PDA

View Full Version : Should DBR get rid of the Pitchforks?



94duke
09-06-2010, 10:15 PM
The pitchforks come up in bunches of the threads I have been reading.
The Austin Rivers thread is the latest.
I'd like to know what the community thinks.
Should DBR get rid of the Pitchforks?

_TheFakeJWill_
09-06-2010, 10:22 PM
yes cause i dont have any and it makes me insecure every time i get on the internet.

airowe
09-06-2010, 10:24 PM
Talked to some longtime posters at the Duke-Elon game who said they've made their last posts on DBR. Big reason was the pitchforks...

MisterRoddy
09-06-2010, 10:25 PM
I voted to keep them. I support DBR on this, and think it's a good way to measure poster legitimacy.

Although, I wouldn't mind if people weren't allowed to leave anonymous negative comments, if you are too much of a coward to sign your opinion then don't leave it at all.
JMO.

moonpie23
09-06-2010, 10:34 PM
like "New Coke".......just not a good idea...


http://ui32.gamespot.com/479/702headbanginstick_4.gif

chrisheery
09-06-2010, 10:47 PM
I didn't even know they were there until now. I think posters who have been here know who they trust and who they don't. If you need pitchforks to tell you who someone is, then who cares what you think?

micah75
09-06-2010, 10:52 PM
I'm kind of neutral on this. I'm a "Crazie", and I consider it a compliment, considering I didn't attend Duke. I haven't posted much the past couple of years, and my status will probably remain the same due to lack of postings, which is fine by me. Yet I look at someone like Roywhite, whom I respect a great deal, and he's got 1 pitchfork, whereas he was (I think) a 3rd team All-American before this new system. Okay, maybe he's not in the same league as Jumbo, OF, and Mr. Sumner. Still, he provides insightful comments and certainly adds a lot to the discussions, often initiating threads. I don't know him personally, and have never communicated with him, yet I feel that he sort of got the shaft, having to backslide from a very high status (which took 3 years to build) down to a beginner status. He's a Duke alum I'm pretty sure, even though he's not a journalist or a former Duke Men's basketball player. I would have liked to have seen him "spotted" a couple of pitchforks, being that others were "spotted." Just my humble opinion, and as the Sage says, (if he doesn't mind... flattery being a sincere form of compliment), my "h" is silent. Ya ha ha.

CameronBornAndBred
09-06-2010, 10:54 PM
yes cause i dont have any and it makes me insecure every time i get on the internet.
But you are infamous! That's almost more impressive than having multiple pitchforks.;)
I say trash 'em and let the (healthy) debates continue in the threads as they were done in the past. Hard(er for some) to fearlessly stand up for yourself if you can't do it anonymously.

CameronBornAndBred
09-06-2010, 10:58 PM
I voted to keep them. I support DBR on this, and think it's a good way to measure poster legitimacy.

Although, I wouldn't mind if people weren't allowed to leave anonymous negative comments, if you are too much of a coward to sign your opinion then don't leave it at all.
JMO.

And there is the crux of the problem. And the sole reason they should be done away with. I don't mind them used as affirmation..if a post does little for you to add a comment, no biggie, that poster most likely won't strike it rich in pitchfork land. If you disagree strongly though, then state it publicly. Others might actually agree with you, by the way.

El_Diablo
09-06-2010, 11:03 PM
The pitchforks come up in bunches of the threads I have been reading.
The Austin Rivers thread is the latest.
I'd like to know what the community thinks.
Should DBR get rid of the Pitchforks?

Okay, I understand that some people don't like a cappella. But do we really need to "get rid" of the Pitchforks? That seems a little harsh...and possibly illegal (depending on what you mean by "get rid of").

Greg_Newton
09-06-2010, 11:34 PM
I'm kind of neutral on this. I'm a "Crazie", and I consider it a compliment, considering I didn't attend Duke. I haven't posted much the past couple of years, and my status will probably remain the same due to lack of postings, which is fine by me. Yet I look at someone like Roywhite, whom I respect a great deal, and he's got 1 pitchfork, whereas he was (I think) a 3rd team All-American before this new system. Okay, maybe he's not in the same league as Jumbo, OF, and Mr. Sumner. Still, he provides insightful comments and certainly adds a lot to the discussions, often initiating threads. I don't know him personally, and have never communicated with him, yet I feel that he sort of got the shaft, having to backslide from a very high status (which took 3 years to build) down to a beginner status. He's a Duke alum I'm pretty sure, even though he's not a journalist or a former Duke Men's basketball player. I would have liked to have seen him "spotted" a couple of pitchforks, being that others were "spotted." Just my humble opinion, and as the Sage says, (if he doesn't mind... flattery being a sincere form of compliment), my "h" is silent. Ya ha ha.

I agree with you (I've even thought the same thing about roywhite specifically), which is why I originally lobbied for at least the return of post count - then pitchforks wouldn't be the only identifying mark on each post. I'm guessing the response to your concerns is that the same starting-over happened in 2007 and that the pitchforks will become more accurate over time, but I just don't see why it's necessary - post counts were carried over this time, unlike during the previous change, they're just not displayed on each post anymore.

As for the pitchforks specifically, I would choose a "keep, with changes" option if there was one. I'm generally open and deferential to the site owners when it comes to changes - it's their investment that they've put decades into - but I would prefer a clearer and simpler system. From what I gather on the current system, points gained from a positive comment can range from 10+ from very high-rep posters to zero from some new posters (?), which seems a little extreme and undemocratic. I also gather that points are not the only thing that go into the pitchforks - what other factors are there?

The more vague and subjective the system gets, the less legitimate and seriously posters will take it, IMO. If I were designing it, I would a) have comments be non-anonymous, b) award something like 5 points for each positive comment, plus an additional point for each pitchfork the awarding poster has, c) award a new pitchfork every 50 points, and d) display post count on each post, maybe even still with the fun old status under it.

Then, at least you know exactly what the pitchforks mean, and they're only part of the overall "snapshot" you get of each poster in every post box.

OZZIE4DUKE
09-06-2010, 11:49 PM
I hate them and hope they go quickly. This is my 4,714th post on the "new" DBR, which doesn't include the Juliovision or (James's) Sagarmatha software days, dating back to 1997 or so. I would guess that I've posted on the DBR way over 10,000 times since the dark ages. And I need some stinkin' little pitchfork to give me cred? I don't think so.

A-Tex Devil
09-07-2010, 12:00 AM
Who cares? I never noticed them until a bunch of people started asking about them. I am behind the curve in internet reputation and the importance thereof, but if you are worried about how many you have perhaps there is a reason you don't have any.

just a lemma
09-07-2010, 12:02 AM
And there is the crux of the problem. And the sole reason they should be done away with. I don't mind them used as affirmation..if a post does little for you to add a comment, no biggie, that poster most likely won't strike it rich in pitchfork land. If you disagree strongly though, then state it publicly. Others might actually agree with you, by the way.

As annoying as anonymous comments may be, they serve a valid purpose. People shouldn't have valid complaints rejected on the basis of who they are or what they have posted in the past. Public discourse serves a good purpose, too, and is preferable to anonymous comments in most cases, but debates in established communities such as this one have a way of sometimes turning on, or seeming like they are turning on, who's known who the longest. I do not consider people who wish to preserve their anonymity cowards if that is what they fear. If they feel that not attaching their names is the only way to have their voices heard, that could be considered an indictment of this community, not evidence of their cowardice.

That said, many yes, there is potential for abuse, and some people who leave negative comments anonymously are cowards. Let us not let that distract us from the fact that anonymous complaints have an important role to play in many communities.

Edit: Also, I am not sure anyone cares about how many pitchforks they have. DBR is not Foursquare.

A-Tex Devil
09-07-2010, 12:19 AM
Who cares? I never noticed them until a bunch of people started asking about them. I am behind the curve in internet reputation and the importance thereof, but if you are worried about how many you have perhaps there is a reason you don't have any.

I got an extra pitchfork after that post!! Whoopee!

JBDuke
09-07-2010, 12:20 AM
Folks, if your pitchfork count is important to you, then the solution is to bring quality content to your posts on a regular basis. There's a reason that Olympic Fan and jimsumner have more pitchforks than posters that have 2 or 3 times the number of posts on this system, and that's because their posts are consistently excellent and thus appreciated by the community.

There are many, many folks on these boards that put up a lot of posts that are essentially noise and don't contribute much of anything. Part of the point of the commenting/pitchforks feature vice just a post count is to accentuate quality over quantity.

This community is still just getting used to the new system, and these boards are far from their peak loading that we'll experience during the actual basketball season. Sure, there are some bumps in the road right now, but they should smooth out as we get more time under our belts and individual comments - positive or negative - don't carry as much weight.

Duvall
09-07-2010, 12:25 AM
Sure, there are some bumps in the road right now, but they should smooth out as we get more time under our belts and individual comments - positive or negative - don't carry as much weight.

I guess this means the pitchforks will continue until morale improves.

ElSid
09-07-2010, 12:28 AM
i wrote a rant suggesting that i don't like the pitchforks. but really it was a rant saying that i'm learning to be man enough to ignore the occasional misguided demerit (for lack of better term).

do agree that quantity does not equal quality, nor does it bestow instant credibility. it's kind of an interesting stat that would be more appropriate in one's bio / background section, rather than right up front. there is a bit of interest in knowing some of you are old enough to be my grandfather and have been duke fans since carter was farming peanuts.

but mostly i'm with chrisheery. you know who posts good stuff on here. i'm also not too lazy or busy to read posts and judge for myself what i think is worthwhile.

my m.o. most of the time has been to post a response publicly and also reward or penalize using the happy face sad face system.

-jk
09-07-2010, 12:29 AM
Let's keep this discussion in the "Introducing" (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?21834-Introducing...&p=430718#post430718) thread.

thanks,

-jk