Identify the rec's

When a post receives a rec, there should be a way of identifying who recc'd it.

I'm thinking maybe a text box or something that pops up when you put your mouse over the " X reccomendations" at the top of the post. Or even just a list of the recc'ers at the top of the post.

This would allow a way of deciding whether the rec is really worth reading based on the people who have recc'd it.

Originally posted by uzless
When a post receives a rec, there should be a way of identifying who recc'd it.

I'm thinking maybe a text box or something that pops up when you put your mouse over the " X reccomendations" at the top of the post. Or even just a list of the recc'ers at the top of the post.

This would allow a way of deciding whether the rec is really worth reading based on the people who have recc'd it.

Don't you think the person who WROTE the post is a better barometer of whether or not a rec'd post is worth reading?

P-

Originally posted by Phlabibit
Don't you think the person who WROTE the post is a better barometer of whether or not a rec'd post is worth reading?

P-

I don't want to be identified as a recommender. Why? Of the same reason I don't want anyone to know my vote in an national election. It's a secret. So it should be about the recomendations too.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I don't want to be identified as a recommender. Why? Of the same reason I don't want anyone to know my vote in an national election. It's a secret. So it should be about the recomendations too.

That's my feelings too, but to avoid the inevitable FIGHT you're about to get into (Why? Are you embarrassed about the things you rec?!) I went with a more subtle and straight forward line of reasoning.

P-

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I don't want to be identified as a recommender. Why? Of the same reason I don't want anyone to know my vote in an national election. It's a secret. So it should be about the recomendations too.

I must agree with you. What would result is the clique mentality, coming after you, about how dumb your rec was. I guess it would be ok, for the clique membership, they would have lots of bullying to attend to then !

Don't get me wrong, they do not bother me in the least !

Originally posted by Very Rusty
I must agree with you. What would result is the clique mentality, coming after you, about how dumb your rec was. I guess it would be ok, for the clique membership, they would have lots of bullying to attend to then !

Don't get me wrong, they do not bother me in the least !

Bother, no... not in any way, shape or form. You hardly ever talk about it, it's probaby the furthest thing from your mind at all times.

P-

Originally posted by Phlabibit
Bother, no... not in any way, shape or form. You hardly ever talk about it, it's probaby the furthest thing from your mind at all times.

P-

A very wise man once told me, you either part of the problem, or you are part of the solution. Only you know where you stand on that.

Something I always keep in mind.

It was a pure brainwave whoever thought of Clubs, that will probably save a lot of people from leaving, the "Best Chess Site on the Internet" !

Originally posted by uzless
When a post receives a rec, there should be a way of identifying who recc'd it.

I'm thinking maybe a text box or something that pops up when you put your mouse over the " X reccomendations" at the top of the post. Or even just a list of the recc'ers at the top of the post.

This would allow a way of deciding whether the rec is really worth reading based on the people who have recc'd it.

Good idea.

If you enjoyed this post and believe it added value to the Red Hot Pawn forums, then you can bring it to the attention of others by recommending it.

That way we could see what idiots recced some of the following

fixed😵

before or after?

Rec'd 😛

stones

What is Google Search?

I am lonely too, sometimes...

http://www.reuters.com/

Originally posted by adramforall
Good idea.

If you enjoyed this post and believe it added value to the Red Hot Pawn forums, then you can bring it to the attention of others by recommending it.

That way we could see what idiots recced some of the following

fixed😵

before or after?

Rec'd 😛

stones

What is Google Search?

I am lonely too, sometimes...

http://www.reuters.com/

Then once you know, what do you do then?

How do you go about fixing it ?

To those who believe that a rec should be non-anonymous:
Sometimes I want to bring my name with it, I make a posting that says "recced", and perhaps a motivation too.

But sometimes I want to be anonymous. Why? Because the atmosphere is hostile toward some person who made a posting. I don't want the fire be turned towards me but I want the attacked person to know that there are peple who think like him.

So we have both recommendations: The anonymous ones, and the open ones. And this I find very good.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I don't want to be identified as a recommender. Why? Of the same reason I don't want anyone to know my vote in an national election. It's a secret. So it should be about the recomendations too.

I went through a phase where every slight against me, no matter how mundane, was recc'd. I'dve liked to've known who was doing it 😛

Originally posted by huckleberryhound
I went through a phase where every slight against me, no matter how mundane, was recc'd. I'dve liked to've known who was doing it 😛

I see that the last posting of yours has been recommended. If you are interested in who recced your posting I suggest you ask in the next posting who did. The person in question can therefore mail his name to you and you'll know.

Sometimes I show my respect for a persons ideas, however controversial, with a mail. He knows then that he is not alone in his fire of not-so-nice debattants.

Originally posted by Very Rusty
A very wise man once told me, you either part of the problem, or you are part of the solution. Only you know where you stand on that.

Something I always keep in mind.

It was a pure brainwave whoever thought of Clubs, that will probably save a lot of people from leaving, the "Best Chess Site on the Internet" !

I wish that wise man told you, 'Perhaps there is no problem at all and you're just being paranoid."

P-

Originally posted by Phlabibit
I wish that wise man told you, 'Perhaps there is no problem at all and you're just being paranoid."

P-

No matter how paranoid you are, you're not paranoid enough.

Susanne Modeski

Originally posted by Phlabibit
I wish that wise man told you, 'Perhaps there is no problem at all and you're just being paranoid."

P-

Obvious to me anyone who is not quite in agreement with you or others in your circle seem to be paranoid, morons, idiots, or in violation of one of the TOS rules.

When a Moderator or Moderators can try and belittle people, tell people they don't like them etc., how can they be non-bias in their moderation... Paranoid alright...All one has to do is look in the General forum.

Why do you think less and less people are involving themselves in the Public forums, or do you really much care? No, I don't think you are a bad guy. I think sometimes your friendships get in the way of your Moderation. It is not an easy job, but when bias is shown it is not fun for the other paying subscribers either.

That is about all I have to say on the subject, there is no need with the back and forth thing. If you want to discuss this further with me, p.m. me and I would be more than happy to discuss it with you.

You will be happy to know, I will not be posting very much any more in the Public forums.