# Suggestion: Compiling Information Using the Ratings System



## Stratomsk (Apr 12, 2015)

Threads can be long. Other threads can be incredibly long. Notable examples are Holden's thread, Vade's thread, the Sluthate.com thread, and the Social Justice Warrior threads. Others are getting there such as Nick Bate's thread and the Connor Bible thread.

The problem with such long threads is that information can get easily lost in a maze of shitposting, thoughts and comments, etc. As far as documenting information goes, there needs to be a more efficient way to organize it and at the same time easier to read for people who aren't kept 'in the loop' so to speak. People in general simply _don't have the time_ to be going through an incredibly long thread.

*My idea is this: *Make a function capable of distinguishing between posts that fulfill a certain rating requirement entered by the user any ratings that they choose to select for a particular thread. It would in essence hide any posts that don't fulfill a specific number of ratings and show only those that do. The way this would operate is that it would be a selected option that can be toggled on or off. *The posts would still be there of course, they just wouldn't be visible to that particular user.*

The only real issue I have with this is from a UI standpoint. Where should this be selected option be located? In the 'Advanced Search' section? How would it be designed? I'm not quite sure.

Discuss.

EDIT: I've been thinking about this idea and its clear my initial thoughts were wrong. Having a system that filters posts doesn't really work for a great number of reasons, the worst being obscuring posts and generally only showing reaction images and shitposts.

An idea @Philosophy Zombie came up with is pretty reasonable. A system similar to this one, except instead of obscuring posts it simply shows up in a search format that means there would be a list of abbreviated ratings; You would have to click on them to go to the location on the page the post is on and the other posts would still be visible. His idea would be far easier to code comparatively and I don't see any repercussions with it as well.

Discuss.


----------



## exball (Apr 12, 2015)

Doesn't work because shitposts get lots of positive ratings.


----------



## Stratomsk (Apr 12, 2015)

exball said:


> Doesn't work because shitposts get lots of positive ratings.


It wouldn't be a perfect system but it would at the very least be able to cut down on the number of posts for better readability. People don't just give loads of 'Informative' ratings to posts that don't deserve it for example. It would also help make the 'Advanced Search' section easier to use when looking for less specific clauses and phrases as well as words.


----------



## EI 903 (Apr 12, 2015)

I would love to see posts that get over 5 or 10 Informative ratings get highlighted to make skimming easier.


----------



## Clown Doll (Apr 12, 2015)

exball said:


> Doesn't work because shitposts get lots of positive ratings.


I think that the highlighting could be done manually by janitors or other staff, or possibly hand-picked members who frequent said threads(the same way thread highlighting is done).


----------



## CatParty (Apr 12, 2015)

Top positive rated posts bumped to the top. 
Also top rated posters get priority and their posts are bumped to the top always. 
Also we should be able to rate our own posts


----------



## KingofManga420 (Apr 12, 2015)

exball said:


> Doesn't work because shitposts get lots of positive ratings.


@CatParty


----------



## Stratomsk (Apr 12, 2015)

CatParty said:


> Top positive rated posts bumped to the top.
> Also top rated posters get priority and their posts are bumped to the top always.
> Also we should be able to rate our own posts



Being able to organize posts from most to least number of a certain rating is a good idea as well. This would be a helpful option in addition to simply showing the posts in order.


----------



## Dr. Meme (Apr 12, 2015)

Only if we also get the option to filter out everything but the shitposts


----------



## Glaive (Apr 12, 2015)

Sounds like Reddit, disgusting.

You'd be scrolling through one-liners and reaction images forever if threads were organized by rating.
Furthermore doing that would put an even HEAVIER emphasis on people trying to rate-whore by making shitposts like that *knowing* it gives their post higher visibility and therefore even more rates.



Stratomsk said:


> It would in essence hide any posts that don't fulfill a specific number of ratings and show only those that do.



And you want to include an ability to censor low rating posts?  I smell more Reddit.

I guess the big difference is being able to toggle it.  If it's only a toggled option as opposed to a full replacement it wouldn't interfere much.
Sort of like...


Hellblazer said:


> I would love to see posts that get over 5 or 10 Informative ratings get highlighted to make skimming easier.



Also a nice idea because it's only applied to 'informative' rates and doesn't impact the post order.


----------



## Sanic (Apr 12, 2015)

I honestly think all ratings should be neutral. No positive or negative scale. It can help scale a person if you don't know them, but it can lead to misunderstandings, I find.


----------



## Dr. Meme (Apr 12, 2015)

Sanic said:


> I honestly think all ratings should be neutral. No positive or negative scale. It can help scale a person if you don't know them, but it can lead to misunderstandings, I find.


@CatParty


----------



## Stratomsk (Apr 12, 2015)

Glaive said:


> I guess the big difference is being able to toggle it. If it's only a toggled option as opposed to a full replacement it wouldn't interfere much.
> Sort of like...


Yeah. It would be a toggled option and _*wouldn't censor posts.*_ Thats the last thing I want this to do. The point here is to make it possible to skim threads far more efficiently and not waste time. The best use I can imagine for this is a situation where user A has to get through an incredibly long thread and is able to filter out any post that doesn't have a certain number of "Informative" ratings in order to get caught up in the thread.

Other situations useful to this effect would be the purpose of making it easier to archive information when perusing a thread.

What are your personal thoughts on this @Null?


----------



## Philosophy Zombie (Apr 13, 2015)

With the new "achievement" rating, highlighting posts that have earned one could be a very good idea.


----------



## Stratomsk (Apr 13, 2015)

Philosophy Zombie said:


> With the new "achievement" rating, highlighting posts that have earned one could be a very good idea.


@Clown Doll recommended a similar thing, where the administrators or staff would hand pick posts that are very informative.

The problem is that @KatsuKitty and @Glaive are only two people. I don't believe leaving this up to them would solve the problem and more to the point create a situation where a lot of useful information to the casual user gets buried by page after page of shitposts and normal discussion.

@exball made a good point that shitposts tend to be given positive ratings quite a lot. What I would ask is this: Is that necessarily a bad thing? Under this system you would be able to select or toggle any number of ratings you are looking for in a thread and the amount of ratings themselves. Maybe you are looking for some Feels posts for whatever reason. Maybe you want to see some Winner posts to see some witty comments as well as funny shitposts. Maybe you want to find some Informative posts to get caught up in a long thread.

The only real argument against this is that posts can be filtered to the casual user by ratings which on the surface appears to be censorship of posts with lesser ratings. The problem with this notion is that it assumes that people would keep continuously using this feature instead of reading the thread normally. That is simply not true. A lot of the discussion and banter in a thread brings much needed context to understand it. For example, a reaction image or shitpost doesn't really tell you what the current conversation is about and would likely confuse somebody going through the thread for the first time. No, what somebody new to a thread would do is look for the informative posts to get up to date on the latest happenings of their favorite lolcow. That information doesn't really require context beyond the knowledge a very well detailed opening post can help with.

I don't see why once that person is finally caught up in a thread they would keep using this system. If everyone abused it they would actually be _unable_ to see the latest posts and it would lead to a situation where the most recent posts are being ignored by users waiting for more of whatever types of posts they're looking for. Due to that lack of content, they would be encouraged to toggle the system off so that they would be able to see the latest posts and rate them normally.

Feel free to disagree with my points, but at least explain why. Constructive criticism is appreciated.


----------



## John Furrman (Apr 13, 2015)

A collapsible index at the top of the page with a list of links to all posts flagged as "good posts" in a thread would be a good solution and wouldn't force anything on anyone. Minimal effort and it works.


----------



## Stratomsk (Apr 13, 2015)

John Freeman said:


> A collapsible index at the top of the page with a list of links to all posts flagged as "good posts" in a thread would be a good solution and wouldn't force anything on anyone. Minimal effort and it works.


How exactly would this work? Who would flag the posts? I can see the appeal of having the community do it but I'm not sure how this would work in practice.


----------



## CatParty (Apr 13, 2015)

Just leave it all be. The system is fine. Yall are just jelly of my 55k positives


----------



## EI 903 (Apr 13, 2015)

Stratomsk said:


> The problem is that @KatsuKitty and @Glaive are only two people.



That could be easily fixed by giving all staff and supervisors the ability to highlight posts.


----------



## Stratomsk (Apr 13, 2015)

Hellblazer said:


> That could be easily fixed by giving all staff and supervisors the ability to highlight posts.


This pretty much depends on the assumption that the staff and supervisors will be able to keep up with all the threads and not accidentally let information slip through the cracks. Not saying it would be impossible, it just would be a constant process that requires doing on a regular basis.


CatParty said:


> Just leave it all be. The system is fine. Yall are just jelly of my 55k positives


It really isn't fine. Its workable at best. This only really applies to the long threads but I personally don't have the time to go through it in order to find sparse updates on somebody and I think it would be fair to say I'm not the only one with has had this issue.


----------



## Philosophy Zombie (Apr 13, 2015)

Stratomsk said:


> snip




Not bad except that in many threads posts get ratings based more on order than content. Like a shitpost in disco on the first page will always get a lot more ratings than posts on the later pages.

Edit sorry for random hotlink I'm awful at mobile


----------



## Stratomsk (Apr 13, 2015)

I can now see potential problems with being able to organize the _order of a thread _by the ratings. This would put emphasis on the shitposts to rise to the top and hide the posts are aren't rated as highly. If the post are always shown in order as they were posted this wouldn't be an issue. Just to point this out, only in very rare circumstances do I ever see shitposts rated "Informative". Due to the fact that they tend to be rated "Winner" and "Agree" I don't believe the system should be totally dismissed when it helps fulfill a very useful purpose when it comes to informing casual users.

Now, what would be in your opinion the implications of this system if you are allowed to filter out posts by any ratings and number of them?


----------



## CatParty (Apr 13, 2015)

Stratomsk said:


> I can now see potential problems with being able to organize the _order of a thread _by the ratings. This would put emphasis on the shitposts to rise to the top and hide the posts are aren't rated as highly. If the post are always shown in order as they were posted this wouldn't be an issue. Just to point this out, only in very rare circumstances do I ever see shitposts rated "Informative". Due to the fact that they tend to be rated "Winner" and "Agree" I don't believe the system should be totally dismissed when it helps fulfill a very useful purpose when it comes to informing casual users.
> 
> Now, what would be in your opinion the implications of this system if you are allowed to filter out posts by any ratings and number of them?




users with the most positive ratings overall should be the first posts in the thread


----------



## OBAMATRON (Apr 13, 2015)

The effort to code this probably isn't worth the reward.


----------



## AP 297 (Apr 13, 2015)

Actually, I am thinking of something quite a bit different. A Lolcow thread branching system. 

It seems in Lolcow threads, there are a couple of ways of dividing these threads that could be very helpful. I myself am not a fan of the Reddit system. It removes discussion that is unique or new in favor of conformity or cliche edginess at times.

Some Lolcow threads that are longer could benefit from a branch system that divides thread content in to 3 distinct formats.

1. Updates and raw information(this could be as @Hellblazer suggested highlighted by staff) - It only contains updates and info with very little commentary.
2. Interactions with the persons of interest themselves. - This is where the POI can make their case when they seem to come about why they do not deserve their thread and what not.
3. Discussion and commentary. - Where members can talk about the info and interact to build a more interesting exchange if ideas and thoughts without having the discussion derailed by the lolcow under some circumstances.

This method of branch division would allow some threads to stay smaller and informative even while an lolcow is present. Allowing the Lolcow to determine the form and substance of their own conversation seems to enable them more than those who might want to enjoy the content or learn something about them. 

While not as active at the moment, the Mocking Marjan group allowed some of this to transpire. We got to learn a few things and had some fun at Marjan's expense as he wondered what we were saying about him. That is just my suggestion. I have wanted to float this idea for some time.


----------



## Stratomsk (Apr 13, 2015)

AWB-81 said:


> Actually, I am thinking of something quite a bit different. A Lolcow thread branching system.
> 
> It seems in Lolcow threads, there are a couple of ways of dividing these threads that could be very helpful. I myself am not a fan of the Reddit system. It removes discussion that is unique or new in favor of conformity or cliche edginess at times.
> 
> ...



I really like the general idea here but the issue comes into focus when you look at how precisely these posts should be highlighted. *Perhaps staff and supervisors such as @Hellblazer are exclusively given the tools to organize a thread by its ratings and that will make it far easier for them to hand-pick the best ones.*

A thread that has gotten too long (300 pages or more seems fair) would be designated a 'long thread'. After the fact they would give the thread the proper indexes/categories you mentioned to keep a record of information, discussion and banter, as well as discussion with lolcows themselves to separate tabs.


----------



## AP 297 (Apr 13, 2015)

Stratomsk said:


> I really like the general idea here but the issue comes into focus when you look at how precisely these posts should be highlighted. *Perhaps staff and supervisors such as @Hellblazer are exclusively given the tools to organize a thread by its ratings and that will make it far easier for them to hand-pick the best ones.*
> 
> A thread that has gotten too long (300 pages or more seems fair) would be designated a 'long thread'. After the fact they would give the thread the proper indexes/categories you mentioned to keep a record of information, discussion and banter, as well as discussion with lolcows themselves to separate tabs.



We have a featured thread system already in place. Perhaps some of the people given the ability feature threads can highlight the areas that are informative and separate them. Allowing the cow their own play pen to frollic will make a lot of the discussion easier to filter and allow people to be better informed when they come into the discussion. 

People will always shitpost and some shitposting is even useful at times, because it can provoke reactions and responses. A branching system allows everyones natural abilities to shine. Some people are good at gathering info. Some are trolls and are great at angering a cow to produce funny content, and others are great at debate and having a fun and interesting conversation. A branching system allows everyone to use their gifts and provide more robust content. 

That is my thought. I want to hear staff's too. I think we have a number of cows whose threads have grown a bit too large to examine at times and a branch filter system in my view is an effective way to breathe new life into those subjects/people. I worry it may be too much code myself though. I do not know Xenforo systems that well. 

I have been wanting to make this suggestion for a while.


----------



## Stratomsk (Apr 13, 2015)

AWB-81 said:


> We have a featured thread system already in place. Perhaps some of the people given the ability feature threads can highlight the areas that are informative and separate them. Allowing the cow their own play pen to frollic will make a lot of the discussion easier to filter and allow people to be better informed when they come into the discussion.
> 
> People will always shitpost and some shitposting is even useful at times, because it can provoke reactions and responses. A branching system allows everyones natural abilities to shine. Some people are good at gathering info. Some are trolls and are great at angering a cow to produce funny content, and others are great at debate and having a fun and interesting conversation. A branching system allows everyone to use their gifts and provide more robust content.
> 
> ...



Its perfect.

People don't have to worry about their posts being obscured by filtering and important information can still rise to the top by way off staff and supervisors that will assume this system whenever a thread gets too large for its own good. Implementing a way for staff and supervisors to organize posts by rating will make it far easier for them to do that than the alternative of taking a really long time that would be normally required to peruse a thread.


----------



## Philosophy Zombie (Apr 13, 2015)

I forgot to answer the first part of the post I quoted, @Stratomsk. I still think organizing by achievement rating is a good idea. All admins have access to it, and honestly that's enough because exceptionally good contributions are pretty sparse as it is. It seems to me like that's practically what the rating was meant for.

The branching system also sounds effective. Maybe in the advanced search section there could be an option to search by rating and number of ratings (ex. Informative, 10).


----------



## Holdek (Apr 13, 2015)

It's a good idea IMO, but like a lot of ideas proposed it might be good to ask staff if it's even technically feasible before discussing if we should do it or not.


----------



## Stratomsk (Apr 13, 2015)

Philosophy Zombie said:


> Maybe in the advanced search section there could be an option to search by rating and number of ratings (ex. Informative, 10).


The issue I've noticed since I started this thread is that there is a fear this would be like Reddit's system where the greatest liked posts (usually reaction images or shitposts) get pushed to the top which would obscure everything else. People don't want the implication of their posts being possibly hidden due to it not having enough of a certain rating _even if the feature is optional_. Leaving this up to *staff and supervisors* to handle these really long threads would be the best way to qualm this fear and would help document important information, keeping all sides satisfied.


Holdek said:


> It's a good idea IMO, but like a lot of ideas proposed it might be good to ask staff if it's even technically feasible before discussing if we should do it or not.


I'll see if its possible or not.


----------



## Philosophy Zombie (Apr 13, 2015)

I meant it would use the search format. That meant there would be a list of abbreviated posts. You would have to click on them to go to the page the post is on to rate it, where the other posts would still be visible.


----------



## Stratomsk (Apr 13, 2015)

Philosophy Zombie said:


> I meant it would use the search format. That meant there would be a list of abbreviated posts. You would have to click on them to go to the page the post is on to rate it, where the other posts would still be visible.


This seems like a far better option because it would not hide any posts but instead highlight the best ones at a users preference. What are your thoughts on this @AWB-81?


----------



## AP 297 (Apr 13, 2015)

Stratomsk said:


> This seems like a far better option because it would not hide any posts but instead highlight the best ones at a users preference. What are your thoughts on this @AWB-81?



I have no idea what kind of coding that any of this would require. So I am not the one to answer that. 

I was hoping for a chime in like before from @Glaive on the ideas. To be quite honest - unless it is feasible, we are really just dangling in the wind.


----------



## Stratomsk (Apr 13, 2015)

AWB-81 said:


> I have no idea what kind of coding that any of this would require. So I am not the one to answer that.
> 
> I was hoping for a chime in like before from @Glaive on the ideas. To be quite honest - unless it is feasible, we are really just dangling in the wind.



For one thing, its clear @Glaive doesn't even believe that the _effort_ to code this is worth the reward. I strongly disagree with that sentiment. The current procedures for handling a long thread is this:

1)Lock thread if it gets to be extremely long. Holden's original thread reaching 1000 pages before getting promptly locked is a good example.
2)Make a new thread.
3)Repeat for any other similar case.

I shouldn't need to say how inefficient this practice becomes. There _is value_ in providing a system that makes it easier to archive the information in a long thread with hundreds of pages or more. At that point you are basically hoping that _somebody _did the work themselves. Why would you take the plunge into reading such a large thread? Short answer is that you simply wouldn't and would skip most of the pages to the end. The time required would simply be too much for most users to read everything, which as a direct result leads to a larger gap in knowledge between those new to a older thread and those who had been following it since its beginning. As time goes on there will be more and more of these threads that are hundreds of pages long which will extrapolate on these problems, making them far more pervasive. 

Hoping that somebody did the work to archive all the information in a thread themselves is _*wishful thinking*_ and doesn't help us in the slightest. That is precisely why we should nip this problem in the bud by giving users the tools that make it possible to skim longer threads without obscuring posts.


----------



## DuskEngine (Apr 21, 2015)

Stratomsk said:


> Yeah. It would be a toggled option and _*wouldn't censor posts.*_



It wouldn't need to. Anyone who turns on the auto-hide feature is basically seeing a truncated version of the forums, and that means that they're going to be cut off from parts of the forums, which encourages people to withdraw into their own little boxes.

Posts by cows themselves often get >30 dumb ratings. If they're aut0-hidden, then this feature defeats itself as a way to skim threads.



Hellblazer said:


> That could be easily fixed by giving all staff and supervisors the ability to highlight posts.



This actually seems like a really good idea. As well as informative posts being auto-bolded.


----------



## Stratomsk (Apr 21, 2015)

DawnMachine said:


> It wouldn't need to. Anyone who turns on the auto-hide feature is basically seeing a truncated version of the forums, and that means that they're going to be cut off from parts of the forums, which encourages people to withdraw into their own little boxes.
> 
> Posts by cows themselves often get >30 dumb ratings. If they're aut0-hidden, then this feature defeats itself as a way to skim threads.



I agree. My initial thoughts on this were off the mark and don't really work in the grand scheme of things. 

While I think @AWB-81 's idea is ultimately the best, its also a system that would be very difficult to code. @Philosophy Zombie 's idea of having a search format that means there would be a list of abbreviated ratings. You would have to click on them to go to the page the post is on to rate it and the other posts would still be visible. His idea would be far easier to code comparatively and I don't see any repercussions with it as well.


----------

