Skip to main content

View Diary: DailyKos Community Standards: Ratings Abuse (417 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  could someone (none)
    explain to me again the purpose of the "rate all"?
    Is it necessary after you rate? Exactly what does it do?
    •  As you are reading comments (none)
       and you want to stick a rating up on various comments as you read and you don't want to refresh the page after every rating, you can post up the numbers, then when you get to the end of the thread hit "rate all" and every rating you clicked will then be processed at once.

      Comes in handy on long threads if you have an ancient dial-up connection as I do. Ddn't know what (if any) efficiency points it saves on the more high end connections.

      In a democratic society some are guilty, but all are responsible. -Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel

      by a gilas girl on Thu Nov 18, 2004 at 09:36:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  My connection's about as fast as it gets... (none)
        ...outside of a research university, and it's still way more efficient to batch them up and do a single 'Rate All'.  The throughput limiter for those of us with faster links isn't the page reload speed, it's the backend database re-serving the dynamic content.

        Good suggestion, definitely.

        There are two things I'd change in the way this site behaves, if I could:

        • I'd like to be able to rate and reply simultaneously.  Being able to do both from the reply screen would greatly increase the number of ratings given out.

        • I'd like to be able to reply to a post without resetting the [new] flag on all of the other posts I haven't gotten to yet.  I use Firefox's search bar to skip quickly to unread/new articles, but that stops working if I reply to one.

        For what it's worth, MyDD.com seems to have an even older version of Scoop, and just reloading the main page seems to clear all of the new-article indicators.  <sigh>

        -AG

        Bull Moose Progressive
        Supporter of self-defense rights for responsible citizens

        by AlphaGeek on Thu Nov 18, 2004 at 09:52:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I've mentioned this before (none)
          but I don't even HAVE a rate-all button on my interface. Ratings are updated dynamically as I make them, with no refresh, and there is not rate-all button.

          Using Firefox on WindowsXP, and it's true with IE6 as well. For me. I know others see the button.

          I'm sure there is a technical explanation, but, as always, we're stumbling about in the fog here.

          Can you hear me now? :-)

          "The problems of today will not be solved by the same thinking that produced the problems in the first place" - Albert Einstein

          by galiel on Thu Nov 18, 2004 at 09:57:05 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sounds like a per-user preference (none)
            If the form were rendered to handle dropdowns with the submit-on-select method, you'd see that behavior.  Interesting.

            You must be a double-secret trusted user.  :)

            -AG

            Bull Moose Progressive
            Supporter of self-defense rights for responsible citizens

            by AlphaGeek on Thu Nov 18, 2004 at 10:19:34 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Now that's plain weird.. (none)
            because the Rate All button is the ONLY button I have.  I've often wanted to rate a single comment dynamically, but I can't figure out how to do it! It's Rate All or rate none, for me I guess.  But, wow, it takes along time to refresh once you hit that Rate All thing.  btw, I also use Firefox (1.0)and, occasionally, IE6 running under WinXP, so...hmmmph.  I wonder what gives?
        •  workaround for the "new" flag going away (none)
          Instead of just hitting "reply to this" I right click and put it (and my soon-to-be words of wisdom) in a new browser tab.  This seems to put only the germaine comment and the reply dialog in the new window (and lets you go back to it later, if you don't feel like typing out your whole reply at that instant).  But mostly, it doesn't reset all the flags in your previous window either, so you can continue to browse that thread with all the original "new" flags intact, reading and rating as you wish.
          •  I've just gotten used to (none)
            finding where I used to be on the thread.

            I'm pretty good at spotting handles and remembering what I've read and haven't, so when the page refreshes after a rating or a new post, I can always find it.  

            Not efficient, but it works.  

            I'm not so big on bells and whistles.

            But, if MarKos or Rusty could come up with a software package that eliminates poster ego once they login to their account, not THAT would be something. Or at least they could provide free ego parking for those of us that come to visit.  I know I need it.

            Even I the technological skeptic might change my tune with one of those two innovations.

            ;)

            In a democratic society some are guilty, but all are responsible. -Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel

            by a gilas girl on Thu Nov 18, 2004 at 10:19:18 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  not good to make the software control you (none)
              Not efficient, but it works.  

              I'm not so big on bells and whistles.

              Forcing yourself to accomodate to awkward software isn't right. The system should serve the community, not the other way around.

              A workaround is a sign of poor design. It is not that big a deal to fix something like this, in fact it is ridiculous that it doesn't work, and it makes far more sense to fix it than to make people work around it.

              Cumulatively, all these workarounds add up to frustration, wasted effort and time, and discourage new users who have not yet quite the emotional investment in making the effort.

              A design discussion about things like this or ratings is not a waste of time--IF it is allowed to persist and reach a useful conclusion, rather than just evaporating into the ether unheard, to be brought up in frustration again and again and again.

              Things don't have good design by magic. They have good design because of feedback.

              "The problems of today will not be solved by the same thinking that produced the problems in the first place" - Albert Einstein

              by galiel on Thu Nov 18, 2004 at 11:03:12 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I've been living in a world of bad design (none)
                for over 40 years and accomodation to the bad stuff is necessary.  (I've tried the alternative, which is suicide attempts), so I'm a little less adament than you, both in expectations and in desire.  I'm not sure that I'd want a world that was improved by design to the detriment of people learning some self-reflection, willingness to sometimes do things the hard way and to consistently look to technology rather than think through and about the non-technological dimensions of the problem at hand.

                Its not a big deal, that "adjustment" and it reminds me that I'm capable of it, so even though someone like you would see a "negative" in that really minor adjustment, I'm rather pleased that I can still pull it off.  And that I have my priorities directed someplace else.

                But, if you've got some design solutions for the free enterprise system, the banking industry, the insurance industry, the excessive consumerism of US society, the design nightmare that is the suburbs, the fact that I live in a society where 1) a car, 2) a ridiculous level of self-promotion 3) debt and 4)a dangerous understanding about the dynamics of growth are necessary, I'm certainly ready to listen.

                ;)

                Computers aren't really the technology that's going to fix what I think is broken here in these United States.  

                In a democratic society some are guilty, but all are responsible. -Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel

                by a gilas girl on Fri Nov 19, 2004 at 05:27:28 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Restating an argument (none)
                  in such a way that it is reduced to absurdity and stretched to improbable extremes is not helpful.

                  If a revolving door is broken, it is a reasonable thing to fix it, rather than expect thousands of people a day to try pushing it, and then having to find the service entrance around back instead.

                  You are also living in a world of good design - but good desing is inobtrusive by definition. When the sign says "PUSH" and the door actually needs to be pushed not pulled, you don't stop and thinl "wow, good design".

                  Poor design is not a neutral thing. Every system allows you to do certain things and inhibits you from doing other things. If you are regularly inhibited from doing the things you should be doing, and encouraged to do the things you aren't, that has a cumulative effect - particularly in a community of thousands.

                  Computers aren't really the technology that's going to fix what I think is broken here in these United States.  

                  That statement betrays a profound misunderstanding of the issue.

                  You are using a computer to post this. Given that that is the case, it makes sense for it to work right.

                  "The problems of today will not be solved by the same thinking that produced the problems in the first place" - Albert Einstein

                  by galiel on Fri Nov 19, 2004 at 05:56:21 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Final note (none)
                    If, in fact, you are sincerely distressed with the state of the society (and I believe you are) and if, in part, you participate in this community because it is comprised of people who are similarly distressed and want to share ideas about improving the state of the society, then does it not make sense to facilitate that discussion, rather than thwart it?

                    Does it not make sense to design a system that allows all of us to be most effective in that goal, that allows us to focus our energies on productive activities, and that fosters a sense of comfort and warmth, like a good restaurant, rather than a system that involves daily frustrations, big and small, that is complicated for newly arrived motivated activists to handle, and that tends to amplify disruption?

                    To use the restaurant analogy again, does it not make more sense to install sound muffling ceiling tiles rather than force everyone to shout over everyone else's noise?

                    We're not talking about rocket science, by the way. We're talking about getting software that underlies every interaction we have here to work the way it was intended, and to work at least as well as other community systems do.

                    Your fight against good design is hard to understand, especially when you ponder the possibility that the broken doors may bother at least some of your peers in the community more than apparently it bothers you.

                    I suspect the real issue is that software is a black-box for you, and it seems like a really big deal to make the page jump to your reply when you post it, rather than going to the top and forcing you to scroll down to find it. In reality, it is almost trivially easy to do.

                    "The problems of today will not be solved by the same thinking that produced the problems in the first place" - Albert Einstein

                    by galiel on Fri Nov 19, 2004 at 06:02:53 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Actually (none)
                    in the world I live in, it doesn't make sense for it to work right, that's my point.  You and I live in very different worlds obviously.  Nothing in the world I live in works right: not the economy, not the understanding of families, of success, of society, of human interaction and not the structures of day-day life. I have no expectation that any of it ever will in the course of my lifetime, but that doesn't mean working toward it is pointless.

                    I'm disturbed that the system doesn't work, am even more deeply disturbed that most people I encounter don't even seem to notice that the system doesn't work, but I know that it isn't going to be fixed by A design, or even in my lifetime.  The fixing of the system isn't a precursor or a side track to the even of life, history, human social existence, it is the main attraction of it.  It is always on going and is NEVER going to be fixed (ie. we as individuals don't get to the end).

                    You are using a computer to post this. Given that that is the case, it makes sense for it to work right.

                    This is just an example of the very different worlds we live in.  I understand this is your thing and that your statements about it and passions run very strong, in my interpretation close to the pedantic, which is not the nature of my experience or expectation about the issue, so we are in very different places on this, and my posts are about how this issue that you find vital and are repetiviely adamant about is not important to me - I even take some pleasure in broken stuff just for the fact that I can live in a broken world and jerryrig.  I have a bit of the bricoleur in me so design systems and rather narrow definitions of "making sense" are not all their are cracked up to be in my corner of the world and in my own experiences.

                    As for this:

                    You are using a computer to post this. Given that that is the case, it makes sense for it to work right.

                    There's nothing that logically follows in this statement at all, as far as I can see.  It is true that I am using a computer to post this, but why is it "GIVEN" that since I'm using a computer it "makes sense" for it to work right? First of all, its objectively inaccurate that it "works right", I've been using a very old and a rather dysfunctional computer for many years since I can afford no other, and it rarely "works right".  And of course, the stakes for what "works right" means go up exponentially depending upon the user skills and expectations, and equipment upgrade.  

                    For people like you, my computer probably doesn't work, at all: it does not have a functioning DC rom and I can't play any digital video or sound because I haven't enough memory to run Real Player.  It also has some bugs in the programming so that the system will shut down regularly, as well as log itself off of various websites. That's not "working right" and there's no logic system in the world that says "it should" - I don't have the finances for it to work right, nor do I have the need for it to "work right" in the sense that somepeople have about "Getting the most out of the technology".  I'm more interested in learning how to get the most out of me, and that can be (and has been in the past) often accomplished by working with "broken" designs, systems, equipment, relationships and  limited resources.  

                    I don't know so much that what I have is a "profound misunderstanding" of the argument as it is a "profound disinterest/devaluing" of the argument.  I honestly don't care, and certainly not the way you do.  I honestly don't accept that the so-called "sense" you are stating with such certainty is a black and white sense.

                    In a democratic society some are guilty, but all are responsible. -Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel

                    by a gilas girl on Fri Nov 19, 2004 at 06:34:49 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  There is a genuine miscommunication here (none)
                      For people like you, my computer probably doesn't work, at all:

                      Our discussions tend to end this way, with you making these kind of prejudicial statements that make clear that you are really not discussing the substance with me, but you are playing out some other argument with a fictional caricature.

                      I am not a technophile, my interest in technology is solely to the extent that it facilitates community. I was not talking about the speed of your computer processor or the amount of your RAM. This is a fictional antaognist you have created, a construct that is possibly a product of some internal conflict and/or external circumstances you are struggling with.

                      I gave you the simple analogy of a broken door. Since you are not a maintenance engineer, one would not expect you to fix it. But if it can be easily fixed, so that it serves as a gateway to where people wish to go, then it seems to me that willfully insisting that it remain broken, so that your derive some kind of schadenfreude from observing people's frustration, or so that it reaffirms your preformed narrative about the whole world being broken, is simply not a rational response.

                      It is also remarkably selfish, as you attempt to block the interest of others who would rather not obssess over the door, rather not have to expend energy and effort defeating it, when what they want to do is just go through the damn thing so that they can get where they are going, and perhaps do some good in the world.

                      You keep coming back to how politics and the economy and society and morality is broken, as if that has anything to do with the idea of making a piece of software, which is designed to enable community, function in a way that it serves its purpose better.

                      Particularly puzzling is the fact that you, who claim not to care about such things and who think "people like me" care only about machines, end up spending far more energy talking about the system and attempting to block constructive efforts to make it work better, while the rest of us really would prefer that it just work better so we can talk about the other broken stuff like politics etc.

                      There seems to be an almost willful desire to obstruct others with no clear gain for you. It neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg to let folks fix the door. If you want to, you can perversely still climb over the prickly fence and use the loading dock. But why impose that on the rest of us?

                      "The problems of today will not be solved by the same thinking that produced the problems in the first place" - Albert Einstein

                      by galiel on Fri Nov 19, 2004 at 07:37:51 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I'm not doing anything to block the (none)
                        interest of others, your discussions go on freely.  I'm expressing my own lack of enthusiasm and why.  I don't ever expect to live in an environment that works, which doesn't stop me from engaging the environment, doing the work, or learning how to hold everything together with duct tape and bobby pins.  That's the single mom in me, where improvisation is the name of the game.  I'm trying to provide you with some context that I thought you could understand as to why what you appear to present as so open and shut might not be to someone who's day day life is like a McGiver episode both metaphorically and actually. Whenever we engage in these discussions (which aren't really discussions but simply the presentation of very different angles of vision/experience that quite obviously have no points of overlap, your responses to me are frequently about how I'm stopping something (and they tend towar the rigid and the pedantic in tone, but that may just be a matter of personal style.  I haven't created a fiction, you did say it "makes sense to have your computer work right". And that's what I responded to.  I did assume that you have a level of technical expertise about computing and software and online communities that I do not have because you speak a somewhat specialized jargon that I am unfamiliar with (though I'm astute enough to recognize that it is a jargon, as well as to recognize a certain kind of both jargon and style of defining the problem that speaks to a professional expertise that I know I do not have), therefore I acknowledge that the very low standards I am willing to accept are not what others more knowledgable would. I make that asssumption based not only on experience here at dKos, observations of your own posts about different (I guess they are browsers and software packages, I don't even know) and experience outside of dKos with friends and colleagues who are much more skilled and engaged with technology than I who constantly roll their eyes and shake their heads at my set-up, bemning the inadequacies of my available technology.

                        Fom most perspectives I guess it doesn't make sense for us to take up these engagements at all because we do post right past each other. I try hard to look for points where I can engage and to remember that (again) I'm looking at the world really differently than the person I'm engaging.  (This is not an uncommon experience for me, so I do have to challenge myself to come up with multiple alternative ways that folks might understand or come at the issue under discussion because odds are strong they won't be coming at it the way I do, so I'm gonna have to be prepared to reframe, translate or at least remember that.)Even on issues I agree with you and think I share a deep affinity, community building has been a cornerstone of work, politics, thought and action throughout my adult life, but not in a technical sense, and not as an expert, just in a more ethnographic sense. But there are just no openings.  The fact that you now see my relatively meagre posts as somehow stopping other people from helping you build community is something I can't even begin to imagine a response to, mostly because I can't even begin to translate that into a point of view that derives from logic.

                        I don't have any hostility or even frustration about this, but it just seems like a wheel spinning exercise. I honestly don't know what you are talking about now.

                        In a democratic society some are guilty, but all are responsible. -Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel

                        by a gilas girl on Fri Nov 19, 2004 at 02:53:27 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

          •  Good point (none)
            Even faster, for me, is using ctrl-leftclick to launch a new tab.  I'll start using that technique, thanks.

            -AG

            Bull Moose Progressive
            Supporter of self-defense rights for responsible citizens

            by AlphaGeek on Thu Nov 18, 2004 at 10:20:26 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  I don't think we need more ratings (none)
          personally I think we've got too many, but I also don't think the ratings matter so much that expressing my opinion is worth the time or the bandwidth.

          In a democratic society some are guilty, but all are responsible. -Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel

          by a gilas girl on Thu Nov 18, 2004 at 10:14:44 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site