Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Help Forum

Help Forum

  1. Subscriber Marinkatomb
    wotagr8game
    15 Jul '04 00:55
    Any chance of an 'anti' rec? I would quite like to be able to register my distaste at a post without having to get caught up in a fight when i do. This way all the usual suspects can come with a warning of sorts 😉

    Nice
    James 😛
  2. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    15 Jul '04 02:18
    Originally posted by marinakatomb
    Any chance of an 'anti' rec? I would quite like to be able to register my distaste at a post without having to get caught up in a fight when i do. This way all the usual suspects can come with a warning of sorts 😉

    Nice
    James 😛
    Then I'd just have to go through and give Ivanhoe an anti rec for every post he's ever made. It just wouldn't be worth the effort. 😴
  3. Subscriber Marinkatomb
    wotagr8game
    15 Jul '04 02:42
    Yeh but think of the fun. All the 'lefties' would have have recs coming out of their ears (like they do already) and all the fascists would have anti-recs coming out of their noses and the whole thing could end up being quite hilarious 😵
  4. 15 Jul '04 09:46
    Recommendations are there because people think it is worthy of reading. If you don't think it is worthy, don't assume it is not worthy for other people. People would abuse anti-rec.

    A recommendation is like a gift, and an anti-rec is like stealing.
  5. Standard member genius
    Wayward Soul
    15 Jul '04 11:14
    Originally posted by DreamlaX
    Recommendations are there because people think it is worthy of reading. If you don't think it is worthy, don't assume it is not worthy for other people. People would abuse anti-rec.

    A recommendation is like a gift, and an anti-rec is like stealing.
    they had this one the GK forums when they were alive (that was about 2 years ago...😕)

    and they sucked...i think i endedup on -17...i mean-it sounds a good idea at the outset, but it'll just be abused.

    you had all the christains in the -'s, and all the anti-christians were sitting there in hte 50's...

    it just turns into a "which side is larger" forum, not who posts the best posts type thing...
  6. 15 Jul '04 17:55
    Originally posted by genius
    they had this one the GK forums when they were alive (that was about 2 years ago...😕)

    and they sucked...i think i endedup on -17...i mean-it sounds a good idea at the outset, but it'll just be abused.

    you had all the christains in the -'s, and all the anti-christians were sitting there in hte 50's...

    it just turns into a "which side is larger" forum, not who posts the best posts type thing...
    Sounds like fun! 😉



    -Kev
  7. Standard member royalchicken
    CHAOS GHOST!!!
    16 Jul '04 05:00
    Originally posted by genius
    they had this one the GK forums when they were alive (that was about 2 years ago...😕)

    and they sucked...i think i endedup on -17...i mean-it sounds a good idea at the outset, but it'll just be abused.

    you had all the christains in the -'s, and all the anti-christians were sitting there in hte 50's...

    it just turns into a "which side is larger" forum, not who posts the best posts type thing...
    Genius, that doesn't necessarily make it bad; it's the natural order of things. A chemical equilibrium is a good analogy there.

    😉
  8. Standard member mrmist
    Moo
    16 Jul '04 05:28
    Originally posted by royalchicken
    Genius, that doesn't necessarily make it bad; it's the natural order of things. A chemical equilibrium is a good analogy there.

    😉
    In theory, I agree.

    In practice, people would make the system unworkable.
  9. Standard member royalchicken
    CHAOS GHOST!!!
    16 Jul '04 05:48
    Originally posted by mrmist
    In theory, I agree.

    In practice, people would make the system unworkable.
    Oh, I'm just joking aorund, but I suspect the rec system is ocmpletely misused too. Note that the situation would be exactly the same if we had only anti-recs.
  10. Standard member genius
    Wayward Soul
    16 Jul '04 10:03
    Originally posted by royalchicken
    Oh, I'm just joking aorund, but I suspect the rec system is ocmpletely misused too. Note that the situation would be exactly the same if we had only anti-recs.
    i'm not sure-look in the debates. all the big posters have roughly the same amount of recs (~120). i mean-i only rec posts that can be taken in context on their own (eg have a quote), and are either very funny or kinda meaningful...😛

    and -17 wasn't the lowest!
  11. Standard member mrmist
    Moo
    16 Jul '04 16:45
    Originally posted by royalchicken
    Oh, I'm just joking aorund, but I suspect the rec system is ocmpletely misused too. Note that the situation would be exactly the same if we had only anti-recs.
    I suspect so too. The problem (in my mind at least) with the rec system is that, all too often, one person's recommended post is anothers most-hated-post-ever.

    More often than not I expect that the rec'd posts are simply ones which are most akin to the recommender's viewpoint, rather than being representative of anything particularly special. (I admit I have rec'd posts that I simply agree with lots.)

    More representative, I suppose, would be an overall score -ative to +ative with some kind of moderation a la slashdot. But that's still open to abuse or whatnot.
  12. Standard member Coletti
    W.P. Extraordinaire
    16 Jul '04 22:36
    Originally posted by marinakatomb
    Any chance of an 'anti' rec? I would quite like to be able to register my distaste at a post without having to get caught up in a fight when i do. This way all the usual suspects can come with a warning of sorts 😉

    Nice
    James 😛
    Not a bad idea with one condition, that the anti-recs do not cancel out the recs. I would get a kick out of building up anti-rec points! 🙂 And I bet others would too, especially the debaters.
  13. Standard member royalchicken
    CHAOS GHOST!!!
    16 Jul '04 23:59
    Originally posted by mrmist
    I suspect so too. The problem (in my mind at least) with the rec system is that, all too often, one person's recommended post is anothers most-hated-post-ever.

    More often than not I expect that the rec'd posts are simply ones which are most akin to the recommender's viewpoint, rather than being representative of anything particularly special. (I admit ...[text shortened]... o +ative with some kind of moderation a la slashdot. But that's still open to abuse or whatnot.
    I meant misused in the sense that posts should be rec-ed to be put on the rec-ed list, ie if they are seen as worthwhile reading for everyone else. Thhus posts that are very good but likely of little interest to most don't necessarily need a lot of recs.
  14. Standard member royalchicken
    CHAOS GHOST!!!
    17 Jul '04 00:01
    Originally posted by genius
    i'm not sure-look in the debates. all the big posters have roughly the same amount of recs (~120). i mean-i only rec posts that can be taken in context on their own (eg have a quote), and are either very funny or kinda meaningful...😛

    and -17 wasn't the lowest!
    No; it would be the same in that the best posters would be those with the most recs, although I think there would be fewer anti-recs than there are recs now, as mediocre posts tend to get passed over and people are reluctant to provide negative feedback in general.

    I say keep the system as-is.
  15. Standard member Mayharm
    the Mad
    19 Jul '04 10:46
    Problems:

    1) "go through and give ******* an anti rec for every post he's ever made"

    If someone is that contentious as to inspire someone to give anti-recs for all his posts then perhaps it's a good thing, it gives fair warning to anyone meeting him for the first time on the forums that he is a contentious poster.


    2) "Recommendations are there because people think it is worthy of reading. If you don't think it is worthy, don't assume it is not worthy for other people. People would abuse anti-rec.

    A recommendation is like a gift, and an anti-rec is like stealing."

    The only things unworthy of reading would be the posts that require removal by the admins.

    The purpose of anti-recs as I see it would be to provide balance and perspective to someone's rec total, not to rate posts for "read-worthiness". i.e. the anti-recs dont need to be listed next to the post, in fact I'd argue strongly against that as well as having a list of anti-recced posts.

    You also wouldn't want the anti-recs to negate the recs, obviously that would be unfair.


    Having said that we shouldn't list the anti-rec posts, it still might be fun to have the MOST anti-recced post of the week award 🙂

    MÅ¥HÅRM