I'm suspecting (and I'm not the only one, if I interpret comments made by other regulars right) that some users on this forum are using multiple logins, for voting purposes etc and to support their own line.
These people (or person) are also basically causing this forum to be uncomfortable, rude and full of hearsay, rather than facts or decent, polite discussion. The whole 'feel' of the forum is changing, and I've noticed alot of the regulars (webado, cristina, softplus, jlh, volvox77 etc) are not posting as regularly - and I'd suspect it's because they are a bit fed up too.
I speak for myself only here, but I'd appreciate some form of 'icon' next to a persons login name if they appear to be logging in from the same IP, so that (if this is happening) it can be stomped out.
Interesting. I haven't noticed it but then again, I haven't been here long enough to get a good feel for some of the members although strangely enough, of the list you just mentioned, including yourself, I feel I know well wnough to pick any of you out no matter what moniker you used.
As for the detection, I have a bit of experience in this area and it is not an easy subject to deal with. First of all, there are probably 10's of thousands of proxies the world over that one could use to appear to be coming from a different location each time. Of course detecting that one is using a proxy is not all that hard but there are valid uses of proxies as well as "questionable" ones. :-(
Similarly, IP based could show two different users to be the "same" even though they are in fact different if they happen to both be on the same corporate network. In fact, we could end up with all the Google-ites showing up as being the same! Eeek! :-()
What I have done, and works well on a site I operate where detecting multiple as well as shared accounts is very important, is to develop a user profiling mechanism that uses heuristics to classify a given users site usage based on, currently, 15 different points. But, that would seem overkill for a situation such as we have here.
On the other hand, what I developped is a programatic means whereas anyone can implement their own personal and mental means to do the same thing. Sort of, "if it walks, swims, flies and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck."
Besides, if we can't get google to support editing one's post, being able to see one's just submitted post without having to go back and forth to the main category listing a number of times before the post shows up and we can't even get them to come anywhere close to creating valid code, all of which should be trivial for anyone with much of any experience at all, what chances have we of getting them to implement something as complicated as a multi-account user detection system that is effective?
Or, wait, I think that was a rhetorical question. :-()
> I'm suspecting (and I'm not the only one, if I interpret comments made > by other regulars right) that some users on this forum are using > multiple logins, for voting purposes etc and to support their own > line.
> These people (or person) are also basically causing this forum to be > uncomfortable, rude and full of hearsay, rather than facts or decent, > polite discussion. The whole 'feel' of the forum is changing, and I've > noticed alot of the regulars (webado, cristina, softplus, jlh, > volvox77 etc) are not posting as regularly - and I'd suspect it's > because they are a bit fed up too.
> I speak for myself only here, but I'd appreciate some form of 'icon' > next to a persons login name if they appear to be logging in from the > same IP, so that (if this is happening) it can be stomped out.
> The whole 'feel' of the forum is changing, and I've > noticed alot of the regulars (webado, cristina, softplus, jlh, > volvox77 etc) are not posting as regularly - and I'd suspect it's > because they are a bit fed up too.
Doc, thank you for mentioning me as well, you are so nice :) If I see a posting I can answer to I try my best, usually it is technical stuff, like a correct server HTTP status response, and valid (X)HTML code (actually about valid HTML mark-up I think that the W3C validator is the best in giving the answers). I think that getting the technical details right helps in getting the philosophy of SEO right as well. I really do not see much of the other postings.
And Cass-Hacks and Sebastian are another two regular posters I forgot to mention, of course :)
No, the problems that I've been noticing are not from any of the list of regular posters I mentioned (including the latter two, above) - if you keep your eyes open, it's easy to recognise the person (or persons) I'm suspecting..
These are the people (or person) who post topics and/or replies that too any sound minded person appear to be complete rubbish, and yet miraculously get multiple 5 star ratings within minutes, even when there isn't anyone on the boards.. I think JLH and Sebastien have pointed the wizardry out rather better than I have here on another active post in the particular section of the forums.
It's beginning to irritate me. I'm just not bothering spending as much time here as I used to - I get a bit fed-up with wild accusations toward google and answers that further incite the grumpiness that alot of people that pass through these forums initially have towards google rather than pointing them to resources that might actually help..
> > The whole 'feel' of the forum is changing, and I've > > noticed alot of the regulars (webado, cristina, softplus, jlh, > > volvox77 etc) are not posting as regularly - and I'd suspect it's > > because they are a bit fed up too.
> Doc, thank you for mentioning me as well, you are so nice :) > If I see a posting I can answer to I try my best, > usually it is technical stuff, like a correct server HTTP status > response, > and valid (X)HTML code (actually about valid HTML mark-up > I think that the W3C validator is the best in giving the answers). > I think that getting the technical details right helps in > getting the philosophy of SEO right as well. > I really do not see much of the other postings.
> And Cass-Hacks and Sebastian are another two regular posters I forgot > to mention, of course :)
> No, the problems that I've been noticing are not from any of the list > of regular posters I mentioned (including the latter two, above) - if > you keep your eyes open, it's easy to recognise the person (or > persons) I'm suspecting..
> These are the people (or person) who post topics and/or replies that > too any sound minded person appear to be complete rubbish, and yet > miraculously get multiple 5 star ratings within minutes, even when > there isn't anyone on the boards.. I think JLH and Sebastien have > pointed the wizardry out rather better than I have here on another > active post in the particular section of the forums.
> It's beginning to irritate me. I'm just not bothering spending as much > time here as I used to - I get a bit fed-up with wild accusations > toward google and answers that further incite the grumpiness that alot > of people that pass through these forums initially have towards google > rather than pointing them to resources that might actually help..
> Cheers,
> Doc
> On Feb 23, 1:03 pm, cristina wrote:
> > On Feb 23, 2:17 am, dockarl wrote:
> > > The whole 'feel' of the forum is changing, and I've > > > noticed alot of the regulars (webado, cristina, softplus, jlh, > > > volvox77 etc) are not posting as regularly - and I'd suspect it's > > > because they are a bit fed up too.
> > Doc, thank you for mentioning me as well, you are so nice :) > > If I see a posting I can answer to I try my best, > > usually it is technical stuff, like a correct server HTTP status > > response, > > and valid (X)HTML code (actually about valid HTML mark-up > > I think that the W3C validator is the best in giving the answers). > > I think that getting the technical details right helps in > > getting the philosophy of SEO right as well. > > I really do not see much of the other postings.
> > Thanks again :) :) :) :) :)- Hide quoted text -
I did figure out who you were thinking of when writing your post, my being only slow, not drain bamaged, but to be honest, and this is my own opinion here, I think the concern people have regarding the stars, even those who seem in need of more fibre in their diet ;-) is misplaced.
I don't know, it could be just that I've been around too many forums and other information sharing networks that have "voting" systems and having yet seen one that was worth much of anything, have come to place little, if any, trust in them.
I have heard of systems proposed that might be of some use but have never seen them actually implemented. Probably the best system I have heard discussed is one where in order to "vote", one must provide a review of the topic being voted on. That wouldn't seem very applicable here so it is of little merit anyway.
Actually it wasn't until the issue of voting came up not too long ago that I finally figured out what the stars were for in the first place and how they were used but when I went to my profile, which I never had a need to do before then, I was surprised by what I saw and instantly realized the voting system wasn't worth very much.
I mean get serious, me, 5 stars? I don't think so. About the only thing that can be said in my favor/defense is that I don't rip someone a new one no matter how much they may need/deserve it. 5 stars because I try to help and, can play well with others?
One other thing, you wrote, "... that to any sound minded person appear to be complete rubbish ...". I think there is more in that statement than you may have realized when you wrote it even to the extent of it being at the heart of the matter. I have, currently, 5 stars but does that mean every utterance from my keyboard is golden? No, I have been known to be wrong a time or 20,000,000. :-()
People do have to make their own decision as to whether or not what they are reading makes sense or not and I think the only ones taken in by the stars, not knowing how they are used/applied, are those without a clue and so unable to determine the measure of a given response.
True, being without a clue as I was, am still and likely always will be makes the stars a bit distracting and a little misleading but do you feel that they are really that important?
I'm not asking that in a manner similar to "You must be totally out of your mind!" but instead more like, "isn't there something inherently wrong in a rating system that can be gamed by a single individual, assuming it can be gamed at all and if so, what is its value?"
Finally, I don't have real strong opinions either for or against the system, I'm just curious as to why they can become such an issue.
Or, I could just be babbling, I'll let you vote on that one. :-()
> And you, cass-hacks, should know who I'm talking about... fibre > anyone?
> On Feb 23, 1:20 pm, dockarl wrote:
> > And Cass-Hacks and Sebastian are another two regular posters I forgot > > to mention, of course :)
> > No, the problems that I've been noticing are not from any of the list > > of regular posters I mentioned (including the latter two, above) - if > > you keep your eyes open, it's easy to recognise the person (or > > persons) I'm suspecting..
> > These are the people (or person) who post topics and/or replies that > > too any sound minded person appear to be complete rubbish, and yet > > miraculously get multiple 5 star ratings within minutes, even when > > there isn't anyone on the boards.. I think JLH and Sebastien have > > pointed the wizardry out rather better than I have here on another > > active post in the particular section of the forums.
> > It's beginning to irritate me. I'm just not bothering spending as much > > time here as I used to - I get a bit fed-up with wild accusations > > toward google and answers that further incite the grumpiness that alot > > of people that pass through these forums initially have towards google > > rather than pointing them to resources that might actually help..
> > Cheers,
> > Doc
> > On Feb 23, 1:03 pm, cristina wrote:
> > > On Feb 23, 2:17 am, dockarl wrote:
> > > > The whole 'feel' of the forum is changing, and I've > > > > noticed alot of the regulars (webado, cristina, softplus, jlh, > > > > volvox77 etc) are not posting as regularly - and I'd suspect it's > > > > because they are a bit fed up too.
> > > Doc, thank you for mentioning me as well, you are so nice :) > > > If I see a posting I can answer to I try my best, > > > usually it is technical stuff, like a correct server HTTP status > > > response, > > > and valid (X)HTML code (actually about valid HTML mark-up > > > I think that the W3C validator is the best in giving the answers). > > > I think that getting the technical details right helps in > > > getting the philosophy of SEO right as well. > > > I really do not see much of the other postings.
> > > Thanks again :) :) :) :) :)- Hide quoted text -
No mate, I don't think they are all that important, but what I'm pointing out is that their is some 'bizzare' star action happening at the moment, and I'm getting a bit suss... :)
> I did figure out who you were thinking of when writing your post, my > being only slow, not drain bamaged, but to be honest, and this is my > own opinion here, I think the concern people have regarding the stars, > even those who seem in need of more fibre in their diet ;-) is > misplaced.
> I don't know, it could be just that I've been around too many forums > and other information sharing networks that have "voting" systems and > having yet seen one that was worth much of anything, have come to > place little, if any, trust in them.
> I have heard of systems proposed that might be of some use but have > never seen them actually implemented. Probably the best system I have > heard discussed is one where in order to "vote", one must provide a > review of the topic being voted on. That wouldn't seem very applicable > here so it is of little merit anyway.
> Actually it wasn't until the issue of voting came up not too long ago > that I finally figured out what the stars were for in the first place > and how they were used but when I went to my profile, which I never > had a need to do before then, I was surprised by what I saw and > instantly realized the voting system wasn't worth very much.
> I mean get serious, me, 5 stars? I don't think so. About the only > thing that can be said in my favor/defense is that I don't rip someone > a new one no matter how much they may need/deserve it. 5 stars > because I try to help and, can play well with others?
> One other thing, you wrote, "... that to any sound minded person > appear to be complete rubbish ...". I think there is more in that > statement than you may have realized when you wrote it even to the > extent of it being at the heart of the matter. I have, currently, 5 > stars but does that mean every utterance from my keyboard is golden? > No, I have been known to be wrong a time or 20,000,000. :-()
> People do have to make their own decision as to whether or not what > they are reading makes sense or not and I think the only ones taken in > by the stars, not knowing how they are used/applied, are those without > a clue and so unable to determine the measure of a given response.
> True, being without a clue as I was, am still and likely always will > be makes the stars a bit distracting and a little misleading but do > you feel that they are really that important?
> I'm not asking that in a manner similar to "You must be totally out of > your mind!" but instead more like, "isn't there something inherently > wrong in a rating system that can be gamed by a single individual, > assuming it can be gamed at all and if so, what is its value?"
> Finally, I don't have real strong opinions either for or against the > system, I'm just curious as to why they can become such an issue.
> Or, I could just be babbling, I'll let you vote on that one. :-()
> Craig
> On Feb 23, 12:22 pm, dockarl wrote:
> > And you, cass-hacks, should know who I'm talking about... fibre > > anyone?
> > On Feb 23, 1:20 pm, dockarl wrote:
> > > And Cass-Hacks and Sebastian are another two regular posters I forgot > > > to mention, of course :)
> > > No, the problems that I've been noticing are not from any of the list > > > of regular posters I mentioned (including the latter two, above) - if > > > you keep your eyes open, it's easy to recognise the person (or > > > persons) I'm suspecting..
> > > These are the people (or person) who post topics and/or replies that > > > too any sound minded person appear to be complete rubbish, and yet > > > miraculously get multiple 5 star ratings within minutes, even when > > > there isn't anyone on the boards.. I think JLH and Sebastien have > > > pointed the wizardry out rather better than I have here on another > > > active post in the particular section of the forums.
> > > It's beginning to irritate me. I'm just not bothering spending as much > > > time here as I used to - I get a bit fed-up with wild accusations > > > toward google and answers that further incite the grumpiness that alot > > > of people that pass through these forums initially have towards google > > > rather than pointing them to resources that might actually help..
> > > Cheers,
> > > Doc
> > > On Feb 23, 1:03 pm, cristina wrote:
> > > > On Feb 23, 2:17 am, dockarl wrote:
> > > > > The whole 'feel' of the forum is changing, and I've > > > > > noticed alot of the regulars (webado, cristina, softplus, jlh, > > > > > volvox77 etc) are not posting as regularly - and I'd suspect it's > > > > > because they are a bit fed up too.
> > > > Doc, thank you for mentioning me as well, you are so nice :) > > > > If I see a posting I can answer to I try my best, > > > > usually it is technical stuff, like a correct server HTTP status > > > > response, > > > > and valid (X)HTML code (actually about valid HTML mark-up > > > > I think that the W3C validator is the best in giving the answers). > > > > I think that getting the technical details right helps in > > > > getting the philosophy of SEO right as well. > > > > I really do not see much of the other postings.
> > > > Thanks again :) :) :) :) :)- Hide quoted text -
I couldn't care less about stars, but have grown weary of the constant attacks between some people. I've also noticed the amount of bad information being passed off as real advice has gone up. I don't know how to handle it, but it has slowed me down from reading and participating in the group. I think that could be a real problem without regular contributers here. It could devolve into just people coming in for their one hit of "my site hasn't been crawled since Dec 1982", or "I was booted for no reason" etc. I originally thought it would be helpful to point of bad information but it keeps surfacing. Adam, Jonathon, and Vanessa have all set the record straight on several issues but we still hear crazy conspiracy theories about spam reports and supplemental results...yuk or relavency of links and page rank. Anyway I think there needs to be some sort of shot in the arm for this place, but I don't know what I could do, so I think I'll just have to move on to greener pastures.
On the plus side, it's great to have Sebastian back in the game dolling out excellent advice. We've got some great people here and I hope that isn't all lost. Halfdeck has great insight from his experiments, Softplus has his own set of excellent observations, Aaron has the inside SEO contacts that helps, Webado has her technical insights, Dockarl is always willing to dig into people's sites to find the hidden problem. We've even got a few crazy drunk uncles that show up every once and while when it gets boring. I know I've missed several people, but all in all we've got a good core group here and I hope it continues.
I'm a member of several other webmaster forums and in comparison if you pay attention there is a ton of real good information here.
> No mate, I don't think they are all that important, but what I'm > pointing out is that their is some 'bizzare' star action happening at > the moment, and I'm getting a bit suss... :)
> > I did figure out who you were thinking of when writing your post, my > > being only slow, not drain bamaged, but to be honest, and this is my > > own opinion here, I think the concern people have regarding the stars, > > even those who seem in need of more fibre in their diet ;-) is > > misplaced.
> > I don't know, it could be just that I've been around too many forums > > and other information sharing networks that have "voting" systems and > > having yet seen one that was worth much of anything, have come to > > place little, if any, trust in them.
> > I have heard of systems proposed that might be of some use but have > > never seen them actually implemented. Probably the best system I have > > heard discussed is one where in order to "vote", one must provide a > > review of the topic being voted on. That wouldn't seem very applicable > > here so it is of little merit anyway.
> > Actually it wasn't until the issue of voting came up not too long ago > > that I finally figured out what the stars were for in the first place > > and how they were used but when I went to my profile, which I never > > had a need to do before then, I was surprised by what I saw and > > instantly realized the voting system wasn't worth very much.
> > I mean get serious, me, 5 stars? I don't think so. About the only > > thing that can be said in my favor/defense is that I don't rip someone > > a new one no matter how much they may need/deserve it. 5 stars > > because I try to help and, can play well with others?
> > One other thing, you wrote, "... that to any sound minded person > > appear to be complete rubbish ...". I think there is more in that > > statement than you may have realized when you wrote it even to the > > extent of it being at the heart of the matter. I have, currently, 5 > > stars but does that mean every utterance from my keyboard is golden? > > No, I have been known to be wrong a time or 20,000,000. :-()
> > People do have to make their own decision as to whether or not what > > they are reading makes sense or not and I think the only ones taken in > > by the stars, not knowing how they are used/applied, are those without > > a clue and so unable to determine the measure of a given response.
> > True, being without a clue as I was, am still and likely always will > > be makes the stars a bit distracting and a little misleading but do > > you feel that they are really that important?
> > I'm not asking that in a manner similar to "You must be totally out of > > your mind!" but instead more like, "isn't there something inherently > > wrong in a rating system that can be gamed by a single individual, > > assuming it can be gamed at all and if so, what is its value?"
> > Finally, I don't have real strong opinions either for or against the > > system, I'm just curious as to why they can become such an issue.
> > Or, I could just be babbling, I'll let you vote on that one. :-()
> > Craig
> > On Feb 23, 12:22 pm, dockarl wrote:
> > > And you, cass-hacks, should know who I'm talking about... fibre > > > anyone?
> > > On Feb 23, 1:20 pm, dockarl wrote:
> > > > And Cass-Hacks and Sebastian are another two regular posters I forgot > > > > to mention, of course :)
> > > > No, the problems that I've been noticing are not from any of the list > > > > of regular posters I mentioned (including the latter two, above) - if > > > > you keep your eyes open, it's easy to recognise the person (or > > > > persons) I'm suspecting..
> > > > These are the people (or person) who post topics and/or replies that > > > > too any sound minded person appear to be complete rubbish, and yet > > > > miraculously get multiple 5 star ratings within minutes, even when > > > > there isn't anyone on the boards.. I think JLH and Sebastien have > > > > pointed the wizardry out rather better than I have here on another > > > > active post in the particular section of the forums.
> > > > It's beginning to irritate me. I'm just not bothering spending as much > > > > time here as I used to - I get a bit fed-up with wild accusations > > > > toward google and answers that further incite the grumpiness that alot > > > > of people that pass through these forums initially have towards google > > > > rather than pointing them to resources that might actually help..
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Doc
> > > > On Feb 23, 1:03 pm, cristina wrote:
> > > > > On Feb 23, 2:17 am, dockarl wrote:
> > > > > > The whole 'feel' of the forum is changing, and I've > > > > > > noticed alot of the regulars (webado, cristina, softplus, jlh, > > > > > > volvox77 etc) are not posting as regularly - and I'd suspect it's > > > > > > because they are a bit fed up too.
> > > > > Doc, thank you for mentioning me as well, you are so nice :) > > > > > If I see a posting I can answer to I try my best, > > > > > usually it is technical stuff, like a correct server HTTP status > > > > > response, > > > > > and valid (X)HTML code (actually about valid HTML mark-up > > > > > I think that the W3C validator is the best in giving the answers). > > > > > I think that getting the technical details right helps in > > > > > getting the philosophy of SEO right as well. > > > > > I really do not see much of the other postings.
> > > > > Thanks again :) :) :) :) :)- Hide quoted text -
> polite discussion. The whole 'feel' of the forum is changing, and I've > noticed alot of the regulars (webado, cristina, softplus, jlh, > volvox77 etc) are not posting as regularly - and I'd suspect it's > because they are a bit fed up too.
Hi Doc Sorry, I'm just extremely caught up in work at the moment - all of this Vista-madness is half robbing my sleep and then I had to race around the world in a bunch of airplanes (that was the fun half of losing my sleep). You can't get me out by re-rating my posts, I'm not here to collect stars, I just try to fill in the gaps where people end up with big question-marks :-). Once I get more time, I'll be back with the usual frequency.
I did notice that there are a lot of newer and active (and smart) members online, I think it's great that things are growing!
My ears were burning, found a Google alert for the use of my name ;)
I'm not appearing to post as much (though I do, I think) because I spend most of my Group time just trying to find my previous posts and any replies to them, scattered all over creation as they are. The format doesn't help bring to the forefront new issues that are more deserving of being responded to.
Stars? What stars? I'm just trying to find my way around.;)
> > polite discussion. The whole 'feel' of the forum is changing, and I've > > noticed alot of the regulars (webado, cristina, softplus, jlh, > > volvox77 etc) are not posting as regularly - and I'd suspect it's > > because they are a bit fed up too.
> Hi Doc > Sorry, I'm just extremely caught up in work at the moment - all of > this Vista-madness is half robbing my sleep and then I had to race > around the world in a bunch of airplanes (that was the fun half of > losing my sleep). You can't get me out by re-rating my posts, I'm not > here to collect stars, I just try to fill in the gaps where people end > up with big question-marks :-). Once I get more time, I'll be back > with the usual frequency.
> I did notice that there are a lot of newer and active (and smart) > members online, I think it's great that things are growing!
My productivity suggestion of the day: tag threads where you respond with a star. When you look at the overview pages, you will quickly see if one of "your" threads has had an answer that you might want to re- respond to.
Also, if you want to follow specific topics, set up a Google alert for "Google_Webmaster_Help Keyword" (use your keyword). That will inform you of new posts / threads for that keyword. It almost works for me tracking "hack" but there's this guy who has "hack" in every post he makes :D so I get alerted to them as well, ha ha. :-)
> My productivity suggestion of the day: tag threads where you respond > with a star. When you look at the overview pages, you will quickly see > if one of "your" threads has had an answer that you might want to re- > respond to.
> Also, if you want to follow specific topics, set up a Google alert for > "Google_Webmaster_Help Keyword" (use your keyword). That will inform > you of new posts / threads for that keyword. It almost works for me > tracking "hack" but there's this guy who has "hack" in every post he > makes :D so I get alerted to them as well, ha ha. :-)
> I haven't been here > long enough to get a good feel for some of the members although > strangely enough, of the list you just mentioned, including yourself, > I feel I know well wnough to pick any of you out no matter what > moniker you used.
This is really nice :)
> What I have done, and works well on a site I operate where detecting > multiple as well as shared accounts is very important, is to develop a > user profiling mechanism that uses heuristics to classify a given > users site usage based on, currently, 15 different points. But, that > would seem overkill for a situation such as we have here.
> On the other hand, what I developped is a programatic means whereas > anyone can implement their own personal and mental means to do the > same thing. Sort of, "if it walks, swims, flies and quacks like a > duck, it's probably a duck."
This is very interesting. Does it work? Usually things like this either work for 50-ish% for a large number of independent samples or for 80-ish% for a number of related samples (so a small number of independent samples).
Sorry for the off-topic-ness but since stars are dead, why waste a good thread. :-()
One site I am using it on has roughly 150k members and it's pretty accurate. There are some false positives as well as false negatives but both are a small enough percentage so as to easily be dealt with manually. On another site, much much smaller and very much more private, I haven't had any detects yet so I really can't say although since I pretty much "know" every member from years and years of various electronic social groups, BBSs, Usenet, IRC blah blah blah, I can almost say without a doubt that there should be no detects.
That said, I don't know if I would use the system in a commercial setting but that's only due to my limited experience in agent based coding techniques so it is sort of a hack. Google, working on next- gen AI systems could probably make it work on a commercial level though but as it is, I would consider my implementation "Not ready for prime time". ;-)
> > I haven't been here > > long enough to get a good feel for some of the members although > > strangely enough, of the list you just mentioned, including yourself, > > I feel I know well wnough to pick any of you out no matter what > > moniker you used.
> This is really nice :)
> > What I have done, and works well on a site I operate where detecting > > multiple as well as shared accounts is very important, is to develop a > > user profiling mechanism that uses heuristics to classify a given > > users site usage based on, currently, 15 different points. But, that > > would seem overkill for a situation such as we have here.
> > On the other hand, what I developped is a programatic means whereas > > anyone can implement their own personal and mental means to do the > > same thing. Sort of, "if it walks, swims, flies and quacks like a > > duck, it's probably a duck."
> This is very interesting. Does it work? > Usually things like this either work for 50-ish% for a large > number of independent samples or > for 80-ish% for a number of related samples (so a small > number of independent samples).
I see what you mean about the Staranoia, especially since the pointed discussion about the voting system a little while back.
Having hung around here for a couple of months now (more so during Feb), I would say though, that the problem may be more with the tone of some posts, rather than the rating system.
Whilst I've got no problem reading through a series of posts, some of which are blatantly agressive, if not offensive (not this particular thread obviously ;-), and putting in my two cents worth at the end of it, I can't help but wonder what new users make of the whole thing.
Someone (I think it was Red Cardinal) pointed out the other day that the place is 'getting famous' :-) I know I've certainly mentioned the place as a decent source of information in a couple of the pieces I've written during the past couple of weeks. How many others are doing the same?
So, what will new users make of the place when they come here for the first time and the first post they see is an attack levelled at another user? For what it's worth, I would say that the topic of offensive/agressive/ insulting/racist posts could do with being addressed before Star Wars ;-)
Most of the responses to this thread have made quite clear, stars don't really matter. As you & JLH said, the group has a good, solid core of regular and semi-regular contributors, most of which dish out invaluable advice on an alarmingly regular basis.
> I'm suspecting (and I'm not the only one, if I interpret comments made > by other regulars right) that some users on this forum are using > multiple logins, for voting purposes etc and to support their own > line.
> These people (or person) are also basically causing this forum to be > uncomfortable, rude and full of hearsay, rather than facts or decent, > polite discussion. The whole 'feel' of the forum is changing, and I've > noticed alot of the regulars (webado, cristina, softplus, jlh, > volvox77 etc) are not posting as regularly - and I'd suspect it's > because they are a bit fed up too.
> I speak for myself only here, but I'd appreciate some form of 'icon' > next to a persons login name if they appear to be logging in from the > same IP, so that (if this is happening) it can be stomped out.
Hello, I have rarely posted here sicne I'm new to HTML and websites & I just read around & try to learn about certain things. This seems like a mutual admiration society ;), and I'm noticing something that I can't keep silent on. This thread is a prime example of the abuse of the star rating system. Right now, every post on this page has several 5 star ratings, & the posts don't really contain any useful information. The 'buddy system' for rating posts is noticeable here, and those here are guilty about what you are complaining about. That is ironic. I find it interesting some in this thread mentioning crazy conspiracies in other places, but this seems to one of them here. There are going to be groups of people that hang out anywhere and thsi place is no different. You have groups that like Google & think they are all good, & groups that don't like Google & think they need alot of work & need to change things. So I understand how this star rating system is abused or atleast misused by both sides.
Just an observation, so plesae don't be mean. I think Google should not use something like the rating system. Why was it put here. I think they would know it would be abused. It should be removed because it is easy to see it has no valid use.
NOOOOOOOOOOO!!! MY E-PENIS HAS BEEN ATTACKED!! (which one of you guys called it that?) A THREE STAR RATING... MY LIFE IS OVER!!
Seriously though... Getting rid of or toning down the star system may well be an idea. I can see your point about the 'buddy system' at work.
By the same token, if you've been reading through the thread you'll have noticed that the discussion does not only concern staranoia and ratings, but has moved into other avenues as well; point and counter point.
Yes, you will always get a crowd of regulars around any forum. I'm not talking about myself here (I've scored a massive 20 odd posts this month), but if you look at it, guys like softplus, webado, red cardinal, cass-hacks, dockarl, christina (ok, i'll stop there) and many others spend a lot of time in the group answering questions and discussing all sorts of topics. So it's not really surprising that discussions draw some sort of positive rating from other users who are of the same opinion in any given discussion.
> Right now, every post on this page has
several 5 star ratings, & the posts don't really contain any useful information.
Similarly, it doesn't always have to be an earth-shattering revelation to draw a response; sometimes a small point which hadn't previously been mentioned will do it. The discussion in this thread has now evolved from a simple query about single users with multiple log-ons into the means and wherewithall to detect this, offensive content, the utter futility of the star-wars system in the first place and, if left alone to simmer, it will probably go off on other tangents too. And if everyone puts in their two cents worth, we may even hash out a constructive idea or two ;-)
Look at christina for instance. A small post of hers in the suggestions category the other day about a new section in the group for sites to be discussed and troubleshot after the usual concerns about validation, crawling and 'wtf happened to my site?' have been answered; raised a decent point for the future development of this group (in my opinion anyway, although i didn't give it a star rating at all, schlock-horror!) and was taken onboard as such by the local Googlers.
Anyway... let's see what happens with the whole rating thing in future, eh? Who cares about stars as long as the group keeps on being a source of information for Google users and a place of friendly and constructive discussion. :-Þ
> Hello, I have rarely posted here sicne I'm new to HTML and websites > & I just read around & try to learn about certain things. This seems > like a mutual admiration society ;), and I'm noticing something > that I can't keep silent on. This thread is a prime example of the > abuse > of the star rating system. Right now, every post on this page has > several 5 star ratings, & the posts don't really contain any useful > information. The 'buddy system' for rating posts is noticeable here, > and those here are guilty about what you are complaining about. > That is ironic. I find it interesting some in this thread mentioning > crazy conspiracies in other places, but this seems to one of them > here. There are going to be groups of people that hang out anywhere > and thsi place is no different. You have groups that like Google & > think they are all good, & groups that don't like Google & think they > need alot of work & need to change things. So I understand how > this star rating system is abused or atleast misused by both sides.
> Just an observation, so plesae don't be mean. I think Google should > not use something like the rating system. Why was it put here. I > think they would know it would be abused. It should be removed > because it is easy to see it has no valid use.
The stars do work here because so many of the things that are said are 'hypothetical', not yet proven and sometimes unsupported by facts. It's far easier to vote with a star or 5 than to get into an argument, especially with people like the current post-hog mad man trolling around the place spreading disinformation.
I'm fed up with it and planning to keep my time spent here to a minimum until the guy is either kicked off or gets outed... I also agree with the comments about the question of how to address this kind of problem.
I know it's asking alot, but this just aint such a nice place to hang around anymore since the trouble-maker came along.
> I'm fed up with it and planning to keep my time spent here to a > minimum until the guy is either kicked off or gets outed...
It's not that easy to protect an online community from trolling coz low life trolls like nhp or rickn live in as that many identities in that many realities ... what would it help to ban them when they're able to slip thru filters using just another acct? As long as GG doesn't supply message filtering like slashdot or digg and bury-thread- icons just ignore the noise ... and move on. Would be a real loss if signal if you'd post less :) Sebastian
> The stars do work here because so many of the things that are said are > 'hypothetical', not yet proven and sometimes unsupported by facts. > It's far easier to vote with a star or 5 than to get into an argument, > especially with people like the current post-hog mad man trolling > around the place spreading disinformation.
> I'm fed up with it and planning to keep my time spent here to a > minimum until the guy is either kicked off or gets outed... I also > agree with the comments about the question of how to address this kind > of problem.
> I know it's asking alot, but this just aint such a nice place to hang > around anymore since the trouble-maker came along.
> Cheers,
> Doc
> On Feb 25, 5:40 am, cristina wrote:
> > On Feb 24, 3:43 pm, IceGiant wrote:
> > > although i didn't > > > give it a star rating at all, schlock-horror!)
> > Hi IceGiant,
> > Thank you very much for not giving ratings to my postings :)
> > I am puzzled though as to what useful information > > would someone look for in a thread > > titled Stars... gawd...
> > The thread name was well chosen for the content, > > it does not promise the answer to the > > ultimate question about life, the universe and everything
> It's not that easy to protect an online community from trolling coz > low life trolls like nhp or rickn live in as that many identities in > that many realities ... what would it help to ban them when they're > able to slip thru filters using just another acct? As long as GG > doesn't supply message filtering like slashdot or digg and bury-thread- > icons just ignore the noise ... and move on. Would be a real loss if > signal if you'd post less :) > Sebastian
Sebastian, I think this group is a protectable online community because people like you and John Softplus and Doc and IceGiant and cass-hacks and JLH and others make it an online community and also protect it.
Doc... please read further down, cos I got to rambling ;-)
Hi Christina... the answer, as always, is 42, post-topic notwithstanding... :-D I guess the point I was trying to make (brace for lengthy explanation) was...
Just because this thread had an odd title didn't stop you from looking at it & making a comment. ;-) Just because I didn't shower your post with stars, doesn't mean I don't appreciate the point you raised. ;-)
As a user/contributor, you hit the forum and check out the new posts since you were last here. If there's a question you can answer (which someone has not already covered) you provide the required info.
You also trawl (not troll ;-) through the rest of the posts and give your opinion where you see fit. Sometimes you comment on what's been said, sometimes you ask a question and other times you make a suggestion (as in the case of your post-analytical web site bin). Your posts get picked up by other users, mulled over, discussed and generally thrown around... At the end of the day topics either fizzle out in the sand or start heading in some sort of constructive direction.
Ah for the beauty of democracy...
For example; the other day Sebastian posted a negative comment regarding my view of static content (maybe I should have called it Cobweb Sites instead of static content). WHOA!! A difference of opinion! Does that make me right or him wrong? Of course not. But differences of opinion like that often spawn discussions which everyone can learn something from if the debate runs free and at the end of the day, we still look at most posts, no matter how odd the title ;-)
Doc (sorry for the longwindedness thus far ;-)...
I'd have to agree with Christina here... you're one of the backbones of the group...
Face it, there are only a handful of people who actually stick around here pretty much all the time offering decent advice to all comers. Like the other regular posters, you are one of the ones who make this place what it is...
I for one enjoy the wholefood diet offered by this group. And I guess a wholefood diet includes the occasional blue-green algae thrown in amongst the burgers and fried chicken. ;-)
I wrote to this thread because my name was mentioned in the original posting.
I like this group and I always found what Sebastian and John Softplus and others wrote very useful, and I want them to know that I thank them.
When I trawl this group (as you write) I make an effort to answer a question, I check URLs and Google documentation thoroughly and I try to give a good answer.
> Doc... please read further down, cos I got to rambling ;-)
> Hi Christina... the answer, as always, is 42, post-topic > notwithstanding... :-D > I guess the point I was trying to make (brace for lengthy explanation) > was...
> Just because this thread had an odd title didn't stop you from looking > at it & making a comment. ;-) > Just because I didn't shower your post with stars, doesn't mean I > don't appreciate the point you raised. ;-)
> As a user/contributor, you hit the forum and check out the new posts > since you were last here. > If there's a question you can answer (which someone has not already > covered) you provide the required info.
> You also trawl (not troll ;-) through the rest of the posts and give > your opinion where you see fit. > Sometimes you comment on what's been said, sometimes you ask a > question and other times you make a suggestion (as in the case of your > post-analytical web site bin). > Your posts get picked up by other users, mulled over, discussed and > generally thrown around... > At the end of the day topics either fizzle out in the sand or start > heading in some sort of constructive direction.
> Ah for the beauty of democracy...
> For example; the other day Sebastian posted a negative comment > regarding my view of static content (maybe I should have called it > Cobweb Sites instead of static content). WHOA!! A difference of > opinion! > Does that make me right or him wrong? Of course not. > But differences of opinion like that often spawn discussions which > everyone can learn something from if the debate runs free and at the > end of the day, we still look at most posts, no matter how odd the > title ;-)
> Doc (sorry for the longwindedness thus far ;-)...
> I'd have to agree with Christina here... you're one of the backbones > of the group...
> Face it, there are only a handful of people who actually stick around > here pretty much all the time offering decent advice to all comers. > Like the other regular posters, you are one of the ones who make this > place what it is...
> I for one enjoy the wholefood diet offered by this group. > And I guess a wholefood diet includes the occasional blue-green algae > thrown in amongst the burgers and fried chicken. ;-)
> Stay with it man, you're making a difference.
> On Feb 25, 1:11 am, cristina wrote:
> > On Feb 24, 11:06 pm, dockarl wrote:
> > > I'm fed up with it and planning to keep my time spent here to a > > > minimum
> > Doc, please don't do that, > > What you write is great :)
