Forum
>
Site Discussion
>
Thread
Log in |
Register
I have turned off the filter for verified users.
That said, here are my thoughts on this currently, not particularly well organized:
What ever is being done, it's not working.
If I try to write "Very few can achieve such a perfect form." Rejected. I can accept that because I do post comments like that a lot. But I can post "bugs bunny" and it will stick.
To luvembuff:
Maybe if people were paying for the privilege to be here, their comments would be accepted more. Just a thought.
Hope I did not misunderstand what you wrote. But if you pay for something then as a rule you first find out what you are paying for. Payment for a service is not a bribe and should not be expected to work like one.
Maybe if people were paying for the privilege to be here they would appreciate the site more and be more careful with their comments. If that is what you wanted to say, then yes, one can always hope.
Or maybe if people were paying for the privilege they would get a sense of entitlement and make even worse comments. "I paid you two dollars. You moderators are my slaves now. So let the boings flow. Or else."
Maybe that kind of customer fantasies are why this site will forever remain free. If this was a business then the rules would probably need to be stricter by an order of magnitude and you would need to complain to a lawyer about not being allowed to post random expressions of sexual emotion. Then the lawyer would simply point to the contract you agreed to when you parted with your two dollars.
To king_slender:
But I can post "bugs bunny" and it will stick.
At some point and to some degree you must be able to trust your users. The point is to trust them neither too much nor too little. Therefore bugs bunny is not an argument against the filter. Again the 1 % where it fails is not an argument against the 99 % where it succeeds.
- A vocal minority of users, mostly those who are active image commenters and get lots of comments rejected (aka, you guys), are upset about the filter. However, this does not reflect the opinion of the majority of site users. Overall site usage stats have been unaffected since I rolled out the filter.
Pissing off your most engaged users isn't going to go well for any business unless there's some counteracting force that justifies it. In other words, turning off your most engaged users had better have a payoff that tips the balance with some other group. I don't see how that happens. Is there a counteracting group of consumers who are now actually MORE engaged in this site since you implemented this change? I'm skeptical.
I think you're confusing the statistics you're looking at with "the opinion of the majority of site users". Unless you've heard actual opinions from the majority of users, I'd advise you not to get too comfortable with that assumption. But it's you rolling the dice, not me, so have at it. I don't care that much about being able to comment here, to be honest, but you must feel it's an important feature or you'd do away with it altogether and just make this a straight picture site.
You have a reading comprehension problem. Let me repeat for the ADD and/or simple minded and/or person who doesn't read the whole post before they let fly: "I don't care that much about being able to comment here...".
I'm not "that mad". It might be time to rethink your comments.
No, I don't.
You're just trying to play off your being pissed by saying "i don't care either way, do what you will" but you are one of the more engaged and opinionated users, and despite "not caring" you have seven comments in this thread, adn you're far less active in the forums than in the image comments.
Being vicariously pissed off on behalf of a random group of people can give your annoyance ten, twenty or even thirty times more power.
I was about to say that this is not a business. Then I remembered looking for similar images with multiple images as a starting point. Then I saw that the Patreon page has been removed. Now I am not sure. But a hobby that may afford a small extra income is certainly not a business in the proper sense and is not legally required to aim for profit. Feel free to correct me at any point.
Oh no Chainer is reading the rejected comments for amusement. I wrote some comments to get rejected for my amusement yikes. What is a verified user?
No, I don't.
You're just trying to play off your being pissed by saying "i don't care either way, do what you will" but you are one of the more engaged and opinionated users, and despite "not caring" you have seven comments in this thread, adn you're far less active in the forums than in the image comments.
Feel free to choose a line out of that comment that shows me being "pissed off". I'll wait. Having an opinion, even a strong opinion, is not the same as being "pissed off". After rethinking my priorities, I'm done explaining simple concepts to you that grade school kids understand.
Pissing off your most engaged users isn't going to go well for any business unless there's some counteracting force that justifies it. In other words, turning off your most engaged users had better have a payoff that tips the balance with some other group. I don't see how that happens. Is there a counteracting group of consumers who are now actually MORE engaged in this site since you implemented this change? I'm skeptical.
I think what you're missing is that not all engagement is created equal. Here's a very rough and incomplete listing of ways people can engage with the site, in approximate order of "best" to "worst":
The things below the line add negative value to the site, as in it would be actively better if the users who are engaging with the site in those ways just... stopped doing that. I don't have anything personal against those users, though, and of course I would prefer if they started engaging with the site in the good ways instead.
I don't care that much about being able to comment here, to be honest, but you must feel it's an important feature or you'd do away with it altogether and just make this a straight picture site.
I feel that good comments are nice to have but bad ones are not, so it shouldn't be particularly surprising that I want to stop the bad ones but not the good ones. The filter, while far from perfect, is the best way I have found so far of doing that.
- Currently we get about 400-500 image comments a day, down from about 700 pre-filter, so to say that the filter is killing commenting, or that you can no longer say anything, is hyperbole.
OK, "killing" is hyperbole, but that's a decline of about 40%. Pretty substantial.
In my opinion ( someone that used to post a lot)
They are killing the overall enjoyment of the site for the majority of the returning contributors though. At least from what I’ve read and heard. But just my opinion. Just tonight I’ve tried to write 6 very normal, complimentary post all of which were rejected. Too long? Too short? Yet a post above them concerning “hard ons” seems to get through. It’s become to much work to actually post anything creative. Oh and if you’re not creative and just repetitive, that’s bad too. Lol. The site has lost its charm. Anyone who competes knows how to deal with “bad” comments and in most cases doesn’t bother them. You grow a pair and move on. ..."<
Since this thread began I have thought of Kristi a lot. I have also reevaluated some of the posts I have made through the years, and have decided only to post things that i was quite sure any woman would want to hear said about them. (Even if their poses seemed very sexually suggestive.) However, I applaud Kristi for writing what she has written, and for the most part I agree. She has taken a bit of my own embarrassment away from anything I might have written in the past that could be seen as embarrassing and overly suggestive.
I think more than 40% of image comments were trash before the filter, so not much of value lost there.
Well, I think there's truth to "Sturgeon's Law," which observes, "Ninety percent of everything is crap." Anyway, social institutions are often impenetrable to "rational" calculation. This abrupt removal of "dumb" comments looks like a textbook example of "Chesterton's Fence":
There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”
This abrupt removal of "dumb" comments looks like a textbook example of "Chesterton's Fence":
There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”
Interestingly the same logic of "Chesterton's Fence" could be used against those who have taken the anti-filter stance.
Interestingly the same logic of "Chesterton's Fence" could be used against those who have taken the anti-filter stance.
No, not really.
Well, I think there's truth to "Sturgeon's Law," which observes, "Ninety percent of everything is crap." Anyway, social institutions are often impenetrable to "rational" calculation. This abrupt removal of "dumb" comments looks like a textbook example of "Chesterton's Fence":
There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”
The filter works more like a crackdown on fly tipping. And who will complain then? Of course those who used to fly tip.
I don't think the concept of Chesterton's Fence applies at all. We know perfectly that low quality posts were a constant problem, and we know why they existed, I see much less of them now, and that's a good thing.
I'm sorry if you think your actually valuable comment has been caught by the filter, but perhaps if you think it is worth posting you can take the time to try and word it differently.
I have never had a comment I thought was well-written get caught by the filter. I have had multiple perfectly decent comments deleted by bubble-headed moderators, but that's a different story. I hesitate to regard any of my remarks as "actually valuable." I did recently try posting on some Kristi pics with “you look great,” “nice body,” “nice legs,” “great tan,” and I think two of the four went through, so, no, it does not affect me personally. I'm predisposed to dislike regulating expression; I think the arguments put forth for the filter (and "argument" is a rather lofty term for the various rationalizations) have not been sufficiently compelling.
The filter works more like a crackdown on fly tipping. And who will complain then? Of course those who used to fly tip.
No idea what fly tipping is. Never heard of it. Is that like cow tipping for weaklings?
No idea what fly tipping is. Never heard of it. Is that like cow tipping for weaklings?
Mostly British term, since the Brits calls the dump, a 'tip'. People to cheap to throw away their trash, so they dump it in some random field.
No idea what fly tipping is. Never heard of it. Is that like cow tipping for weaklings?
Fly tipping for weaklings 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Well said, and thank you for sharing, especially the part about this site losing it's charm. I can assure you though, that your comments have fallen on deaf ears.