Hi!
Some recent conversations here at the big orange set my mind a wanderin' again on all that navel-gazing goodness we all love and hate. If you are in the mood for blatherings about HRs, recs, and random grammar advice (yes; "anal-retentive" does require a hyphen), clicky click!
Where else to start but with Hunter's exegesis, The Tao of Troll Rating? The juicy bits:
When you Troll Rate something, as a trusted user, you are stating that the comment should be made invisible to all site users.
You're saying that the comment is so bad -- so disruptive or damaging to the community -- that it isn't worth even a debate, but should be deleted from the discussion as being simply inflammatory, simply off-topic, or simply a lie.
Remember that, because that is the only use of the troll rating. It is an editorial vote to delete a comment from the conversation.
That is to say, HRs are for really egregious stuff. For instance, calls to violence are routinely HRd with no complaint. So are racist sentiments, etc. A comment that is boorish, rude, ignorant, churlish, ornery, nasty, what have you, may well be all of those things and undesirable to boot, but that does not make it HR-worthy. You've got to be some kind of special to reach that level of asshattery.
Here is an example of an uncommendable, but not HR-worthy comment. Is it rude and so uninformative as to be useless? Sure. Did it further the discussion in any way? Nah. But is it on a par with racism and violence? Not in a million years! Is it "so disruptive or damaging to the community" it needed to be removed from sight? Only if you are EmoPundit. People are sometimes rude. In other news, the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.
That comment is also a great example of the importance of erring on the side of tolerance and letting the occasional impolitic outburst slide - look at the discussion it spawned. A perfectly vapid post engendered a wonderful contribution to the diary, one that would be hidden if the 5 HRs had been left to stand. If generating a compelling debate is reason enough to keep a one-paragraph crap blurb diary afloat, it's certainly enough to leave asinine comments be.
Besides, the poster has to own their words; isn't that punishment enough?
; P
Speaking of punishment, I will once again implore the community to be more circumspect with your diary recommends, knowing full well I will be roundly ignored. I went on at length about it in the other diary, so here I will only emphasize two important points:
The rec list is stagnating because diaries are getting so many recommends, it's harder and harder for others to break through. With few exceptions (action diaries, etc.) there is nothing to be gained in having the rec list occupied by the same diaries two days in a row. Use your powers to rec and unrec wisely.
Recommending a diary is basically saying "this diary should be on the rec list." Please do not treat it as forwarding a funny email to all your friends and acquaintances. Their inboxes can accept more than 8 items at a time; the rec list cannot.
I have recommended numerous diaries I didn't quite care for and did not rec some of my absolute favorites. Simply liking a diary doesn't mean it merits the broader exposure of the rec list; nor is it a way to personalize your Daily Kos experience the way one would music preferences at streaming radio sites.
Recommending a diary means it should be on the rec list; it is NOT the way to show general support and approval for a diary - that is what tip jars and other comments are for. That is where you express that you found the diary amusing/informative/a good read/what have you - by recommending a comment.
This is an important distinction. So important that I think the comment rating options should be changed to "Mojo" and "Hide" or some such, instead of using "Recommend" for two entirely different functions that produce entirely different effects. I think this would do a lot to clarify for newbies how things work around here as well; I still see quite a few questions about all the mechanics of it.
And speaking of mechanics, but apropos of nothing else, here is the threatened aforementioned random grammar advice. I just thought I'd throw a reminder out for some of the more common things I notice. Ahem.
fewer v less - If you can count it, use "fewer." If you are talking about intangibles, use "less," e.g., "fewer deaths," "less vulgarity."
I could care less - That means you do care, as one has to care in order to be able to care less.
should of - Nobody is discussing the provenance of some indeterminate "should" (should of Sam? should of the hills? should of the lake, handing the sword to the Lady of the lake to hand to King Arthur?). The correct phrasing is should/would/could have.
its v it's - Think of "it" as the pronoun it is and compare its possessive form to the other possessive pronouns. "His" and "Hers" don't have apostrophes and neither does "its."
Per se is the correct spelling. "Per say" is not.
Plural's do not use apostrophe's.
wit v whit - I thought I was the only person with a thing for "whit" and "to wit," but lo and behold!: I have seen them not only used, but misused enough times to mention them here. A "whit" is a tiny amount. To wit: "I care not one whit."
Hopefully, at least the grammar tips made for interesting reading...
Peace Out!