Forum
>
Announcements
>
Thread
Log in |
Register
“she is a stunningly beautiful woman “
This is working as intended. This is the kind of kind of comment that has no substance besides that you approve of the pic/woman... but we already have a "+1" button for that.
Anyway, I've made some tweaks to the filter to be more targeted towards exactly this sort of comment, and ideally have fewer false positives.
This is working as intended. This is the kind of kind of comment that has no substance besides that you approve of the pic/woman... but we already have a "+1" button for that.
Anyway, I've made some tweaks to the filter to be more targeted towards exactly this sort of comment, and ideally have fewer false positives.
There is substance behind that comment beyond a "+1" because he doesn't say that on every +1 that he clicks. She's not just +1, she's worth taking the time to point out that she's stunning. I get not wanting to see comments like "boing" and "goddess" all the time, and not wanting derogatory comments, but what harm is there in emphasizing that you think a woman is stunningly beautiful? This is why I don't completely understand the point of this filter. It's like outlawing a pet peeve that is easy to just ignore. Censor the derogatory and disrespectful comments because they can hurt people, but if people want to sound off and they aren't being mean or disrespectful, why not let them sound off?
Also, I like to search comments for specific words sometimes and I'm afraid that this filter is going to seriously limit the usefulness of that feature.
In the end, it's your website and you can do whatever you want with it, but I thought, as a person who's been here for years, I'd give my two cents. I'll love your website and thank you for it either way.
There is substance behind that comment beyond a "+1" because he doesn't say that on every +1 that he clicks. She's not just +1, she's worth taking the time to point out that she's stunning.
Then he can go to the effort to say what it is about the picture that he likes, which should be accepted by the filter.
Then he can go to the effort to say what it is about the picture that he likes, which should be accepted by the filter.
It's actually pretty easy to circumvent the filter. I tried posting "boing" on a picture (which I've never posted before) and of course the filter wouldn't accept it. So, I wrote "boing a doing a ding dong dang" and it accepted it. I deleted the post because I was just experimenting.
Yeah the ban on "boing" is not a hard ban, you can make up for it by writing other things.
The goal is not to have a filter that you can't circumvent, but rather one where circumventing it results in one of:
She's not just +1, she's worth taking the time to point out that she's stunning.
Not sure if getting stunned repeatedly is good for your health. I think it would work if there was from ten to fifty such comments for each picture. Then you could gauge the stunningness of the picture by counting the comments.
But a single person getting stunned a single time has too many variables in it to give any useful information. What if the person is stunned easily and constantly? He's leaning on an electric fence and you wonder what is going on. Or he's stunned by completely different things than you are?
One possibility is that some viewers are here not simply for the picture and the comments are not here purely for information, but use the comments as some kind of emotional prompts. It's easier to fawn over something when someone else is already doing it. If you are the only person on a street gasping and taking deep breaths when some woman goes by, people will look at you strange and you will feel out of place. But when you do it with ten other people or in the shadow of some bold and noisy person, it's a lot safer.
So I disagreed on both counts. It's not a measure of the woman's worth or any other quality. You are not gifting her anything in some sort of metaphysical act of justice. These comments either serve the commenter or other viewers or nobody.
Including that you are not doing the site any favor by gifting your "authentic reaction" or other "raw data". It should first be figured out how such data could be used, if at all. Then and only then the administrators would ask people to start giving their raw data and authentic reactions. But to me it seems that they are doing the completely opposite. Probably because such data simply can not be used.
One possibility is that some viewers are here not simply for the picture and the comments are not here purely for information, but use the comments as some kind of emotional prompts. It's easier to fawn over something when someone else is already doing it. If you are the only person on a street gasping and taking deep breaths when some woman goes by, people will look at you strange and you will feel out of place. But when you do it with ten other people or in the shadow of some bold and noisy person, it's a lot safer.
That's a good point and a legitimate use of comments in my eyes. I don't understand how it improves the users experience on this site when simple compliments cannot be posted anymore.
That's a good point and a legitimate use of comments in my eyes.
It has its pros and cons. And it seems like the cons outweigh the pros.
Another thing I should have added is that usually only the person making the comment feels like he is at the head of a crowd. When I see someone else gasping or boinging an image, I still tend to feel that I'd be alone with my hypothetical second boing. In other words, it would benefit people who are capable of leading a crowd of one person.
Everytime I spend 5 minutes trying my luck with every single comment. That's not how it's supposed to work. I'll give up after 15 attempts.
You comment frequently and your comments are some combination of very repetitive and/or generic (can be applied to basically any picture on the site like "She's beyond belief!") which is why the filter is getting you so much.
I wrote a stupid comment that read something like "Awesome biceps," but it was rejected. I got it past the filter by making it more stupid and writing something like, "Awesome biceps. QED."
In defense of "Whoa!"
If you witness a street fight (or watch a video of a street fight), it's perfectly understandable to hear people offer the most insipid live commentary, "He just hit him!" Stunning beauty famously reduces poets to temporary aphasia.
What does "JMJ!" mean? As another person reading the comments, I have no idea what this means (it makes no sense) yet it is accepted. Does this mean that as long as it's not repetitive or generic it will be accepted, even though (to me, anyway) it just looks like some random jumbled up letters. Why are abbreviations accepted? So, basically, a comment doesn't have to make sense to be accepted, so long as it's not repetitive.
What does "JMJ!" mean?
I tried Google and all I could find was many corporations, something like JMJ Manufacturing, JMJ Transport, JMJ Steel and so on. The only actual abbreviation seems to be a short Catholic invocation or prayer, literally "Jesus, Mary, Joseph".
Since these all seem to be by a guy named Omar, I wonder if it's an intentional blasphemy or something. I mean, if he were really excited, would he not use the symbols of his own religion or culture?
I typed “she is a stunningly beautiful woman “, and it was rejected