I don't know the exact number, but it's quite a few.
By giving reputation, you also gain a little reputation, just for participating. It's a fraction of what you are able to give. (Are you noticing that the algorithm's a little complex? No, I don't know what the fraction is...the short answer is "it depends." The long answer is, "no, I don't know the algorithm.")

Let me reiterate: we are using this feature without customization, so nobody needs to get paranoid that this feature is a plot hatched by the mods/admins to get people. We're not. We've implemented this based on feedback from our readers so that you, the DBR community, can have a say in how posters are viewed by others and provide an opinion on individual posts.

How do you get more pitchforks? Post quality posts that provide supporting sources where applicable and don't offend or antagonize others. And give comments (positive and negative) where comments are due. You can't expect others to give you comments without reciprocating.

Yes, there are a few people who have a few more pitchforks than others. Several people were spotted some status -- these are people who, in the eyes of the DBR admins, always posted excellent information and generally are a part of the Duke Athletics family. Moderators, too, have been spotted a bit of status. We did this to have examples of good posts and multiple pitchforks -- and it's worked pretty well to get everyone talking! It's now up to them to keep or enhance their reputation. All other posters started with the same amount, and it's also up to them to keep or enhance their reputations, too.

We've got some ideas on how to extend this system, depending on how it's used by the DBR community. One example is to highlight posts that are getting a high number of positive comments.

As far as the changes y'all have asked for, such as adding post counts to the status tooltip or adding the poster name to the comment -- they're great ideas. Let's use the system as-is for a while, and we'll start digging into what it takes to make those changes. Depending on the degree of difficulty of those changes, we'll see what we can do. For now, you can help out by "signing" your comments, as in, "Great idea about the post count. -devil84." Meanwhile, try de-emphasizing post count and look at the post itself. It'll take a while for the pitchforks to be meaningful, but by giving good comments (and posting such that you'll receive them), soon you won't miss post counts (we think!).

You may be asking, "How do I see my comments?" Scroll up to the very top...see the Settings link? Click that. It'll show you the most recent comments left on your posts.

This system is as good as the community makes it out to be. If good posts get good comments (and those that don't meet the community's ideal get deserved negative comments), the pitchfork system will be even better than post counts.

Greg_Newton
08-20-2010, 11:26 PM
DBR is maybe the ONLY forum I've ever been a member of that I find post count to be a very good reflection of contribution to the board and deep, devoted membership. Join date is not very useful, and frankly the pitchforks aren't (yet) useful, as judging by how many really valued contributors are sort of hovering around the two-fork level without any seeming movement.

I agree with the post count comment, although I do find join date useful. Can the pitchforks complement these two stats? Sure, but I don't see why it needs to replace either of them. My reasoning:

- There's no real standard for pitchfork-giving, and I'm sure it varies significantly from poster to poster.

-(Edit: Devil84's post appeared since I started typing this, and answered my second concern)

- It completely discredits any contributions made before the changeover, aside from the few posters "spotted" by the mods. Why not just leave post count in, so we can easily distinguish between a several-pitchfork poster who has contributed thousands of posts over the years and a several-pitchfork poster who hasn't contributed much in the past but made a post or two this summer that someone liked? I don't find that difference to be negligible.

I doubt anyone'll be too distraught to hear this, but I've found myself visiting DBR considerably less since the switch. Some of it's the summertime lull, some of it's probably adjusting to the new scheme, but those little details above each post made you feel like you "knew" other posters a little bit more. Neighborhood pub, right? Why make it less personal? :confused:

Lord Ash
08-20-2010, 11:39 PM
Thanks for the info! The different things connected to the pitchforks are certainly interesting! Thankfully most folks (well, not the "boo hoo" comment person, but everyone else) have signed their comments already... I always do, at the end. I do wonder if it is possible that leaving a comment will somehow interfere with leaving an actual response to the post... you know, 'Well, I will respond to the post personally but not as a response,' or "Well I responded "Yes a great point blah blah" as a post but I don't want to bother having to do the same as a comment.' Does that sound unlikely?

Maybe the only thing that sort of seems tough is the fact that you have to give other people "comments" before being able to give someone a second comment... some people, like Watzone or Jason Evans or Airowe or some of the others give us so much good stuff that I would very much like to be able to give them positive comments when they deserve them!:)

The "pre-changeover" bit does rankle me a bit, as I've been around quite some time (and, by the by, most certainly AM a member of the Duke athletics family... not only was I an intramural supervisor and a club sport member, but I was also a letter-winning captain of a varsity team whose personal win gave the Blue Devils our first EVER victory over Carolina in program HISTORY... yep, they announced it during the basketball game that was happening at the same time) and it does sort of feel like, after a lot of years of very careful posting, I'm back to the same place as someone who just joined a month ago because I simply am not involved with the basketball program or professional sports anymore, so I can't contribute like a Jim Sumner:) Stupid, I know, but...

Anyway, Devil, thanks much for the info... it is always nice to hear the thought process behind the decisions that are made, especially on the only forum I frequent that, quite frankly, is involved in my "real" life (i.e. my alma mater and my sports teams.)

SupaDave
08-20-2010, 11:43 PM
I agree with the post count comment, although I do find join date useful. Can the pitchforks complement these two stats? Sure, but I don't see why it needs to replace either of them. My reasoning:

- There's no real standard for pitchfork-giving, and I'm sure it varies significantly from poster to poster.

-(Edit: Devil84's post appeared since I started typing this, and answered my second concern)

- It completely discredits any contributions made before the changeover, aside from the few posters "spotted" by the mods. Why not just leave post count in, so we can easily distinguish between a several-pitchfork poster who has contributed thousands of posts over the years and a several-pitchfork poster who hasn't contributed much in the past but made a post or two this summer that someone liked? I don't find that difference to be negligible.

I doubt anyone'll be too distraught to hear this, but I've found myself visiting DBR considerably less since the switch. Some of it's the summertime lull, some of it's probably adjusting to the new scheme, but those little details above each post made you feel like you "knew" other posters a little bit more. Neighborhood pub, right? Why make it less personal? :confused:

It is the summertime and that can make for some forced conversation but the fact of the matter is that really only the new posters don't know who everyone is. That in itself should make a poster want to come correct, logical, and sensible.

There are some new names and some olds one but I still enjoy hanging in the parlor room all the same. A new poster steps up, the music stops, and we see what he has to say. Some posters, if I may use some examples, like Big Pappa and Airowe have made their presence felt in a short amount of time. Others like Vasherized and a couple others have come under scrutiny for their posts. It doesn't take much - the facts mean a lot around here.

Good info and analysis make the cut whether it's post #1 or post #1000. (and for the record, it doesn't take the board long to figure out what kind of contributer a poster will be - you guys can be toughl!)...

OldPhiKap
08-21-2010, 12:15 AM
Thanks for the info re: checking settings. That's the first time I knew to do that. If there was a way to identify the commenters, that would be helpful. I would like to reply (either through the thread or by PM) to those who have commented on my posts.

-- OPK

P.S. If you've commented postively and I have not reciprocated, it's merely because I don't know who you posted what.

Newton_14
08-21-2010, 09:23 AM
Thanks to Devil84 for the explanations and insight. That greatly helped to figure out how the pitchfork system works. Thanks also to the poster who discovered the hidden status by hovering over the pitchfork. It would be neat if the status showed up all the time, but at least this is better than not having status at all.

I sign all of the comments I give and I would encourage others to do the same. If there is a way to automatically identify who the comment came from that would solve the problem.

It took awhile, but I have gotten used to the new look and rarely even think much about it. I come here daily to enjoy conversation with you guys and gals and that matters more to me than the "look" of the board.

Ultrarunner
08-21-2010, 11:09 AM
Gotta say, also not a fan of getting comments like "Boo hoo" and not being able to see who said it.

I may be mistaken (it unfortunately happens more than I would like) but I think the pitchforks are a indicator of how your posts are rated by other posters. The more postive ratings you receive, the more pitchforks.

The "boohoo" comment was probably a negative rating and likely will decrease the pitchfork count.

Essentially, it's junior high. If you are liked by the "in" group then you can expect pitchforks galore.

Since I wasn't popular in junior high, I'm not ever expecting to get off a single pitchfork. Also, since I prefer to read and process, I post very little. Again, not conducive to lots of pitchforks.

From my vantage point, the pitchforks are nearly meaningless and I expect, the internet being what it is, that many of the more "outspoken" will end up with large numbers while thoughtful posters wil fill the middle ranks.

If you're a thoughtful poster with a worrying thought about the team, you might be able to achieve negative teritory.

CameronBornAndBred
08-21-2010, 11:12 AM
If you're a thoughtful poster with a worrying thought about the team, you might be able to achieve negative teritory.
I've seen a couple in that territory..the pitchfork becomes some other symbol and it says "so and so needs to take a break". I'm assuming that means that they are in the very low or negative point range.

Indoor66
08-21-2010, 12:21 PM
I see the pitchfork as a move by DBR to an class strata society. Each of us can evaluate a post and poster by what he or she says, not what others say about him.

Give me the post counts and let me give weight to comments rather than some artificial, good guy, bad guy, junior high school clique evaluation.

Lord Ash
08-21-2010, 12:25 PM
I've seen a couple in that territory..the pitchfork becomes some other symbol and it says "so and so needs to take a break". I'm assuming that means that they are in the very low or negative point range.

I believe the "Taking a break" thing has been there since the old format; it just means someone has built up enough violations from the mods that their posting privileges have been temporarily revoked.

I am still a bit puzzled/annoyed/whatever that someone can leave a negative comment on a post of mine without a name to respond to or the ability to "report" the comment. I am relatively sure that if someone responded in the forums with a post that said "Oh boo hoo for you" it would receive at least a "Hey, that isn't really how we discuss around here" sort of response.

I think the one main thing that I really wish would change is having the spread the comments around; I found myself reading a few posts today that I wanted to say "Nice post, thanks!" to but couldn't because I still haven't left enough comments for other people... after all, it is mid August, so there are not as many posts to say it about!:) I have to admit, it is making me think of leaving more NEGATIVE comments (for example, something along the lines of "This feels like advertising" for the Alabama coach thread) just in order to give POSITIVE comments for some DBRers who have put up good posts but who I currently cannot commend for it.

allenmurray
08-21-2010, 01:33 PM
I agree with that...if you are going to bother to make a negative comment, be brave enough to back up your thoughts in the forum with a post.

Or use your real name. Sometimes it really is that basic.

For many people the freedom of internet anonymity = feeling as though one has no reason not to be a jerk.

Back in the days when this site featured a way to discuss public policy issues I chose to quit using my "screen name" and post under my actual name. It caused me to think before I posted and decide if I was willing to have my thoughts associated with my person. In short, it improved my behaviorn and caused me to self-reflect. I always found that those who did the same (folks like Bob Green, Jason Evans, James Armstrong, etc.) were far less likely to act like petulant children, and folks who had the protection of anonymity were the ones who acted like idiots (irrespective of thier point of view). I always thought the best way to have cleaned up the PPB would have been to have required foks to use their real name and an actual photo as their avatar. whether conservative or liberal the jerks would have fled in terror.

I find myself posting less and less on any board where folks hide behind anonymity. There are other boards I post on where everybody uses a "screen name" but it is such a small and insular group that no one really needs to - we all know who each other is. However, on large boards like this one I long decided that anonymity breeds stupidity.

Indoor66
08-21-2010, 02:03 PM
However, on large boards like this one I long decided that anonymity breeds stupidity.

...and a degree of smugness.

CameronBornAndBred
08-21-2010, 02:36 PM
I believe the "Taking a break" thing has been there since the old format; it just means someone has built up enough violations from the mods that their posting privileges have been temporarily revoked.

The mods will have to answer this, but I don't think so. In that case it was "on vacation" or some less temporary ban..in both cases of "needs to take a break" that I have seen, the posters were online and active. In one case they had regained a pitchfork by the end of the day.

devil84
08-21-2010, 02:54 PM
Thanks for the info! The different things connected to the pitchforks are certainly interesting! Thankfully most folks (well, not the "boo hoo" comment person, but everyone else) have signed their comments already... I always do, at the end. I do wonder if it is possible that leaving a comment will somehow interfere with leaving an actual response to the post... you know, 'Well, I will respond to the post personally but not as a response,' or "Well I responded "Yes a great point blah blah" as a post but I don't want to bother having to do the same as a comment.' Does that sound unlikely?

It's a good point, but since you can't really have a conversation (except by either PM or posting in a thread), it's fairly limiting. It's a great way to say, "excellent post," "I agree," (or, "your tone isn't welcome here"). It's a way for someone to recognize good (and bad) posts without having to add to the thread. We're hoping it cuts down on needless posting AND gives those people who simply want to say, "Wow, excellent post! Thanks for the info!" a way to do so without posting. Yes, there are plenty of people out there who read but do not post.


Maybe the only thing that sort of seems tough is the fact that you have to give other people "comments" before being able to give someone a second comment... some people, like Watzone or Jason Evans or Airowe or some of the others give us so much good stuff that I would very much like to be able to give them positive comments when they deserve them!:)

Ah, yes. One of the drawbacks of this system. However, let's put this in a positive light: there are SO MANY GOOD posts here, we need to comment on a lot of them!


The "pre-changeover" bit does rankle me a bit, as I've been around quite some time (and, by the by, most certainly AM a member of the Duke athletics family... not only was I an intramural supervisor and a club sport member, but I was also a letter-winning captain of a varsity team whose personal win gave the Blue Devils our first EVER victory over Carolina in program HISTORY... yep, they announced it during the basketball game that was happening at the same time) and it does sort of feel like, after a lot of years of very careful posting, I'm back to the same place as someone who just joined a month ago because I simply am not involved with the basketball program or professional sports anymore, so I can't contribute like a Jim Sumner:) Stupid, I know, but...

The ones we spotted are people like Jim Sumner. Do NOT feel slighted if you were not spotted pitchforks. We took great pains to keep nearly everyone equal, picking out only those who are actively involved in the Duke program right now, who have consistently provided excellent information to the community, sometimes providing insight and information unavailable anywhere else (or if it were, it would be premium information). Heck, I, as a letter-winning member of Men's Basketball teams in the early days of K didn't get spotted many pitchforks, if that makes you feel better, Lord Ash! And that's OK. These pitchforks are NOT a popularity contest and they're NOT an indicator of your love for Duke (or we'd all have hundreds!). They're not going to be too meaningful until probably, oh, partway through the season when the REAL content for this board heats up (let's face it, we're in the low part of the season, where not much happens).


Essentially, it's junior high. If you are liked by the "in" group then you can expect pitchforks galore.

I think you underestimate the DBR community. While there may be a clique or two here, this community is pretty adamant on how they like their information (have you SEEN the posts here from members calling others out on sources?!). If you post lots of good content, you'll get lots of pitchforks. Most people will likely wind up with just the single pitchfork, which means "you're a fine member of our community." And just because you've got six pitchforks doesn't mean you're above reproach, it just means that it's gonna turn fun real quick when the new poster tries to argue with Olympic Fan or Jim Sumner. :D

Every feature of the bulletin board software has it's pros and cons, and this one is no different. One of the cons, like Lord Ash has brought up, is that there's no whistle button to report an inappropriate comment. Please bring these inappropriate comments to our attention. How? You can PM a few mods. Not sure which mods to PM? Try reporting the post on which you got the comment(there's a link right above the comment) and note that you have an inappropriate comment. That will alert all mods and we'll take care of it. Civility rules apply to all communication on this board -- posts, PMs, and comments.

I'd like to encourage everyone to embrace the comments scheme for a while, or at least shift your focus away from musing about missing post counts. It's going to take a while before the pitchforks are meaningful for a couple of reasons: first, it takes a while to build up status. Secondly, we are a seasonal board, and right now, we are the die-hard fans that sleep, eat, and breathe Duke Basketball 24/7/365. There's not that much to talk about, either, as recruiting is in a lull and we're so looking forward to what promises to be an exciting season. We'll get some more regulars coming back around the start of practice, and then keep adding until just about all of the regulars are on board again. Imagine how some of those regulars are gonna feel when they come back! We weathered the reset of everyone's post counts with the advent of the new board, we'll weather it again (although post counts are not gone, they're just not as visible as they used to be). Three years from now, I hope we're going to be pleased with the results.

devildeac
08-21-2010, 05:59 PM
I believe the "Taking a break" thing has been there since the old format; it just means someone has built up enough violations from the mods that their posting privileges have been temporarily revoked.

I am still a bit puzzled/annoyed/whatever that someone can leave a negative comment on a post of mine without a name to respond to or the ability to "report" the comment. I am relatively sure that if someone responded in the forums with a post that said "Oh boo hoo for you" it would receive at least a "Hey, that isn't really how we discuss around here" sort of response.

I think the one main thing that I really wish would change is having the spread the comments around; I found myself reading a few posts today that I wanted to say "Nice post, thanks!" to but couldn't because I still haven't left enough comments for other people... after all, it is mid August, so there are not as many posts to say it about!:) I have to admit, it is making me think of leaving more NEGATIVE comments (for example, something along the lines of "This feels like advertising" for the Alabama coach thread) just in order to give POSITIVE comments for some DBRers who have put up good posts but who I currently cannot commend for it.

The 2 designations I remember along the lines from the 1st paragraph are "on holiday" or "banned."

allenmurray
08-21-2010, 08:10 PM
...and a degree of smugness.

Well, if I am or was smug it certainly was not due to anonymity.

And can I request that my pitchforks be taken away? I'd rate not participate in the pitchfork system. I'd rather have none please.

Dukeface88
08-22-2010, 11:05 AM
Is there any way to see the comments made on a post, or are they only visible to the poster?

For my .02, I'm not a huge fan of the status system. In addition to the comments already made, I'd add that it could stifle discussion with posters that aren't Duke fans. I'll be surprised if posters like Kong or Kedsy don't end up with a lot of negative rep simply because of their alliegance. While they probably don't care much about their reputations among Duke fans, it may cause problems for new posters who don't understand the nature of their contributions to the boards.

Having said that, I'm willing to wait and see how this turns out. I trust the mods to fairly evaluate the system and implement any changes that become necessary.

Lord Ash
08-22-2010, 11:49 AM
I'll be surprised if posters like Kong or Kedsy don't end up with a lot of negative rep simply because of their alliegance. While they probably don't care much about their reputations among Duke fans, it may cause problems for new posters who don't understand the nature of their contributions to the boards.



I'll be honest, this is the only forum I would actually trust that NOT to happen.

CameronBornAndBred
08-22-2010, 11:54 AM
I'll be honest, this is the only forum I would actually trust that NOT to happen.
Kong was one of the 2 posters I saw that had the whateveritis symbol instead of a pitchfork, and his "status" was "Kong123_needs_to_take_a_break". He has since then regained his pitchfork...but since he was in the negative Dukeface88 might have a point. Or Kong might have simply been commented on for trolling comments, but as the tootsie roll commercial says...the world may never know.

moonpie23
08-22-2010, 01:00 PM
hovering over pitch forks in Safari with a mac does nothing...



http://ui32.gamespot.com/479/702headbanginstick_2.gif

Newton_14
08-22-2010, 01:27 PM
Is there any way to see the comments made on a post, or are they only visible to the poster?

For my .02, I'm not a huge fan of the status system. In addition to the comments already made, I'd add that it could stifle discussion with posters that aren't Duke fans. I'll be surprised if posters like Kong or Kedsy don't end up with a lot of negative rep simply because of their alliegance. While they probably don't care much about their reputations among Duke fans, it may cause problems for new posters who don't understand the nature of their contributions to the boards.

Having said that, I'm willing to wait and see how this turns out. I trust the mods to fairly evaluate the system and implement any changes that become necessary.

Why would Kedsy get a negative rep? He is a Duke grad and one of the biggest Duke fan's on this board. Plus he often pumps out great posts with great content backed up with stats, facts, etc.

Is it possible you meant someone else and put Kedsy down by mistake?

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
08-22-2010, 01:31 PM
I'd like to encourage everyone to embrace the comments scheme for a while, or at least shift your focus away from musing about missing post counts. It's going to take a while before the pitchforks are meaningful for a couple of reasons: first, it takes a while to build up status. Secondly, we are a seasonal board, and right now, we are the die-hard fans that sleep, eat, and breathe Duke Basketball 24/7/365. There's not that much to talk about, either, as recruiting is in a lull and we're so looking forward to what promises to be an exciting season. We'll get some more regulars coming back around the start of practice, and then keep adding until just about all of the regulars are on board again. Imagine how some of those regulars are gonna feel when they come back! We weathered the reset of everyone's post counts with the advent of the new board, we'll weather it again (although post counts are not gone, they're just not as visible as they used to be). Three years from now, I hope we're going to be pleased with the results.

It's amazing what a divisive item these little pitchforks have become isn't it? Yikes.

I just wanted to echo what Devil84 said above - please remember that the DBR board isn't exactly in it's tip-top shape right now as far as posters and/or content. Now is the winter of our discontent... I would be interested to know the statistics of content/postings/hits in mid-August as opposed to December or February. Those of us who are checking in daily are clearly not the majority of the users of this site.

People go bonkers over change in general, and it's no different with websites. As someone who works in internet marketing and web design, whenever you take websites and make even the slightest change, the regular visitors are thrown for a loop. I for one credit the DBR crowd for making these changes in the off season so that the kinks can be worked out before the crowds roll in.

I'm not saying that it isn't good to be critical of changes, but let's all just take a deep breath and see what things look like in six months before we blow up the message boards with panic.

Thanks, mods, for all the work you do! This site is one of my favorite places on the internet. The level of civilized discourse here is really unique.

roywhite
08-22-2010, 01:32 PM
Never liked the practice of putting bonus decals on football helmets (example: Buckeye leaves on tOSU helmets). The pitchfork system seems like that.

Jarhead
08-22-2010, 01:35 PM
I see the pitchfork as a move by DBR to an class strata society. Each of us can evaluate a post and poster by what he or she says, not what others say about him.

Give me the post counts and let me give weight to comments rather than some artificial, good guy, bad guy, junior high school clique evaluation.

Just back from a vacation... really. I've been away. Just got back home the other day. While away, I avoided these forums. I would have used up all of the free minutes on the host network. I did keep up with the news on the front page, though. Having left for this trip (a cruise of the Baltic Sea aboard the RMS Queen Victoria) on July 30, there has been a host of accumulated stuff to read on these forums.

This thread has really caught my attention, mostly because I don't understand much of the material. Let's start with the pitchforks. You have two of them, and so do most of the folks with whom I am familiar. What do they really mean? If they are some sort of status symbol, I would think that the old timers like us would have accumulated a lot of status. What does in the rotation mean? Is it a sport reference to our status, that we are some level of bench warmers? Or is it some sort of hand gesture with a command to rotate.

And what about comments. I can see how they are made. I made a polite one on your quoted post, but how does one read comments? I went back to some of my posts from last month, and didn't find a reference to comments. Maybe that means that no one has commented on my posts. Hmm, bummer. I tried so hard composing them, too. Is it true that comments carry no attribution with them? That's a bummer, too. Some level of ID is essential if we are to react properly to them. Why else have them if not to have an effect, good or bad. At least there should be a disclosure of the poster's online ID. Allenmurray has it right, to a point. I don't use my real name, because I get too many hits when I google my name. I personally know many of the regulars here, and I sign my PMs with my real name. Besides, Jarhead is my identity when I talk to myself.

94duke
08-22-2010, 02:22 PM
I'm using Firefox for my browser.
Sometimes when I try to leave a comment, I don't get the little pop-up.
I click on the little icon, but nothing happens.
Then I click again, but I can't leave a comment, because I have to spread the comments around.
It's like the click registers, but I don't get to leave an actual comment.
I wonder if the clicks default to approve?
Has anyone else had this happen to them?
Has anyone else had problems leaving a comment?

moonpie23
08-22-2010, 10:08 PM
i like the old post count as well.......the pitchfork system seems a bit "fluffy"....


http://ui32.gamespot.com/479/702headbanginstick_2.gif

Kedsy
08-22-2010, 11:31 PM
Is there any way to see the comments made on a post, or are they only visible to the poster?

For my .02, I'm not a huge fan of the status system. In addition to the comments already made, I'd add that it could stifle discussion with posters that aren't Duke fans. I'll be surprised if posters like Kong or Kedsy don't end up with a lot of negative rep simply because of their alliegance. While they probably don't care much about their reputations among Duke fans, it may cause problems for new posters who don't understand the nature of their contributions to the boards.

Having said that, I'm willing to wait and see how this turns out. I trust the mods to fairly evaluate the system and implement any changes that become necessary.

I don't strike you as a Duke fan? Assuming your moniker states your graduation date, I was a Duke fan for many years before you were. For what it's worth, I agree with your larger point. There's a difference between saying something objectionable and strongly disagreeing with someone else's point. But people don't like to be disagreed with, so I could easily see them "striking back" by giving a negative grade to the person on the other side of the debate.


Why would Kedsy get a negative rep? He is a Duke grad and one of the biggest Duke fan's on this board. Plus he often pumps out great posts with great content backed up with stats, facts, etc.

Is it possible you meant someone else and put Kedsy down by mistake?

Thanks, Boozer. That allegation really took me by surprise. Unless he doesn't like the fact that I root for the Philadelphia Phillies...

weezie
08-23-2010, 07:45 AM
Besides, Jarhead is my identity when I talk to myself.

Not trying to garner any undue attention, pitchfork subtraction or a warning here but that made me start this Monday off with a big laugh. :D

SilkyJ
08-23-2010, 01:44 PM
Just back from a vacation... really. I've been away. Just got back home the other day. While away, I avoided these forums. I would have used up all of the free minutes on the host network. I did keep up with the news on the front page, though. Having left for this trip (a cruise of the Baltic Sea aboard the RMS Queen Victoria) on July 30, there has been a host of accumulated stuff to read on these forums.

This thread has really caught my attention, mostly because I don't understand much of the material. Let's start with the pitchforks. You have two of them, and so do most of the folks with whom I am familiar. What do they really mean? If they are some sort of status symbol, I would think that the old timers like us would have accumulated a lot of status. What does in the rotation mean? Is it a sport reference to our status, that we are some level of bench warmers? Or is it some sort of hand gesture with a command to rotate.

And what about comments. I can see how they are made. I made a polite one on your quoted post, but how does one read comments? I went back to some of my posts from last month, and didn't find a reference to comments. Maybe that means that no one has commented on my posts. Hmm, bummer. I tried so hard composing them, too. Is it true that comments carry no attribution with them? That's a bummer, too. Some level of ID is essential if we are to react properly to them. Why else have them if not to have an effect, good or bad. At least there should be a disclosure of the poster's online ID. Allenmurray has it right, to a point. I don't use my real name, because I get too many hits when I google my name. I personally know many of the regulars here, and I sign my PMs with my real name. Besides, Jarhead is my identity when I talk to myself.

I know we don't always have the time to read threads in their entirety, especially after we've been away for a while, but it may be worth it for you in this case. Basically all the answers to your questions can be found on the last ~3 pages, which I just spent the last 20 minutes reading. In particular, see devil84's post about the pitchfork/commenting system, its post #131 (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?21834-Introducing...&p=427939#post427939) in this thread and should answer most of your questions (and probably a few more you hadn't thought of yet).

Also, the "in the rotation" or "sixth man" or whatever was on the old board and was directly tied to post count. At 100 posts you were "in the rotation" at 500 posts you were "sixth man" etc. etc. Now that title is tied to the number of pitchforks you have, which is tied to the number of reputation points (comments) you have.

camion
08-23-2010, 04:26 PM
Wow! I hadn't realized that pitchforks were so important. I'm posting now to see if I have any. Though I visit a lot I doubt I'll ever post enough to rate highly. That's fine. I enjoy the board and don't require pitchfork validation. :)

DU82
08-23-2010, 05:46 PM
i like the old post count as well.......the pitchfork system seems a bit "fluffy"....

The post count being up on every message encourages too many "me too" or multiple messages saying the same thing, just to boost that count. If I want to know something about the poster, I first check the "member since" item in the upper right. That tells me if they're a long time member/poster here, or if they're a newbie (and possibly a troll.)

I do also look at the content of the message. The fellow posting about Alabama football, for instance, I know exactly where he's coming from, and enjoy the discussion, even though he just signed on. Others, I question.

I'm not fond of the pitchforks, somewhat because it's a popularity contest, and partly because I don't remember to comment on a lot of posts (and I think others will too), so that I don't think it's going to accurately portray the members view of the poster. Some posters, who may post some nonsense, but are well liked, will get positive ratings, while others, who post critical views of some Duke things, will get negative comments just on reputation.

It'll take the first unexpected loss (in football or bball) to see how things go.

Dukeface88
08-23-2010, 07:04 PM
I don't strike you as a Duke fan? Assuming your moniker states your graduation date, I was a Duke fan for many years before you were. For what it's worth, I agree with your larger point. There's a difference between saying something objectionable and strongly disagreeing with someone else's point. But people don't like to be disagreed with, so I could easily see them "striking back" by giving a negative grade to the person on the other side of the debate.



Thanks, Boozer. That allegation really took me by surprise. Unless he doesn't like the fact that I root for the Philadelphia Phillies...

My sincerst apologies. I can't even use my usual posting at 2 in the morning excuse for when I say stupid things. I thought I saw something stating you were a unc alum; I remember being very surprised at the time. I shall now do penance for my libelous ways. Probably by banging my head on a desk while chanting "check the profile".

Greg_Newton
08-23-2010, 08:00 PM
The post count being up on every message encourages too many "me too" or multiple messages saying the same thing, just to boost that count.

Not to be snarky, but says who? I'd agree if we were talking about using only post count, but if post count were listed along with the pitchforks and join date, I don't see why it's presence alone would encourage thoughtless one-liners. To the contrary, it would help readers get a better handle on a poster's thoughtfulness - if someone posts a ton without receiving pitchforks, it will say something about the quality of their posts (assuming the system ends up working).

It's not the end of the world, it just seems like a relevant detail whose elimination is a small net negative for the overall experience.

gep
08-24-2010, 12:57 AM
There seems to be a lot of discussion on post counts. As I've mentioned in post #127, clicking on the poster's name and then view profile, his/her post count, posts per day, join date, etc are there... just that it takes effort to get there as opposed to just "looking" at the post itself. At least I think the info there is accurate. And, maybe the posts per day along with the post count is also a good indicator of posters. I guess clicking a few times to see post count, etc is not a big deal to me...:cool: especially if the goal is to de-emphasize the post count.

DukieInKansas
08-24-2010, 09:29 AM
There seems to be a lot of discussion on post counts. As I've mentioned in post #127, clicking on the poster's name and then view profile, his/her post count, posts per day, join date, etc are there... just that it takes effort to get there as opposed to just "looking" at the post itself. At least I think the info there is accurate. And, maybe the posts per day along with the post count is also a good indicator of posters. I guess clicking a few times to see post count, etc is not a big deal to me...:cool: especially if the goal is to de-emphasize the post count.

The main reason I miss the post count is because I am actually missing the corresponding milestones that went with the post count. It was fun being National Champions at 1991, 1992, 2001, and 2010 posts. It also made me research the names that I didn't immediately recognize - Carroll Youngkin, anyone? ;) :D

OZZIE4DUKE
08-24-2010, 10:06 AM
It also made me research the names that I didn't immediately recognize - Carroll Youngkin, anyone? ;) :D
Yunk was a big man in the 60's. He lives in South Florida, and he has a distinct dislike of women's basketball.

DukieInKansas
08-24-2010, 03:34 PM
Yunk was a big man in the 60's. He lives in South Florida, and he has a distinct dislike of women's basketball.

Found out the first from http://goduke.statsgeek.com/basketball-m/ when I achieved Carol Youngkin status. I did not know the last two facts.

ricks68
08-25-2010, 01:55 AM
Just to let you all know that I just got on tonight and noticed that I got reduced from 2 pitchforks to 1. I checked my settings and noticed that I had one positive comment worth 20 points. Considering that it was credited for maybe the only post (I think) that I have made since the changeover, there must be some sort of criteria also regarding frequency of posting that does affect the number of pitchforks after all.:confused:

While the new look and functions are O.K. with me, they sure seem to detract from the camaraderie the old boards had. It was fun to see the board's different references to events or people when a member would reach a specific post count and try to figure out the relationship. In spite of what has been stated to justify the change, I think that most of us familiar with the boards did use the post counts (after reading the interplay with various posters) to effectively gauge the credibility of different posters.

I don't think it is necessary for the board to classify someone for all to see, like Jim Sumner, as some sort of guru so newcomers won't make the mistake of challenging his BBall knowledge. Someone reading the boards that wants to post should first do a little research before making that first post. We older members did that, and it helped us to learn about the community. That's how we found out that he is some sort of a BBall guru and his comments deserve to be treated with utmost respect. Pitchfork count just doesn't do that for me, and I do not think they are adequately taking the place of post count plus reseach. If someone's padding a post count, it is easy to detect by just reading some of that member's posts. In my opinion, the mod's appear to be acting more and more like a "big brother", possibly contributing to a (most probably unintended)more impersonal result.

Just my take.

ricks

(Please feel free to add either negative or positive comments so that I can see if my post is either adding to the discussion or detracting from it.)

Lord Ash
08-25-2010, 10:59 AM
See, now I am getting negative comments and losing points because I said that arrogance and UNC are not really connected when someone said that of course John Henson is arrogant, it goes with the uniform.

Between that, and getting a "boo hoo" comment (which I also lost points on) I feel like the comment system is not reflecting the actual board culture.

I really think this comment thing has issues that need resolving.

devil84
08-25-2010, 11:10 AM
Just to let you all know that I just got on tonight and noticed that I got reduced from 2 pitchforks to 1. I checked my settings and noticed that I had one positive comment worth 20 points. Considering that it was credited for maybe the only post (I think) that I have made since the changeover, there must be some sort of criteria also regarding frequency of posting that does affect the number of pitchforks after all.:confused:

From what I've seen (and I could be wrong), posting frequency does not have anything to do with the pitchforks. Total post count, registration date, and comments given and received are the main factors that I can find, but having posted recently is not one of them. I'm looking into why your pitchforks have been reduced. Unless you've received negative comments (which you haven't), you shouldn't have lost pitchforks. I'm looking into it.


I don't think it is necessary for the board to classify someone for all to see, like Jim Sumner, as some sort of guru so newcomers won't make the mistake of challenging his BBall knowledge. Someone reading the boards that wants to post should first do a little research before making that first post. We older members did that, and it helped us to learn about the community. That's how we found out that he is some sort of a BBall guru and his comments deserve to be treated with utmost respect. Pitchfork count just doesn't do that for me, and I do not think they are adequately taking the place of post count plus reseach. If someone's padding a post count, it is easy to detect by just reading some of that member's posts. In my opinion, the mod's appear to be acting more and more like a "big brother", possibly contributing to a (most probably unintended)more impersonal result.

The problem is that the new members are NOT doing the research, and the old members are complaining about that. (Where else on the Interwebs are you supposed to research before posting?!) We get a number of posts reported and even more PMs that SOMETHING needs to be done about the culture here, as there are new members who are arguing with the veterans and the newer members are ignoring our culture. We've had complaints that there's too much needless posting as they are obviously posting simply to drive up their post count. Post counts have been brought up in a combative manner ("why should I listen to you? You've got 50 posts, I've got 500!"). And there is a growing number of newer users that have post counts that are far higher than some of our veterans (so noted by the veterans who have pointed that out to us). From the mailbag, it appears post counts are a problematic metric, and something else would be preferable.

There's also a theme in the mailbag that the community would like some say in being able to determine what is needless posting, what crosses the civility line, etc. There are quite a number of readers that think we aren't harsh enough (!) when it comes to moderation.

We moderators have discussed how to solve some of these problems since we've gone to the new board format in '07. It's been the last year and a half that we've looked at this particular comments feature. We wanted to make sure that it would solve most of the problems that our readers have brought to our attention. We wanted to make sure it couldn't become a popularity contest. And we wanted to make sure that it could run with no moderator intervention -- that is, the status is up to the MEMBERS (after an initial seeding of a few official Duke representatives and the moderators). Our hope was that this would allow the community to tell each other when posts were good or not-so-welcome so that the level of discourse would rise, leaving the moderators to do less policing (in other words, to be less "Big Brother.")

When the bulletin board software was upgraded, the admins/owners implemented the comments feature (which is a standard feature of the software) after listening to the moderators' comments and concerns. It was in response to comments from our community that it was implemented.

We're also looking at the comments in this thread to see if there are ways we can make this feature better. I'd urge you to go through the mental exercise of finding out how this can be used as a positive feature rather than dwelling on the loss of post counts and fun correlations to players. It'd be far more helpful for the community to try to make this a better place with the features we have than to just point out what we don't like.

Yeah, I miss those post counts and the player history, too. I also miss M*A*S*H, Diet Coke with Lemon, and posting codes (among many other things from my younger years...). But I've learned to live with the upgrades/replacements like DVRs/DVDs, Starbucks, and the ability to embed videos in messages (and plenty of other newfangled things).

CameronBornAndBred
08-26-2010, 09:53 PM
To whomever sent me the "you don't know what you're talking about" comment...puhleeeeese come post in here and debate, with your shirt on. Lordy I hate the anonymous comments.
Anyways...I don't know what I'm talking about. But I know what I see and I choose to comment on it.

Newton_14
08-26-2010, 10:22 PM
To whomever sent me the "you don't know what you're talking about" comment...puhleeeeese come post in here and debate, with your shirt on. Lordy I hate the anonymous comments.
Anyways...I don't know what I'm talking about. But I know what I see and I choose to comment on it.

Sorry to hear that CB&B. I sign all of my comments and people should have the stones to sign a comment or they should simply not give the comment. The only good news is it takes entering many comments to be able to enter a 2nd comment on the same poster. I learned that quickly as I have provided a lot of comments and I tried to comment a 2nd time on the same poster for good posts and the system will not let me do it. It keeps telling me I have to provide comments to other posters first.

Whoever did this to you will have to comment on numerous other posters before they can give you another one. I know that does not help much but better than nothing I guess.

OldPhiKap
08-26-2010, 10:35 PM
Sorry to hear that CB&B. I sign all of my comments and people should have the stones to sign a comment or they should simply not give the comment. The only good news is it takes entering many comments to be able to enter a 2nd comment on the same poster. I learned that quickly as I have provided a lot of comments and I tried to comment a 2nd time on the same poster for good posts and the system will not let me do it. It keeps telling me I have to provide comments to other posters first.

Whoever did this to you will have to comment on numerous other posters before they can give you another one. I know that does not help much but better than nothing I guess.

True dat.

(Booz I commented on your post but it got "sent" before i could sign it. CB, I hopefully signed yours). -- OPK

left_hook_lacey
08-27-2010, 12:31 AM
Sorry to hear that CB&B. I sign all of my comments and people should have the stones to sign a comment or they should simply not give the comment. The only good news is it takes entering many comments to be able to enter a 2nd comment on the same poster. I learned that quickly as I have provided a lot of comments and I tried to comment a 2nd time on the same poster for good posts and the system will not let me do it. It keeps telling me I have to provide comments to other posters first.

Whoever did this to you will have to comment on numerous other posters before they can give you another one. I know that does not help much but better than nothing I guess.

Yeah CB&B, that really is disappointing. Like Boozer said, it's a good thing that whoever did that to you can't comment on you for a while. But it is unfortunate because that same rule applies to other, more civilized posters. And if said posters would like to give you positive feed back, present company included, we cannot because of the "you need to spread 'em around" rule.

It's a catch 22 I guess, but keep up the good work and it'll all come out in the wash....:)

I take comfort in the culture that is being established in that most of us are signing our comments whether they're positive or negative.

ElSid
08-27-2010, 12:39 AM
apologize if this has been posted before, and it's a minor point.

i don't like how, when in the forum section, when i click on the big "duke basketball report" icon now, it takes me to a forum summary page, rather than the real home page. the forum summary page does nothing for me.

also, i miss the real "one click nav" of the quick nav at the bottom. used to be a drop down menu and a "go" button. the drop down menu for me almost always stayed on "elizabeth king forum" so i could click on go and be back at the forum page. now i have to click on the drop down menu every time with that feature, and depending on how far i'm scrolled down, it's a drop up menu and...well, these little things annoy me. there i said it.

Lord Ash
08-27-2010, 12:53 AM
i don't like how, when in the forum section, when i click on the big "duke basketball report" icon now, it takes me to a forum summary page, rather than the real home page. the forum summary page does nothing for me.


Actually, just started noticing that, and agreed!

Oh, and the anonymous comments that wouldn't pass muster in the regular posting environment and yet cost us.

:)

CameronBornAndBred
08-27-2010, 01:02 AM
Yeah CB&B, that really is disappointing. Like Boozer said, it's a good thing that whoever did that to you can't comment on you for a while. But it is unfortunate because that same rule applies to other, more civilized posters. And if said posters would like to give you positive feed back, present company included, we cannot because of the "you need to spread 'em around" rule.

It's a catch 22 I guess, but keep up the good work and it'll all come out in the wash....:)

I take comfort in the culture that is being established in that most of us are signing our comments whether they're positive or negative.
Thanks to you and others for the support..but know that my beef is not about the person not being able to comment again to me any time soon, it's about that person not standing up for their own thoughts in the forum. DBR is a vibrant forum, often at times we disagree on what each other says..there is nothing wrong with that. I would just like to see someone not cower behind the curtain of anonymity, but instead state their side for public discourse. This site works well because we as posters respect each other. We know on game day we might even be sitting next to each other. So treat your comments with the same respect, pretend that you have the adjacent seat in Cameron. If you don't like me yelling at Singler because he just passed up Nolan for the easy layup so he could brick it, let me know. In public.
Anyways...back to the topic...I still think that unc now has the best practice squad in the nation. And where's the beef?
1596

94duke
09-01-2010, 09:33 AM
I'm using Firefox for my browser.
Sometimes when I try to leave a comment, I don't get the little pop-up.
I click on the little icon, but nothing happens.
Then I click again, but I can't leave a comment, because I have to spread the comments around.
It's like the click registers, but I don't get to leave an actual comment.
I wonder if the clicks default to approve?
Has anyone else had this happen to them?
Has anyone else had problems leaving a comment?

Has anyone else seen this?
It has happened to me twice in the last two days.
I tried to give some rep to Kedsy late last night and airowe this morning.
This was on two different computers (home and work), a netbook and a laptop.
Anyone?
Thanks.

Newton_14
09-01-2010, 10:03 AM
Has anyone else seen this?
It has happened to me twice in the last two days.
I tried to give some rep to Kedsy late last night and airowe this morning.
This was on two different computers (home and work), a netbook and a laptop.
Anyone?
Thanks.

You cannot comment on the same poster twice without first providing comments to another poster. If you provided comments on both of these guys recently it will take awhile before you are allowed to comment on them again.

The window will not pop up in those cases. If you keep clicking on it, you will eventually see a pop up informing you to spread the love.

I suspect that is the issue here..

94duke
09-01-2010, 11:43 AM
You cannot comment on the same poster twice without first providing comments to another poster. If you provided comments on both of these guys recently it will take awhile before you are allowed to comment on them again.

The window will not pop up in those cases. If you keep clicking on it, you will eventually see a pop up informing you to spread the love.

I suspect that is the issue here..

But I had not provided comments to either poster recently.
When I clicked, I got nothing. I didn't even get the little window telling me I need to spread the comments around. So I clicked a second time, and that's when I got the window telling me to spread the comments around. But I had not been able to leave a comment yet!
It is a little frustrating. I thought it was weird that I experienced this on 2 different computers using the same browser (Firefox 3.6.8). I thought for sure that someone else would have seen this.

edit:
OK, it just now happened again. I tried to leave Boozer a comment thanking him. I clicked. Nothing happened. I clicked again. I got the message to spread the comments around. I don't think I have left Boozer a comment before, but I could be wrong.

Newton_14
09-01-2010, 01:07 PM
But I had not provided comments to either poster recently.
When I clicked, I got nothing. I didn't even get the little window telling me I need to spread the comments around. So I clicked a second time, and that's when I got the window telling me to spread the comments around. But I had not been able to leave a comment yet!
It is a little frustrating. I thought it was weird that I experienced this on 2 different computers using the same browser (Firefox 3.6.8). I thought for sure that someone else would have seen this.

edit:
OK, it just now happened again. I tried to leave Boozer a comment thanking him. I clicked. Nothing happened. I clicked again. I got the message to spread the comments around. I don't think I have left Boozer a comment before, but I could be wrong.

Ok. Sounds like a different issue then. I would suggest sending a pm to -jk or Devil84 and ask them to have a look at the issue. Good Luck!

SilkyJ
09-02-2010, 12:49 AM
But I had not provided comments to either poster recently.


"Recently" is a bit ambiguous. You have to REALLY spread around the comments before you can comment on someone else again. And I don't believe time lapse matters, its just quantity of comments made to other posters. If you comment on person A, you have to make probably 20 comments or so on other people (maybe more) before you can comment on person A again.

94duke
09-02-2010, 09:19 AM
"Recently" is a bit ambiguous. You have to REALLY spread around the comments before you can comment on someone else again. And I don't believe time lapse matters, its just quantity of comments made to other posters. If you comment on person A, you have to make probably 20 comments or so on other people (maybe more) before you can comment on person A again.

I understand that. I also wouldn't think twice if I actually got the little pop-up that tells you to spread around the comments. The problem is that I get nothing.

devil84
09-02-2010, 11:53 AM
I understand that. I also wouldn't think twice if I actually got the little pop-up that tells you to spread around the comments. The problem is that I get nothing.

I've been doing some checking and 94duke is right: sometimes you get no menu or notice when clicking on the comments button. It appears that if you are capable of giving reputation to that person, you will immediately get the popup to give reputation. If you are not capable, you may get nothing on the first click, but (at least in Firefox 3.6.8) the second click would bring up the notice to tell you to spread it around. It appears to be an issue with the software and/or browser. We're checking into possible solutions.

And SilkyJ is right about the fact that when spreading around comments, it doesn't matter how long ago you last gave a comment to a particular poster. It matters how many comments to other posters you've given. You need quite a few, so don't be shy about giving comments to many posters.

Lord Ash
09-02-2010, 10:58 PM
Howdy all,

Okay, I have to ask;

I am currently unable to give feedback on many of the posters here who post stuff I appreciate. Airowe, Jason Evans, the whole bunch.

I thought I could just wait it out, but apparently I cannot, so I need to give comments.

Now, I am totally against just giving nonsense "Hey great post!" comments, although I suppose I could do that to random posts.

So;

I read this post:

http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?22156-No-EA-Sports-NCAA-College-Basketball-this-year-!-!&p=430002#post430002

I think that maybe the poster doesn't quite get what a great video game it is, or why dynasty mode can be so much fun.

So, should I give him negative feedback? Or is this a silly reason for knocking someones "ranking" down? Any guidance on how to approach this? Thanks!


On an aside, I have no idea why on earth the moderators here sometimes insist on closing threads for no decipherable reason.

OZZIE4DUKE
09-02-2010, 11:40 PM
Well, I gave my opinion of this whole rating system garbage (there's a hint) to my good friend and favorite moderator Devil84 earlier tonight. Basically, I paraphrased Ol' Roy - I don't give a s... about the rating system.

Lord Ash, if you want you can give me some props for this post, just to spread your love around a little bit. http://www.crazietalk.net/ourhouse/images/smilies/happy/bouncyblue.gif

Lord Ash
09-03-2010, 12:08 AM
*laugh* Well, as Tim Gunn would say, I am trying to "make it work."

I guess I am just torn between giving somewhat fluffy "Nice post!" comments or giving negative feedback for something that feels... well, like it is my opinion more than a legit "negative?"

ElSid
09-03-2010, 12:15 AM
i think the ratings in general are frustrating...so rather than be frustrated, i don't care. feel this way because i got negative points for predicting that people (media, unc fans) would react negatively to coach k's comments on the isiah thomas situation with the knicks. my anti-fan simply said "dumb, coach k doesn't get paid", missing the entire point of my post, and ignoring the careful tone i took not to imply that i personally felt the same as the haters i anticipated. it was as if the person didn't read the post. the next day there were at least three articles including one in the new york times mirroring the observations i made. so my comment was stupid? bad? mean spirited? what? anonymous post bashing amplifies the worst parts of blog culture, in my opinion.

i'm turning this into something it's not supposed to be...a personal rant. supposed to be, i think, etiquette discussion on how to use the rating system. i say use it however you'd like. hopefully over time, if enough members feel like others are abusing it, the format will change. right now i choose to ignore it.

Greg_Newton
09-03-2010, 01:20 AM
i think the ratings in general are frustrating...so rather than be frustrated, i don't care. feel this way because i got negative points for predicting that people (media, unc fans) would react negatively to coach k's comments on the isiah thomas situation with the knicks. my anti-fan simply said "dumb, coach k doesn't get paid", missing the entire point of my post, and ignoring the careful tone i took not to imply that i personally felt the same as the haters i anticipated. it was as if the person didn't read the post. the next day there were at least three articles including one in the new york times mirroring the observations i made. so my comment was stupid? bad? mean spirited? what? anonymous post bashing amplifies the worst parts of blog culture, in my opinion.

i'm turning this into something it's not supposed to be...a personal rant. supposed to be, i think, etiquette discussion on how to use the rating system. i say use it however you'd like. hopefully over time, if enough members feel like others are abusing it, the format will change. right now i choose to ignore it.

Personally, I don't understand why comments are by default anonymous. Yes, most people sign them... but not the dumb negative ones like that, which wouldn't be left if there was accountability. I'm guessing it's a technological hangup, because what justification would there be for anonymous comments? It waters down the whole process.

Greg_Newton
09-05-2010, 03:54 PM
What does it mean when you get a positively worded comment on a post, but rather than having a green square beside it, it has a gray square beside it, and it gives you 0 points and says your post's "reputation is neutral" when you mouse over it? There's not even an option for a neutral approval of a comment, is there?

It would also be nice to know a little more the pitchforks work. For example, about how many points are required for each incremental fork? 40? 50? 100? Or does it vary based on something else?

The "Introducing..." thread got locked for some reason, I thought I'd post this on the OT board as to not clog things up.

Thanks.

allenmurray
09-05-2010, 10:53 PM
What does it mean when you get a positively worded comment on a post, but rather than having a green square beside it, it has a gray square beside it, and it gives you 0 points and says your post's "reputation is neutral" when you mouse over it? There's not even an option for a neutral approval of a comment, is there?

It would also be nice to know a little more the pitchforks work. For example, about how many points are required for each incremental fork? 40? 50? 100? Or does it vary based on something else?

The "Introducing..." thread got locked for some reason, I thought I'd post this on the OT board as to not clog things up.

Thanks.

Because I so dislike the pitchfork system, I made a request that all pitchforks be removed from my name (I'd rather have none, please). However, it was not honored, and I still have two. :(

Could folks please give me some negative feedback until all my pitchforks disappear? ;)

devildeac
09-05-2010, 11:34 PM
Because I so dislike the pitchfork system, I made a request that all pitchforks be removed from my name (I'd rather have none, please). However, it was not honored, and I still have two. :(

Could folks please give me some negative feedback until all my pitchforks disappear? ;)

I'd be glad to but I must "spread some comments around."

Well, I'll do it the old-fashioned way then. Hey, allenmurray, you #%^@. How's that?

(jk)

Love ya, man.

http://crazietalk.net/ourhouse/images/smilies/11.gif

http://crazietalk.net/ourhouse/images/smilies/6.gif

DevilWearsPrada
09-06-2010, 04:27 PM
Well, I gave my opinion of this whole rating system garbage (there's a hint) to my good friend and favorite moderator Devil84 earlier tonight. Basically, I paraphrased Ol' Roy - I don't give a s... about the rating system.

Agree with you!!! Pitchforks, Sporks or Sand Shovels... it seems so elementary!

I have been reading DBR for 10 years. I signed up on the forums, a few months ago. Really, just to connect with others, going to the Final 4 in Indy. Having received a Warning, from a post I made, made me feel like I was 3 years old, and my Mother scolding me. A forum should be something fun and enjoyable. There is enough negative garbage in the world today. One should be able to express their opinion or agree or disagree with others.

With that said, all I care about is: GO DUKE GTHC GTH

-jk
09-07-2010, 12:28 AM
I've been watching the thoughts in this and other threads on the comments and pitchforks. A lot of good thoughts all around. I won't rehash them or refute them or defend them just now. I'll just add my own thoughts.

We have a very active board. We added about a thousand new members in the past year, members who didn't always understand our culture or our community before jumping right in. New membership is a good thing - every successful board needs it.

If we want to keep our community from falling face-first into the typical sports-board gutter, though, we can't just sit on our collective thumbs and do nothing. So something proactive must occur - some responsibility taken - to maintain the board.

So what something do we do? The Mod team can continue to hand out infractions, delete posts, and educate or ban members as we see fit. Or we can ask the community to lend a hand and let our collective efforts help manage the board.

Back in the SBBS posting code day, things were slow enough and cumbersome enough that only a few people posted, and lots of people thought twice. Since we migrated to this software, we've leaned heavily on the moderating team, who routinely have been accused of - and castigated for - heavy-handedness. Sometimes justifiably so - a dozen volunteers have tried to keep up with the increasing volume. We try, but we're human.

So it's your turn. We're asking the membership to take a greater role, and thereby easing the mods' touch.

Will it work? Who knows. I know it will take some time for people change the way they approach the board. And as we're able, we'll find ways to take advantage of the comments and pitchforks as well. Please be patient and see where this takes us.

-jk

DevilHorns
09-07-2010, 12:44 AM
Would like to say a few things: I pretty much caused this entire pitchfork debate to resurface in the Austin Rivers thread after I pointed out that I was knocked with three negative posts anonymously after stating an opinion. My opinion was to perhaps learn from the certainty we felt last year in the case of Harrison Barnes, ie, if Austin is willing to visit UNC on one of their biggest nights of the year, he is definitely taking them seriously and there is more than a fair chance that he may end up with the bad guys. Is this pessimism as we are seen as the 'leader'? Yes. I fully acknowledge that. Did I state my opinion respectfully? Yes. What was the reason I was docked by these anonymous posters? I was too pessimistic.

I get that this whole comment system is built upon assessing the value of a post. That may work well in theory, especially for positive comments. BUT, for negative comments, this does not seem work. if something rubs a certain type of poster the wrong way, then they have full authority to assign someone a negative comment. That is completely against the general idea behind the entire comment system. Comments should be based on quality of the posts, right? Not on someone's visceral reaction to your opinion. Furthermore, does that poster face any sort of retribution in anyway for wrongfully utilizing the comment system as simply an anonymous way to wag their index finger? Correct me if I am wrong, but I think not.

Sorry to bring this up again; I will understandingly accept another infraction point for this very post. I am simply trying to add to the community discussion by trying to help bring about some dialogue that can help the current pitchfork system.

JBDuke
09-07-2010, 12:50 AM
Would like to say a few things: I pretty much caused this entire pitchfork debate to resurface in the Austin Rivers thread after I pointed out that I was knocked with three negative posts anonymously after stating an opinion. My opinion was to perhaps learn from the certainty we felt last year in the case of Harrison Barnes, ie, if Austin is willing to visit UNC on one of their biggest nights of the year, he is definitely taking them seriously and there is more than a fair chance that he may end up with the bad guys. Is this pessimism as we are seen as the 'leader'? Yes. I fully acknowledge that. Did I state my opinion respectfully? Yes. What was the reason I was docked by these anonymous posters? I was too pessimistic.

I get that this whole comment system is built upon assessing the value of a post. That may work well in theory, especially for positive comments. BUT, for negative comments, this does not seem work. if something rubs a certain type of poster the wrong way, then they have full authority to assign someone a negative comment. That is completely against the general idea behind the entire comment system. Comments should be based on quality of the posts, right? Not on someone's visceral reaction to your opinion. Furthermore, does that poster face any sort of retribution in anyway for wrongfully utilizing the comment system as simply an anonymous way to wag their index finger? Correct me if I am wrong, but I think not.

Sorry to bring this up again; I will understandingly accept another infraction point for this very post. I am simply trying to add to the community discussion by trying to help bring about some dialogue that can help the current pitchfork system.

No infraction for this post - you're making a very good point which I hope other folks will recognize.

We aim for high-quality discussions here, which separates DBR from many of the other college basketball bulletin boards out there. I would hope that members of this community would recognize a quality post, even if they don't happen to agree with it. That is, people shouldn't be adding a negative comment just because they disagree with what the poster is saying. People should be adding a negative comment if the post isn't a quality post.

Greg_Newton
09-07-2010, 03:04 AM
No infraction for this post - you're making a very good point which I hope other folks will recognize.

We aim for high-quality discussions here, which separates DBR from many of the other college basketball bulletin boards out there. I would hope that members of this community would recognize a quality post, even if they don't happen to agree with it. That is, people shouldn't be adding a negative comment just because they disagree with what the poster is saying. People should be adding a negative comment if the post isn't a quality post.

The problem is that people adding anonymous negative comments on posts they disagree with are probably the exact posters that the pitchfork system is meant to "filter". I would guess that no one posting in this thread, for example, would do such a thing.

I just don't see how the pros of anonymous comments outweigh the cons. I've even seen multiple moderators request that people sign their comments, so really, the only posters making any use of the anonymity are the ones who disregard moderators' requests and take cheap shots.

And not to sound like a broken record here, but can someone please explain in more details how the system works? i.e. what are the thresholds for adding forks, or is it just a complex algorithm no one really understands? And I've seen positive comments worth both 0 (?) and 10+ points depending on who they were from... what's going on exactly?

As I posted earlier, I don't think people are going to take the system seriously as long as it's unclear how it works and what it actually means.

JohnGalt
09-07-2010, 06:20 AM
The problem is that people adding anonymous negative comments on posts they disagree with are probably the exact posters that the pitchfork system is meant to "filter". I would guess that no one posting in this thread, for example, would do such a thing.

As I posted earlier, I don't think people are going to take the system seriously as long as it's unclear how it works and what it actually means.

It seems to me the DBR reps are making the assumption that no member of DBR is targeted for "filtering," that everyone is capable (and mature) enough to hold legitimate conversation without the need to cheapshot or to name-call. And I think that's an important premise to uphold, especially - as JBDuke mentioned - considering they profess to run (and succeed at running, IMO) a forum of higher quality content than most other boards around the Net. Will there be posters who cheapshot/name-call through anonymity? Yes, most certainly. But I would bet the equation within the Pitchfork system recognizes this - at least in part - resulting in negative comments that aren't quite as damaging as most worry. (And plenty worry).

I think most people are misinterpreting the Pitchforks as the system to "weed" out posters who - for the most part - add little, or perhaps even nothing, to the conversation. It seems to me the Infraction System is what best suits this as strikes (correct term?) are assesed for "needless" posting, or "trolling, or any other action that isn't generally considered of DBR quality. However, asking moderators to evaluate each and every post and then assign strikes according to what they deem inappropriate, IMO, is asking quite a bit and - from what I can tell - probably a big part of the reason the system doesn't seem to operate exactly how it is described in one of the Stickies. The Mods seem to have sort of moved into their own realms within the Community where you have the Posters (JasonEvans), the Disciplinarians (JBDuke), the Tech Gurus (-jk), and the others whose participation has sort of fallen off over time. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with these roles. It's kind of fun, actually.

I completely understand your argument about the anonymous comments. It's certainly valid. I think though that I'm more inclined to believe that in a Board where the Community considers itself to be a tad above the rest, commenting in anonymity shouldn't make much of a difference.

(The only thing is...I've signed the few comments I've made...Does that ruin my entire argument??! :eek:)

kong123
09-07-2010, 09:49 AM
It seems to me the DBR reps are making the assumption that no member of DBR is targeted for "filtering," that everyone is capable (and mature) enough to hold legitimate conversation without the need to cheapshot or to name-call. And I think that's an important premise to uphold, especially - as JBDuke mentioned - considering they profess to run (and succeed at running, IMO) a forum of higher quality content than most other boards around the Net. Will there be posters who cheapshot/name-call through anonymity? Yes, most certainly. But I would bet the equation within the Pitchfork system recognizes this - at least in part - resulting in negative comments that aren't quite as damaging as most worry. (And plenty worry).

I think most people are misinterpreting the Pitchforks as the system to "weed" out posters who - for the most part - add little, or perhaps even nothing, to the conversation. It seems to me the Infraction System is what best suits this as strikes (correct term?) are assesed for "needless" posting, or "trolling, or any other action that isn't generally considered of DBR quality. However, asking moderators to evaluate each and every post and then assign strikes according to what they deem inappropriate, IMO, is asking quite a bit and - from what I can tell - probably a big part of the reason the system doesn't seem to operate exactly how it is described in one of the Stickies. The Mods seem to have sort of moved into their own realms within the Community where you have the Posters (JasonEvans), the Disciplinarians (JBDuke), the Tech Gurus (-jk), and the others whose participation has sort of fallen off over time. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with these roles. It's kind of fun, actually.

I completely understand your argument about the anonymous comments. It's certainly valid. I think though that I'm more inclined to believe that in a Board where the Community considers itself to be a tad above the rest, commenting in anonymity shouldn't make much of a difference.

(The only thing is...I've signed the few comments I've made...Does that ruin my entire argument??! :eek:)


wonder why I only have 1 pitchfork?

Stray Gator
09-07-2010, 09:52 AM
It seems to me the DBR reps are making the assumption that no member of DBR is targeted for "filtering," that everyone is capable (and mature) enough to hold legitimate conversation without the need to cheapshot or to name-call. And I think that's an important premise to uphold, especially - as JBDuke mentioned - considering they profess to run (and succeed at running, IMO) a forum of higher quality content than most other boards around the Net. Will there be posters who cheapshot/name-call through anonymity? Yes, most certainly. But I would bet the equation within the Pitchfork system recognizes this - at least in part - resulting in negative comments that aren't quite as damaging as most worry. (And plenty worry).

I think most people are misinterpreting the Pitchforks as the system to "weed" out posters who - for the most part - add little, or perhaps even nothing, to the conversation. It seems to me the Infraction System is what best suits this as strikes (correct term?) are assesed for "needless" posting, or "trolling, or any other action that isn't generally considered of DBR quality. However, asking moderators to evaluate each and every post and then assign strikes according to what they deem inappropriate, IMO, is asking quite a bit and - from what I can tell - probably a big part of the reason the system doesn't seem to operate exactly how it is described in one of the Stickies. The Mods seem to have sort of moved into their own realms within the Community where you have the Posters (JasonEvans), the Disciplinarians (JBDuke), the Tech Gurus (-jk), and the others whose participation has sort of fallen off over time. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with these roles. It's kind of fun, actually.

I completely understand your argument about the anonymous comments. It's certainly valid. I think though that I'm more inclined to believe that in a Board where the Community considers itself to be a tad above the rest, commenting in anonymity shouldn't make much of a difference.

(The only thing is...I've signed the few comments I've made...Does that ruin my entire argument??! :eek:)

I can attest to the fact that, since becoming a moderator, I've severely curtailed my posting. With rare exceptions, I now confine my posts mainly to "informational" messages--i.e., when someone poses a question for which I believe I can help to provide an answer, or when historical issues arise on which I believe I can help to shed some light based on my personal experience and observations from following Duke basketball since my student days more than forty years ago.

Unfortunately, it appears that some find even this limited participation to be offensive. My post last night in the Austin Rivers thread responding to Lord Ash's message, in which he indicated that he had seen no evidence to support another poster's skepticism regarding the bona fides of Harrison Barnes' interest in Duke, elicited an anonymous negative comment--notwithstanding that I tried to make clear in a follow-up reply that my purpose was to provide information, not make a judgment about Barnes' true intent, a matter on which we can only speculate.

If an informational post that does not violate Board rules and does not attack another poster can be the target of anonymous negative comments, simply because the content of the message addresses a subject that someone here considers unpalatable or no longer relevant, then the system operates as a disincentive to further posting. Because there is no way to predict what subjects or information may be deemed unwelcome and provoke negative responses, participants who would prefer not to give offense--not because of any "pitchfork" ratings, but simply because they believe the purpose of this forum is to be entertaining and informative and fun--can only avoid that risk by remaining silent whenever there is any doubt as to whether the content of the message is completely innocuous.

AZLA
09-07-2010, 01:19 PM
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
09-07-2010, 01:33 PM
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
09-07-2010, 01:37 PM
...

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
09-07-2010, 01:54 PM
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.
1600

DukieInKansas
09-07-2010, 04:23 PM
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
09-07-2010, 05:46 PM
(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
09-07-2010, 05:49 PM
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
09-07-2010, 06:07 PM
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 :p). 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
09-07-2010, 06:12 PM
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
09-07-2010, 09:42 PM
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
09-07-2010, 10:36 PM
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
09-07-2010, 11:31 PM
i think Coach K is a better coach than Roy!

Greg_Newton
09-08-2010, 12:00 AM
i think Coach K is a better coach than Roy!

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

DevilHorns
09-08-2010, 12:07 AM
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
09-08-2010, 01:02 AM
good lord that was well written and right on the money!!!

devil84
09-08-2010, 10:52 AM
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
09-08-2010, 11:34 AM
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
09-08-2010, 12:51 PM
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
09-13-2010, 10:12 AM
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
09-13-2010, 12:48 PM
The "previous thread" "forum" and "next thread" additions are a nice touch. Really makes the place better for entertaining family and friends!:)

sagegrouse
09-13-2010, 01:17 PM
The "previous thread" "forum" and "next thread" additions are a nice touch. Really makes the place better for entertaining family and friends!:)

Wha' happened to the buttom that just allowed one to reply to the thread without quoting a prior post. Yeah, I know I can Reply with Quote and then delete.

I suspect there is an obvious button on the page I am overlooking.

sagegrouse

roywhite
09-13-2010, 01:28 PM
Wha' happened to the buttom that just allowed one to reply to the thread without quoting a prior post. Yeah, I know I can Reply with Quote and then delete.

I suspect there is an obvious button on the page I am overlooking.

sagegrouse

"Reply to Thread" button is now at the top of the thread, not the bottom

94duke
09-13-2010, 01:39 PM
Wha' happened to the buttom that just allowed one to reply to the thread without quoting a prior post. Yeah, I know I can Reply with Quote and then delete.

I suspect there is an obvious button on the page I am overlooking.

sagegrouse

There is. :)

edit: This wasn't meant to be obnoxious, so I hope it is not. I thought a picture would help. They say a picture is worth a thousand words. ;)

sagegrouse
09-13-2010, 01:59 PM
There is. :)

edit: This wasn't meant to be obnoxious, so I hope it is not. I thought a picture would help. They say a picture is worth a thousand words. ;)

Thanks -- it's at the top of the thread. Hmmm....


sagegrouse

94duke
09-13-2010, 02:00 PM
For me, it's at the bottom of the thread, right below the last post.
Very convenient. ;)

CameronBornAndBred
09-13-2010, 03:09 PM
How are points determined in the comments? I've had some given that carried no points at all, some that carried a lot, and some that carried very few. Are comments made by moderators weighted heavier? (I'm guessing that they are, it seems that way anyways.) What does a "grey" comment mean..how is it possible to give a neutral remark?

DukieInKansas
09-13-2010, 03:10 PM
For me, it's at the bottom of the thread, right below the last post.
Very convenient. ;)

It used to be there for me - as well as at the top of the page. Now it no longer is at the bottom - just at the top. I figured it might be a setting with my computers but don't know what that might be.

Greg_Newton
09-13-2010, 03:55 PM
How are points determined in the comments? I've had some given that carried no points at all, some that carried a lot, and some that carried very few. Are comments made by moderators weighted heavier? (I'm guessing that they are, it seems that way anyways.) What does a "grey" comment mean..how is it possible to give a neutral remark?

I've been trying to get an answer to this too... I know more pitchforks = the ability to award more points, but it doesn't seem like anyone's opinion should just be deemed worthless.

Also, it appears we're just not going to get an answer to this, but does a pitchfork appear every 50 points, I'm guessing?

devil84
09-13-2010, 04:09 PM
How are points determined in the comments? I've had some given that carried no points at all, some that carried a lot, and some that carried very few. Are comments made by moderators weighted heavier? (I'm guessing that they are, it seems that way anyways.) What does a "grey" comment mean..how is it possible to give a neutral remark?

For those lurking along, we've pretty much covered how the system works here (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?21834-Introducing...&p=427939#post427939). But CB&B brings up a few other questions.

How much each individual can add or subtract depends on the giver's status. Those with a higher count (more pitchforks) will give more status than those who haven't achieved it quite yet (those with fewer pitchforks). There are other factors, too, such as longevity and post count.

Moderators give based on their accumulated status, just like everyone else.

A grey box on a comment means there were no points given. This means that the giver's status evaluated to zero points to give. This generally happens when the user has not accumulated points, like their first couple of times leaving a comment if they have not received comments.

And I'd like to take this opportunity to give a little gentle reminder (and not directed AT CB&B or any other individual): use PM or comments to simply say, "thanks for the post," "I agree," or "I disagree," as these are considered "Needless Posts" since they don't advance the discussion. Some of these threads are long enough without the "Thanks" or "I agree" posts!

-jk
09-23-2010, 09:01 PM
...Also, when I'm on my Blackberry and I get logged out, the password box doesn't show up, only the username box. I can't remember how I eventually get in, but it was easier to get confirmed into the Catholic church.

As I recall, you use Blue on your blackberry. Try changing it to the Mobile style long enough to log in, than change back to Blue.

-jk

SharkD
09-26-2010, 02:12 AM
As I recall, you use Blue on your blackberry. Try changing it to the Mobile style long enough to log in, than change back to Blue.

-jk

I'm curious as to why a mobile user agent string (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_user_agents_for_mobile_phones) doesn't automatically trigger the mobile style sheet. (Or, alternatively, why @media (http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/media.html#media-types) isn't utilized. Or even a device-specific cookie that preserves the style preference for each individual machine used to access the forum.)

Having to manually switch the forum style, especially when on the phone, and even more so over the cell connection (I still rock an O.G. iPhone, so I'm stuck using slow-as-moleasses EDGE) is really annoying. (As is the fact that setting the forum to mobile on my phone means it's on mobile the next time I log in from my laptop/desktop/office/etc.)

This just seems an odd way to utilize this 'feature' of the new forum version.

gep
09-26-2010, 03:41 AM
Having to manually switch the forum style, especially when on the phone, and even more so over the cell connection (I still rock an O.G. iPhone, so I'm stuck using slow-as-moleasses EDGE) is really annoying. (As is the fact that setting the forum to mobile on my phone means it's on mobile the next time I log in from my laptop/desktop/office/etc.)

This just seems an odd way to utilize this 'feature' of the new forum version.

Just a note... I've got the mobile skin on my iPhone, and the blue skin on my desktops and laptops... and never had to change anything on any computer or the iPhone when I browse this forum... it works great for me :cool:

SilkyJ
09-27-2010, 06:57 PM
I'm curious as to why a mobile user agent string (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_user_agents_for_mobile_phones) doesn't automatically trigger the mobile style sheet. (Or, alternatively, why @media (http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/media.html#media-types) isn't utilized. Or even a device-specific cookie that preserves the style preference for each individual machine used to access the forum.)

Having to manually switch the forum style, especially when on the phone, and even more so over the cell connection (I still rock an O.G. iPhone, so I'm stuck using slow-as-moleasses EDGE) is really annoying. (As is the fact that setting the forum to mobile on my phone means it's on mobile the next time I log in from my laptop/desktop/office/etc.)

This just seems an odd way to utilize this 'feature' of the new forum version.


Just a note... I've got the mobile skin on my iPhone, and the blue skin on my desktops and laptops... and never had to change anything on any computer or the iPhone when I browse this forum... it works great for me :cool:

Sorry, Shark, but I'm in the same boat as GEP: I'm on an OG BB curve and use a different style on mobile and on the PC, and I am always auto-logged in to both and never have to change styles on either.

Of course, that's probably not very helpful, especially since I didn't do anything with the settings or something that I could suggest to you...I do use Opera as my browser on the phone...

Lord Ash
09-28-2010, 11:29 AM
Hm.

I just got an ad across the top of DBR for a singles site. It was a bunch of photos of model-looking girls with a bit of cleavage showing. Honestly, I was not comfortable having that come up on my computer.

-jk
09-28-2010, 02:10 PM
I think some people have suggested the ads mysteriously get targeted to user preferences. Hmm... ;)

-jk

Lord Ash
10-01-2010, 10:30 AM
Hm. Well. I don't know how to respond, except now I have to be careful not to check DBR in front of my wife, lest she get suspicious.

Stupid modern technology, with its knowing I like cute girls.

Lord Ash
10-01-2010, 10:48 AM
Oh man, someone gave me a negative comment for this... AND they spelled "cleavage" wrong too! Come on! :)

Bob Green
10-01-2010, 11:08 AM
Oh man, someone gave me a negative comment for this... AND they spelled "cleavage" wrong too! Come on! :)

Well I just gave you a positive comment to negate the negative one someone gave you.

Lord Ash
10-01-2010, 11:19 AM
*laugh* Thank you!

Jderf
10-01-2010, 11:23 AM
This is just a random thought, don't even know if it's possible or if it's too late, but does anyone else think it would be a good idea to have a neutral comment option? That way you could make a small remark without cluttering up the thread, without a cumbersome private message, and without passing any value judgements. Just wondering.

devil84
10-01-2010, 11:33 AM
This is just a random thought, don't even know if it's possible or if it's too late, but does anyone else think it would be a good idea to have a neutral comment option? That way you could make a small remark without cluttering up the thread, without a cumbersome private message, and without passing any value judgements. Just wondering.

Great minds think alike. :) It's something we've been looking into.

DukieInKansas
10-01-2010, 12:06 PM
Great minds think alike. :) It's something we've been looking into.

Will that be limited by the current "must spread it around" restriction? It would be nice if it isn't.

devil84
10-01-2010, 12:30 PM
Will that be limited by the current "must spread it around" restriction? It would be nice if it isn't.

Most likely it will have to adhere to the restriction, though I'll look into that possibility.

gumbomoop
10-01-2010, 12:33 PM
I think some people have suggested the ads mysteriously get targeted to user preferences. Hmm... ;)

-jk

Hmmm, indeed. Unless it's a coincidence, one of the ads that I'm getting is from Safelite, an auto windshield repair/replacement company. And sure enough, I have a windshield problem, and just yesterday looked on the Web for nearest Safelite location.

SilkyJ
10-01-2010, 01:58 PM
It seems quite a few people are getting "targeted" ads so to speak, but I just wanted to offer myself as another data point since I'm not. I get lots of different ads, but rarely are they linked to anything I've searched recently.

Lord Ash
10-01-2010, 02:21 PM
Mine have not been linked to any searches either, by the way, slanderous insinuations to the contrary.

Lord Ash
11-07-2010, 09:55 AM
I just wanted to say, on this lovely Sunday morning I find myself a bit irritated by the "comment" system.

I have gotten a few negative comments recently, and I feel like they are all SO in direct contrast to the entire culture of DBR that I thought I should bring it up.

I just picked up a negative comment for my post in the Barton/UNC thread. Kong basically was keeping a "game thread" for a non-Duke team, and not only was it a bit irritating to read ten posts from him in order to get his overall perspective (instead of just doing a single post-game thoughts thread) but I also felt that a UNC in-game thread on a Duke forum, especially for a relatively meaningless game, was a bit out of place and was possibly setting a precedent that I wasn't in love with. I think I phrased it nicely enough, and certainly wasn't rude about it.

I then got a negative comment of "Stop whining." That's it. No name, nothing constructive... just "stop whining." If someone posted that as an actual message, it would raise some eyebrows.

Then, in response to someone saying that Quinn was delaying his Duke commit because of Carolina, and then failing to post any sort of information to support this rumor, I posted...

Actually, the fact that Roy called may have absolutely nothing to do with it. Don't make assumptions without something to back it up.

Thanks to that, I picked up another negative comment of "lighten up," and a neutral comment saying "Recruiting is assumptions and rumors don't call him out on it." both of which are almost in COMPLETE opposition to the actual rules here at DBR. Again, no names.

Before this I got a negative comment when I posted that the "singles" ads that pop up are not my favorite and maybe not appropriate (something along the lines of "Cleavage is always great!" including a misspelling of cleavage) and then another of "boo hoo" when I said that it is wrong to make sweeping generalizations that people who attend UNC are arrogant. Again, no name on any of them.

I've been hanging around DBR since after graduation (around '98, although I didn't start posting until years later because I was intimidated by the whole code thing... silly internet newbie!) and I think, by now, I do have a "feel" for how DBR runs and specifically what environment DBR tries to foster, even in these days when the place has SO many new faces. While I appreciate the potential for the comments system, I am a bit irritated that in some ways it seems to exist completely outside of the norms and guidelines of DBR, and in fact seems to foster the exact interwebz tone that is specifically discouraged here, with no apparent ability to moderate or regulate.

I would really love for the mods and admin here to give some thought to whether or not there is some way to modify the comment system so that it doesn't exist outside the norms of DBR and encourage that sort of tone.

DevilHorns
11-07-2010, 10:40 AM
I just wanted to say, on this lovely Sunday morning I find myself a bit irritated by the "comment" system.

I have gotten a few negative comments recently, and I feel like they are all SO in direct contrast to the entire culture of DBR that I thought I should bring it up.

I just picked up a negative comment for my post in the Barton/UNC thread. Kong basically was keeping a "game thread" for a non-Duke team, and not only was it a bit irritating to read ten posts from him in order to get his overall perspective (instead of just doing a single post-game thoughts thread) but I also felt that a UNC in-game thread on a Duke forum, especially for a relatively meaningless game, was a bit out of place and was possibly setting a precedent that I wasn't in love with. I think I phrased it nicely enough, and certainly wasn't rude about it.

I then got a negative comment of "Stop whining." That's it. No name, nothing constructive... just "stop whining." If someone posted that as an actual message, it would raise some eyebrows.

Then, in response to someone saying that Quinn was delaying his Duke commit because of Carolina, and then failing to post any sort of information to support this rumor, I posted...

Actually, the fact that Roy called may have absolutely nothing to do with it. Don't make assumptions without something to back it up.

Thanks to that, I picked up another negative comment of "lighten up," and a neutral comment saying "Recruiting is assumptions and rumors don't call him out on it." both of which are almost in COMPLETE opposition to the actual rules here at DBR. Again, no names.

Before this I got a negative comment when I posted that the "singles" ads that pop up are not my favorite and maybe not appropriate (something along the lines of "Cleavage is always great!" including a misspelling of cleavage) and then another of "boo hoo" when I said that it is wrong to make sweeping generalizations that people who attend UNC are arrogant. Again, no name on any of them.

I've been hanging around DBR since after graduation (around '98, although I didn't start posting until years later because I was intimidated by the whole code thing... silly internet newbie!) and I think, by now, I do have a "feel" for how DBR runs and specifically what environment DBR tries to foster, even in these days when the place has SO many new faces. While I appreciate the potential for the comments system, I am a bit irritated that in some ways it seems to exist completely outside of the norms and guidelines of DBR, and in fact seems to foster the exact interwebz tone that is specifically discouraged here, with no apparent ability to moderate or regulate.

I would really love for the mods and admin here to give some thought to whether or not there is some way to modify the comment system so that it doesn't exist outside the norms of DBR and encourage that sort of tone.

The problem with negative comments are that they come in bunches and therefore tend to disintegrate points faster than positive comments grow them. Half the time I know I'm going to receive a slew of negative comments by simply going against a sizable portion of the board on an issue (such as defending Lebron James in the recent thread on him). But I figure, what's the point of a message board if I FEAR to post certain things because I'm scared of a few negative comments. right?

At times though, the negative comments are fitting. I wrote a post on Danny Green being cut a few weeks ago and was a little over the top in calling him a bust in the NBA and stating that if he only practiced harder and danced less or something to that means he wouldn't be out of a job. I got a negative comment that knocked me something like 40 pts or so. I think I probably deserved that, and asked the mods to remove my post because it was in poor taste. I wrote the post initially out of my dislike for Danny Green (one of my all-time least favorite tar heels) without really thinking it over. I fully realize it is absurd for me to wish him poorly in his future career, and therefore the mods were gracious enough to delete the post after I had asked them to do so. So in that case, the negative comment system worked... just wished it hadn't been worth -40 pts :).

Jderf
11-07-2010, 10:42 AM
I would really love for the mods and admin here to give some thought to whether or not there is some way to modify the comment system so that it doesn't exist outside the norms of DBR and encourage that sort of tone.

I think you are suggesting it would be good to have some kind of appeal system, am I right? If so, I'd agree. For the most part though, I didn't really think the rogue commenters were that big of a problem. Yes, occasionally there is a negative comment that just makes no sense. But the people who do that tend to only have enough pitchforks to do one or two points of damage, so it doesn't have a large net effect. Just ignore them. The other guys, who have enough "credit" to do serious damage, are typically more thoughtful in how they comment. If you ask me, some kind of appeal system might be nice, but not a necessity.

Lord Ash
11-07-2010, 10:59 AM
At times though, the negative comments are fitting. I wrote a post on Danny Green being cut a few weeks ago and was a little over the top in calling him a bust in the NBA and stating that if he only practiced harder and danced less or something to that means he wouldn't be out of a job. I got a negative comment that knocked me something like 40 pts or so. I think I probably deserved that, and asked the mods to remove my post because it was in poor taste. I wrote the post initially out of my dislike for Danny Green (one of my all-time least favorite tar heels) without really thinking it over. I fully realize it is absurd for me to wish him poorly in his future career, and therefore the mods were gracious enough to delete the post after I had asked them to do so. So in that case, the negative comment system worked... just wished it hadn't been worth -40 pts :).

At times they are, sure. But it certainly seems the majority of them (in my experience) are completely and totally against the tone of DBR, and indeed punish posters for exactly what DBR states are rules... for example, for saying someone shouldn't post unsubstantiated rumor as fact in a recruiting thread, and then getting negative points for it.

Another point: I was called a hypocrite because I don't like the unsigned negative comments, and yet have left some unsigned negative comments myself.

This brings up a problem; I am "worried" about leaving a signed negative comment for someone because I think that the majority of the folks I have left negative comments for (almost always for folks who are VERY new to DBR, and almost always for tone or something similar that violates either the rules at DBR or, more usually, the agreed-upon etiquette of DBR) would simply "bust" me back with a "revenge" negative comment. I don't want to give a negative comment and then just know that I will get a negative comment right back. The folks I would feel comfortable signing a negative comment for usually don't do anything to deserve them in the first place.

Another issue, I suppose, with the comment system.