Skip to main content

View Diary: The people speak: 100% Dean endorsements at DNC/CDC meeting (203 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I think it's been long apparent here (none)
    that "marginal" means "marginal troll". But it's apparent from your rating history that you are the definite exception to the rule. And a '2' generally starts an unnecessary amount of reactive comments that cause others to have to read through a lot of garbage: like yours and my latest comments here.

    From PastorDan:

    A 2 is for a fairly marginal comment.  These comments don't add much to the conversation, and the 2 serves as a kind of "shot across the bow" to warn that you may want to reconsider adding such comments in the future."

    I read that to mean '2's are for the sort of cheap potshots people are constantly taking at each other in the heat of discussion. I don't think that means merely the non sequiteurs that appear frequently.

    Another good diary on the subject courtesy of DavidNYC.

    Not rating at all accomplishes what you want. Most people just don't rate posts that you define as marginal. As for the silliness of a mixed up rating system where the highest value is "Excellent" and the lowest value is "Troll": I think these are false opposites. I think "Troll", "Marginal Troll-like Post" and "SuperTroll" should be a separate rating. I actually posted this very thing a while back in a diary or story by Kos but I can't for the life of me find it now. Perhaps the story got deleted.

    "You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

    by Glinda on Sun Jan 23, 2005 at 12:21:03 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  '2' DOESN'T mean "marginal troll" (none)
      The '2' rating DOES NOT mean "marginal troll," if you understand the '1' rating based on the DEFINITION that Markos endorses in the FAQ, NOT on its label ("troll").

      This misunderstanding of the '2' rating occurs because the '1' rating is mislabeled "troll" when it should be labeled "unproductive," based on its definition.

      This mislabeling of the '1' rating is the biggest problem with the ratings system, and is the source of other problems, such as your misreading of my use of the '2' rating in this sub-thread.

      More here:

      ...The `2' rating (Marginal) is tainted by its proximity to the currently mis-labeled `1.' For those who perceive a `1' as judging someone to be a troll, then marginal might suggest that the writer of the rated comment is almost a troll. Re-labeling `1' will eliminate that perception of `2.' The resulting increased use of `2' will have the same positive benefit as increased use of `1.'...

      •  In a nutshell (ratings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) (none)
        Rightfully so, there's a huge reluctance to use the `1' rating, because its mis-label harshly and needlessly judges people to be a "troll," when its definition suggests that it simply means a comment is deemed unproductive. `2' is hardly ever used because, based on `1' labeled "troll," "marginal" is thought to mean "almost a troll," when it should mean simply "almost unproductive." `3' is hardly ever used because some people have promulgated the idea -- and it's been widely accepted -- that "good" really means "not good." All that's left is `4,' which is therefore so over-used that it's almost become meaningless -- so now some are proposing there needs to be a `5.'    ;-)

        The simple solution here got four '4s.'

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site