Forum
>
Site Discussion
>
Thread
Log in |
Register
I'm still subject to the filter as well, as is anyone else apparently. Oh well, I won't bitch about it, but seeing as I was flagged, I feel like it's worth documenting at the very least.
You ought to create a poll asking if GWM's frequent visitors/subscribers think that the MQT has improved or hurt the website. Something to that effect.
You ought to create a poll asking if GWM's frequent visitors/subscribers think that the MQT has improved or hurt the website. Something to that effect.
No need the few crybabies would vote like insane and the hundreds who think improooved would vote rare because filter dont disturbs them
so do not represent the site just the filter haters
It seems to me a poll like that wouldn't serve much purpose since there would be no real way to determine the motive or the situation behind a user's answer. If people get handed a poll, they're gonna answer in the way they think will affect an outcome that they want. I can guarantee you that every low effort commenter who responds will say they hate it just because it's doing its job, and the majority of high effort commenters will probably also say they hate it because it occasionally blocks their legit high effort paragraph. The problem with it is the filter isn't peftect and there's no way it can ever be, so while it does effectively stop what it should in terms of what Chainer et al are concerned about, the end users are largely being affected negatively relative to the part of this filter that they care about. For example, I do NOT care if I see someone say 'hot' or 'wow'. I may think the comment is stupid and weak on occasion but it doesn't affect me in any way that I'd whine about. But when I write something well-thought out below their comment and I trigger the filter, then yeah I'd rather it not be there at all.
TL;DR - I think the forum discussions here are a more accurate way to get a feel for what people think of the filter than a poll would be... those who it was truly meant for probably don't put forth the effort to discuss here anyway.
Liesbeth said, No need the few crybabies would vote like insane and the hundreds who think improooved would vote rare because filter dont disturbs them so do not represent the site just the filter haters
The "few crybabies" vs the "hundreds who think improooved ..." Not sure where you get those "few" vs "hundreds" numbers. Sounds presumptive.
Expedient 923 said, It seems to me a poll like that wouldn't serve much purpose since there would be no real way to determine the motive or the situation behind a user's answer.
That's why you would word the poll in a specific way and offer multiple choice answers that would attempt to alleviate this problem. That said, from the rest of what you said, you think that most people (both low and high effort commenters) hate the MQT.
The "few crybabies" vs the "hundreds who think improooved ..." Not sure where you get those "few" vs "hundreds" numbers. Sounds presumptive.
No this is what happens everywhere in real life when new rules are in charge . The few who feel disturbed cry out loudest and the main community who agree ( ok not 100 % to all facts agree ) just life by the new rules and say nearly nothing about
GWM is no exeption
Especialy at times like this this efekt shows
No this is what happens everywhere in real life when new rules are in charge . The few who feel disturbed cry out loudest and the main community who agree ( ok not 100 % to all facts agree ) just life by the new rules and say nearly nothing about
GWM is no exeption
Especialy at times like this this efekt shows
I just meant that you're making a presumption. You have no evidence that hundreds like the filter. Perhaps the complainers are the loudest and there is a "silent majority" who like it, but you have no evidence of that. A carefully worded, well constructed poll on the subject could provide you with some evidence, though.
That's why you would word the poll in a specific way and offer multiple choice answers that would attempt to alleviate this problem. That said, from the rest of what you said, you think that most people (both low and high effort commenters) hate the MQT.
Wording it specifically wouldn't make a single difference. No matter what you say in the poll, what I said still completely applies.
Wording it specifically wouldn't make a single difference. No matter what you say in the poll, what I said still completely applies.
I disagree
I got dinged for the following comment. I do not see what is wrong with these words, especially when comments like. "I'd like to mount her," pass muster on occasion.
"This particular exercise does wonders for this woman, and it is a remarkable video, because she works right through the pain and maintains great form. No wonder she has such great biceps."
I have no issue with the idea of limiting what can be said; I just think the algorithm is off and by quite a bit.
I got dinged for the following comment. I do not see what is wrong with these words, especially when comments like. "I'd like to mount her," pass muster on occasion.
"This particular exercise does wonders for this woman, and it is a remarkable video, because she works right through the pain and maintains great form. No wonder she has such great biceps."
I have no issue with the idea of limiting what can be said; I just think the algorithm is off and by quite a bit.
I agree completely. I've had totally complimentary comments locked out. They need to scrap the algorithm and start over1
@LectricBoogaloo - K then explain. You don't get to just flippantly say that you disagree. Tell us how you disagree, explain yourself. Why would giving detail to a poll matter if the end result is that people will still say what is needed to get the result that they want?
Because pollsters word poll questions all the time in a manner that helps to set parameters in a way that focuses those polled and minimizes the effect of dishonest respondents. Polls aren't perfect or even scientific (in the strict sense of the term), but they can be a useful guide/indicator.
Of course people say what is needed to get the result they want, but unless each individual has total control over the results, they lack the means to make much of a difference in a poll taken by multiple people.
Edit: Also, I do get to be flippant if I want to be. You might not like it, but I can indeed do that if I want to. The reason why I was flippant in my reply is because I thought that your comment that I was responding to was flippant. But instead of pointing it out, I just flippantly replied to you. LOL
Expendient923, I should also say that you might have a point. Perhaps I don't fully understand what you're saying. There are a lot of reasons why such a poll shouldn't be conducted.
I tell myself that I am not going to get into a long back and forth on GWM and here I find myself getting into one. I don't want to do that. Take care.
"This particular exercise does wonders for this woman, and it is a remarkable video, because she works right through the pain and maintains great form. No wonder she has such great biceps."
I have no issue with the idea of limiting what can be said; I just think the algorithm is off and by quite a bit.
For science, I wrote a moronic comment. Unless it's been shadow-banned, it should appear now.
Reggieiv wrote:
"This particular exercise does wonders for this woman, and it is a remarkable video, because she works right through the pain and maintains great form. No wonder she has such great biceps."
At first I thought that yes, comments like these can't hurt anyone, so maybe they should be allowed.
Then I had a second thought. It sounds like you were paid by the word. The filter must be really smart to catch that. Maybe artificial intelligence does exist after all. Or maybe Chainer has uploaded his consciousness into the server and filters everything personally. Clearly the comment is uniquely related to that particular video, but it's still baloney.
What wonders does it do for her? Does she get younger and richer by the minute? She cures cancer and stabilizes world economy?
janinegia wrote:
I agree completely. I've had totally complimentary comments locked out.
I wonder how many times people need to be told that compliments earn them nothing. It does not give the comment any higher moral value or any kind of protected status. Impersonal obsequiousness is repulsive and I am glad if the filter knows how to catch that.
"These are compliments" is the new "these are not the droids you are looking for".
Or maybe it catches abysmal punctuation? I just love it more and more every day.
"This particular exercise does wonders for this woman. This is a remarkable video. She works right through the pain and maintains great form. No wonder she has such great biceps."
There is a single piece of potentially valuable information in that. "She maintains great form."
@reggieiv: What is mostly getting you is the repetitiveness of your comments.
I also get the feeling that you're padding out your comments with fluff because you perceive that this gets it past the filter more easily.
Also consider this comment, for example:
Myngoodness. The abs are incredible. I don't think I have ever seen anything like them.
Why not just press "+1" and tag the image with "abs"? The comment doesn't add much on top of that.
The kinds of comments I'm looking to filter out are:
That said, a lot of your comments are pretty decent (counting the weight they're lifting, responding to others, etc) so I don't want to come across as too hard on the comments. If you decreased the fluff you would get past the filter more often.
I'm still subject to the filter as well, as is anyone else apparently. Oh well, I won't bitch about it, but seeing as I was flagged, I feel like it's worth documenting at the very least.