1. Standard memberwittywonka
    Chocolate Expert
    Cocoa Mountains
    Joined
    26 Nov '06
    Moves
    19249
    29 Sep '11 03:151 edit
    Why exactly were limits abolished, again? Surely a limit of 30-50/month would be sufficient and would still prevent certain users from giving thumbs-down to every single post they disagreed with (see the Debates Forum)?
  2. Standard memberRevRSleeker
    CerebrallyChallenged
    Lyme BayChesil Beach
    Joined
    09 Dec '06
    Moves
    17848
    29 Sep '11 06:30
    'Rec' was fine, if you agree or disagree then you can comment, we should be encouraging POSTERS to comment on a forum, not those that we can do without, the 'idle' thumbs up or thumbs down merchants...get rid of them..
  3. THORNINYOURSIDE
    Joined
    04 Sep '04
    Moves
    245624
    30 Sep '11 01:09
    Originally posted by wittywonka
    Why exactly were limits abolished, again? Surely a limit of 30-50/month would be sufficient and would still prevent certain users from giving thumbs-down to [b]every single post they disagreed with (see the Debates Forum)?[/b]
    Who really cares? If a post has 5 thumbs up does it make it a good post or just a post where the writers bum chums give him/her a thumbs up?

    Same goes for a post with 5 thumbs down.

    The only thing that matters is the content of the post not whether is has been thumbed or not.
  4. Standard memberwittywonka
    Chocolate Expert
    Cocoa Mountains
    Joined
    26 Nov '06
    Moves
    19249
    06 Oct '11 21:59
    Originally posted by adramforall
    Who really cares? If a post has 5 thumbs up does it make it a good post or just a post where the writers bum chums give him/her a thumbs up?

    Same goes for a post with 5 thumbs down.

    The only thing that matters is the content of the post not whether is has been thumbed or not.
    1) It's still annoying, whether or not it is relevant.

    2) It takes away from the purpose of a forum. If you like a person's post, then you should engage the discussion and explain why. If you don't like a person's post, then you should engage the discussion and explain why not.
  5. Joined
    18 Jan '07
    Moves
    6873
    07 Oct '11 12:52
    Originally posted by wittywonka
    2) It takes away from the purpose of a forum. If you like a person's post, then you should engage the discussion and explain why. If you don't like a person's post, then you should engage the discussion and explain why not.
    That is an argument - and not an incogent one - against forum ratings per se, not an argument for limiting their number.

    Richard
  6. Subscribershortcircuit
    The Energizer
    where you want to be
    Joined
    28 Jan '07
    Moves
    66520
    07 Oct '11 16:25
    Originally posted by wittywonka
    1) It's still annoying, whether or not it is relevant.

    2) It takes away from the purpose of a forum. If you like a person's post, then you should engage the discussion and explain why. If you don't like a person's post, then you should engage the discussion and explain why not.
    Everyone's purpose for participating in the various fora may not be the same as yours.

    Are you suggesting that your rationale is more important than theirs?

    There are options of not going to the fora if it annoys you too badly.
  7. Standard memberwittywonka
    Chocolate Expert
    Cocoa Mountains
    Joined
    26 Nov '06
    Moves
    19249
    12 Oct '11 06:49
    Originally posted by Shallow Blue
    That is an argument - and not an incogent one - against forum ratings per se, not an argument for limiting their number.

    Richard
    I'll grant that every now and then a person may not have a substantive contribution--or may even have a simpler reason, such as not having enough time--to reply to the post directly. But I think that implicit trust that was assumed would accompany the elimination of ratings limits has been abused.
  8. Standard memberwittywonka
    Chocolate Expert
    Cocoa Mountains
    Joined
    26 Nov '06
    Moves
    19249
    12 Oct '11 06:50
    Originally posted by shortcircuit
    Everyone's purpose for participating in the various fora may not be the same as yours.
    Such as?
  9. Standard memberPhlabibit
    Mystic Meg
    tinyurl.com/3sbbwd4
    Joined
    27 Mar '03
    Moves
    17242
    13 Oct '11 19:301 edit
    Originally posted by wittywonka
    Such as?
    Ignore him, everyone's purpose for posting in these forums is exactly the same as yours.

    (sips water)
  10. Standard memberwittywonka
    Chocolate Expert
    Cocoa Mountains
    Joined
    26 Nov '06
    Moves
    19249
    14 Oct '11 21:401 edit
    Originally posted by Phlabibit
    Ignore him, everyone's purpose for posting in these forums is exactly the same as yours.

    (sips water)
    By all means, shatter my ignorance. Please.

    If you are "posting in these forums," what possible purpose could you have other than to initiate or contribute to a discussion?
  11. Joined
    18 Jan '07
    Moves
    6873
    16 Oct '11 12:26
    Originally posted by wittywonka
    By all means, shatter my ignorance. Please.

    If you are "posting in these forums," what possible purpose could you have other than to initiate or contribute to a discussion?
    Depends on the forum and the thread. In some cases, I just enjoy myself having a chat. In this forum specifically, I'm here to consider, and then agree, disagree, or be neutral on, Site Ideas which come from other people. (I have some of my own, but they're trivial.)

    Richard
  12. Joined
    10 Jan '08
    Moves
    10260
    16 Oct '11 15:47
    Originally posted by wittywonka
    By all means, shatter my ignorance. Please.

    If you are "posting in these forums," what possible purpose could you have other than to initiate or contribute to a discussion?
    Can i get a T there Bob.

    I'd like an R there Bob

    Give me a O there Bob

    Me wants a L there Bob

    And a final L there Bob
Back to Top