patrick.net

 
  forgot password?   register

#housing #investing #politics more»
756,729 comments in 77,883 posts by 11,079 registered users, 3 online now: Booger, marcus, TwoScoopsMcGee

new post

Daily Post Limit?

By WookieMan   Aug 1, 6:24pm   1,377 views   55 comments   watch (2)   quote      

I'm sure this has been brought up before (today as a matter of fact, but not in a thoughtful way). Does anyone think there should at least be an hourly post limit (1 per hour or maybe even 1 every 3 hours - something along those lines) or even a daily limit per user? I just feel like a lot of shit gets thrown at the wall to see what sticks and 80% of it doesn't. There's a group of 4-5 users that on any given day can go ape shit posting pretty much dumpster fire material. 20% can be good or generate a debate, but it seems like a lot is just plain bad.

I know the tabs at the top can be used to sort the post differently, but I always go by the default I'm used to of active posts. It seems like it involves a lot of new posts as well that may not even have a comment on it. While I don't want to filter out new content/posts, sometimes one user can monopolize the entire homepage (depending on which tab you're in). Turns me off certain days when it's loaded with one users wall shit throwing. I can't imagine I'm the only one and I can imagine a first time visitor might have this same experience. I know I've missed posts where this has been talked about, but figured with some of the recent changes it might be worthwhile to master debate this around a bit again.

I'm game for limiting it to 8 posts a day I think. And posting more than 3 in a hour locks you out from creating new posts for the next 3 hours or something along those lines ( @Patrick not sure how hard or easy that would be). That's my first stab at it without a whole lot of thought.

Comments 1-40 of 55     Next »     Last »

1   WookieMan   Aug 1, 6:34pm     ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike   quote    

On a side note glad the usernames are back. Still miss my avatar though :(

2   PeopleUnited   Aug 1, 7:14pm     ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

WookieMan says

I'm sure this has been brought up before (today as a matter of fact, but not in a thoughtful way). Does anyone think there should at least be an hourly post limit (1 per hour or maybe even 1 every 3 hours - something along those lines) or even a daily limit per user? I just feel like a lot of shit gets thrown at the wall to see what sticks and 80% of it doesn't. There's a group of 4-5 users that on any given day can go ape shit posting pretty much dumpster fire material. 20% can be good or generate a debate, but it seems like a lot is just plain bad.

I know the tabs at the top can be used to sort the post differently, but I always go by the default I'm used to of active posts. It seems like it involves a lot of new posts as well that may not even have a comment on it. While I don't want to filter out new content/posts, sometimes one user can monopolize the entire homepage (depending on which tab you're in). Turns me off certain days when it's loaded with one users w...

I think patnet should be pay to play. You either pay to post after the first 3 posts per day, or you can ask people to donate to patnet on your behalf in order to post past your 3 post limit. I would also limit the number of comments you can make per thread to 3 per day to force people to choose their words wisely and not engage in ad hominem attacks. You can always pay more if you want to comment more than three per day (something like 10 cents per comment). I would also charge people for the right to ban people from your threads. $1 per day per person per thread. @Patrick this could be a money maker for you!!!

3   errc   Aug 1, 7:23pm     ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike   quote    

What problem are you solving here

4   WookieMan   Aug 1, 7:49pm     ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike   quote    

errc says

What problem are you solving here

Not sure if you were talking to me or PeopleUnited

There are days I come here and the posts (not comments) are monopolized by one or two users upon arriving (comments on posts can get fucked up, but it's better). Yes there are some highly commented posts mixed in with the active tab, but 1-2 posters can fill up the home page for the most part along with those 2-3 highly commented posts (I view it by default using the active tab). When I see that I just leave immediately. Then there are days when more people are active and posting and I'm way more intrigued, not just 1 or 2 with what's essentially crap.

I guess I didn't want to call out users, but to make the point I'm going to have to. TPB, HEY YOU, Tovarich, etc. I guess it's mainly those three, but others get mixed in there from time to time as the site ebbs and flows. I guess my problem is their frequency of posts at times, along with the fact little actual legit commentary is included. It's basically post a link and hit google. Then do it again. And again. There are users here, whether I agree with them or not, that at least put their opinion out there when they post. Posting a link with no, little or incoherent commentary is just annoying at this point.

There are sometime interesting things they post of course, but a lot of the times it's just a flood of bull shit. 98% of people here are post at best once, maybe twice a day. So I guess that's why I'm suggesting a limit of some sort. I guess I appreciate better thought out posts instead of just dumping links here with some gibberish attached to it.

5   BlueSardine   Aug 1, 7:53pm     ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Cash flow issues from patrick.net
errc says

What problem are you solving here

6   HEY YOU   Aug 1, 8:02pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

If there is a post or comment on patnet,you're guaranteed it is not worth reading.

7   WookieMan   Aug 1, 8:17pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

First, before someone else calls it out. My only other original post is hypocritical somewhat to the point I'm making. So there's that. But it was only 1 post.

That being said, below is an example of what I'm talking about. This is from the new tab, but certain days (less active I assume) my home page looks more like these screen shots. WTF? What is intriguing about this, really?


8   WookieMan   Aug 1, 8:22pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

On a bad day there's maybe 1-2 others sprinkled in. On a good day, there's 7-8 good posts going. I'm just trying to suggest and/or figure out if there's a way to keep a good 7-8 good posts. I assume it requires some of the regulars posting more or getting more users. But it's hard to get new users when a lot of people are welcomed with the screen shots above, from 2-3 users posting what is essentially crap being flung at a wall.

Again, there's good stuff in there from time to time. So don't get too butt hurt about the critique.

9   PeopleUnited   Aug 1, 8:22pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

@wookieMan

I agree there is too much noise and there are some obvious offenders.

I also think the ad hominem/uncivil behavior needs to have negative consequences and this too could be fixed by locking people out for three days after first offense, 30 days for second offense and etc...

The narrative is lowest common denominator all too often. The site needs more structure, more enforcement of civil discourse and I think some of the ideas you, i and others have suggested could change things for the better.

10   someone else   Aug 1, 8:41pm     ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Thanks, I appreciate all the feedback!

Working every day on finishing the new version of the site in node.js. It actually looks identical to users, but it will make it much easier for me to alter features and make sub-sites with different parameters.

Anyone want their own site? If you have a username that is just letters and numbers (no spaces) you could possibly get a site like https://wookieman.patrick.net with your own policies for moderation, own CSS, etc.

Also planning on creating a totally anonymous site, to be called https://anon.patrick.net

11   WookieMan   Aug 1, 8:43pm     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

PeopleUnited says

I also think the ad hominem/uncivil behavior needs to have negative consequences and this too could be fixed by locking people out for three days after first offense, 30 days for second offense and etc...

While I kind of agree, I generally filter the crap out. I'm not even remotely as active as others, but have been here a while reading even before my user was created, say 2009 roughly. I actually think the reverse would be more appropriate. If you flag someone for being uncivil/ad hom and it's not a legit violation, you get locked out for X time per violation.

I guess the way I look at it is if you have to attack me to make a point, go ahead. It speaks volumes about you (not you specifically PeopleUnited) and how much confidence you have in your argument. If I get proved I'm wrong so be it. I'm not going torched earth on anyone regardless of how I feel. I've been humbled before in real life situations doing things people do behind a keyboard and saying it in real life. You live, you learn. While it's all just anonymous text, from random people, I fear that it can creep into your daily life with how you treat others. So I'll pretty much always refrain form treating anyone here negatively when I can. I will point out things I think can use some improving though and if in that process some users get called out, so be it.

12   WookieMan   Aug 1, 8:58pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Patrick says

Anyone want their own site? If you have a username that is just letters and numbers (no spaces) you could possibly get a site like https://wookieman.patrick.net with your own policies for moderation, own CSS, etc.

I'm not ready for the big leagues yet. Just bring back my avatar ;)

13   someone else   Aug 1, 9:58pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

WookieMan says

Just bring back my avatar

OK, done

14   PeopleUnited   Aug 2, 6:49pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

This thread was started by a person who allows everyone to post on it. It should be used rather than the "thunderdome" which I understand Patrick had retired. @Patrick, why do you allow Thunderdome to return?

15   HEY YOU   Aug 2, 7:12pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

WookieMan says

I guess I didn't want to call out users, but to make the point I'm going to have to. TPB, HEY YOU, Tovarich, etc.

Just one little problem,you might be thinking that HEY YOU give a shit.
Maybe I should be concerned about the number of threads & comments instead
of overpopulation,environmental degradation, resource depletion,effects on man & his habitat from a warming planet.
WTF am I thinking,this is patnet!

As an aside: New patnet rule
# 1- You must read every thread.

16   HEY YOU   Aug 2, 7:17pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Republican & Democratic voters destroying America should be on the above list.

17   PeopleUnited   Aug 2, 7:22pm     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

HEY YOU says

Republican & Democratic voters destroying America should be on the above list.

Ok, I'll bite. who should voters be voting for?

18   someone else   Aug 2, 9:20pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

PeopleUnited says

Patrick, why do you allow Thunderdome to return?

Actually, I didn't allow it to return, they're just using it that way. I suppose I need an "uncivil" thread reporting mechanism.

19   lostand confused   Aug 2, 9:57pm     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Patrick-thanks for the site! Like they say don't look a gift horse in the mouth-folks have way too much expectations for something that is free.
I think many of the diehard posters will continue posting no matter what-this is a unique niche where posters have diverse opinions and are allowed to say what they want and no mommy to come rushing to the crybaby's defense. methinks you should have some advertising-not sure if it makes much money-but just a thought-unless this is just a hobby?

20   PeopleUnited   Aug 3, 3:59am     ↑ like (4)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Nearly every comment you make is uncivil.

21   Onvacation   Aug 3, 4:22am     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

lostand confused says

methinks you should have some advertising-

Methinks so too. You should get.paid.

22   errc   Aug 3, 5:08am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Who would pay to advertise here? What product or service and to what demographic

23   BlueSardine   Aug 3, 6:11am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

It's always been about comedy here.
People that want a laugh should pay for the privilege...

errc says

Who would pay to advertise here? What product or service and to what demographic

24   lostand confused   Aug 3, 6:46am     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

errc says

Who would pay to advertise here? What product or service and to what demographic

Who knows maybe repubs and dems , SJWs all might want to advertise ehre-we have a mix of all!!

25   PCGyver   Aug 3, 7:58am     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Bump

26   Dan8267   Aug 3, 8:02am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Dan8267 says

Limiting posts to N a day is attempting to address the symptoms of the problem, not the cause. The problem is not that TPB opens so many threads each day. The problem is that the threads he opens are all shit. Limiting quantity does not improve quality.

There are two workable solutions.

1. Patrick, and perhaps a few other credible users, form a meritocracy that rates threads, dinging shit and delegating it to a less in-your-face bucket. This has the advantage of being quick to implement. The disadvantages are having to manually perform the task every day and human bias, although the later is diminished by having a larger group of reviewers.

2. Implement an A.I. that determines the quality of a thread. This is right up Google's alley. You can use Bayesian analysis, checking the quality of the citations, and/or deep learning. This has the advantages of reduced bias, automation, and immediate feedback. The disadvantage is the time and effort to build the A...

27   someone else   Aug 3, 8:31am     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Dan8267 says

Patrick, and perhaps a few other credible users, form a meritocracy that rates threads, dinging shit and delegating it to a less in-your-face bucket.

Yes, that's how it will be.

Still working on the node version of the site, which is open sourced here:

https://github.com/killelea/node.patrick.net

@Dan8267 you know javascript, right? Any interest in implementing part of it?

28   someone else   Aug 3, 8:45am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

lostand confused says

methinks you should have some advertising-not sure if it makes much money-but just a thought-unless this is just a hobby?

It's a hobby, but I would love to be able to live from it and just work on it full time.

Was thinking of advertising patrick.net swag like bumper stickers, cups, hats etc for double-duty: makes a little money, and propagates knowledge of the site at the same time. But I keep putting it off because life gets in the way.

29   Goran_K   Aug 3, 8:50am     ↑ like (4)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

Funny thing is, if you just ignored someone's thread, it wouldn't bubble to the top anyway. No fancy thread posting limit script needed.

30   curious2   Aug 3, 12:36pm     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

A daily post limit might help, especially if applied to specific users. @Patrick could grant "Premium" status to certain Users based on payment or trollishness score or whatever (e.g. Patrick seemed to appreciate tovarichpeter's many Posts), encouraging them to Post more. Also, encouraging Users to vote specific Posts up or down, and triple counting down votes, might push the more objectionable stuff off the home page faster.

An advantage of a forum compared to a blog is the forum provides a wider array of topics compared to the interests of only one person. A disadvantage, without Post limits, is the forum (including especially the home page) risks getting taken over by trolls.

A related issue is 'freedom of speech' vs editing/organization. Many of tovarichpeter's Posts might have worked better as comments within his prior Posts on specific topics, e.g. dentists, Hyperloop, 3D printing houses, and tiny houses. Some people (e.g. "HEY YOU") insist as a matter of principle on posting their random thoughts wherever they want, like a child refusing to clean up his room because he prefers the spontaneity of chaos. Giving every author the freedom to post anything anywhere results in a mess for readers.

Goran_K says

if you just ignored someone's thread, it wouldn't bubble to the top anyway.

That works only if you are always logged in, which most ppl aren't. Also, the home page makes the first impression for new users, and it's too embarrassing to recommend when covered with TPB posts.

31   someone else   Aug 3, 12:44pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Patrick says

https://github.com/killelea/node.patrick.net

BTW, I added an anti-diversity statement to the project, as a reaction to harmful promotion of diversity for its own sake:

https://github.com/killelea/node.patrick.net/blob/master/Anti_diversity_statement.md

32   someone else   Aug 3, 12:48pm     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

curious2 says

A disadvantage, without Post limits, is the forum (including especially the home page) risks getting taken over by trolls.

What do you think of putting posts in the active list only after they get at least one comment from someone other than the post author?

The problem might be that no one would ever think to look in the "new" column and make the first comment on a post, which would then languish in obscurity no matter how good.

What I'm really looking for is a measure of "good" for a post.

33   curious2   Aug 3, 12:55pm     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Patrick says

What do you think of putting posts in the active list only after they get at least one comment from someone other than the post author?

Many of the worst Posts get comments, e.g. 'stop posting such trash' and "TenPoundBass strikes again."

34   someone else   Aug 3, 12:59pm     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Yes, like Goran_K pointed out, if you comment you're actually promoting it back to the top of the home page, no matter what you say in the comment.

35   WookieMan   Aug 3, 1:50pm     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

Goran_K says

Funny thing is, if you just ignored someone's thread, it wouldn't bubble to the top anyway. No fancy thread posting limit script needed.

This is what I do already. At some point though it's just spam with the frequency. No one will generally comment or acknowledge the dumb ass posts, so they go away for sure. So I think I'm on the same page with you there. I actually think most readers here are doing that with some of the aforementioned posters. But some posters have gotten to the level of spammers at this point. They may think they're trolling others, but everyone basically ignores it like it's spam for the most part. So maybe it's time to treat it that way or have a filter/limit set up for those serial abusers.

Dan8267 says

The problem is not that TPB opens so many threads each day. The problem is that the threads he opens are all shit. Limiting quantity does not improve quality.

There are two workable solutions.

1. Patrick, and perhaps a few other credible users, form a meritocracy that rates threads, dinging shit and delegating it to a less in-your-face bucket. This has the advantage of being quick to implement. The disadvantages are having to manually perform the task every day and human bias, although the later is diminished by having a larger group of reviewers.

I don't have a problem with solution #1 here and think it's one way to attack the problem. My issue for the most part is with the limiting of quantity. Unless you've created a list of articles you've read over the last 3 hours, 24 hours or week and then post them all at once, there's really no way someone can put out 8 articles in an hour, at least thoughtfully in my opinion. I like many of the posters here, whether I agreement them or not, for posting informative stuff but also giving some of their ideas.

I guess I'm not a fan of posting a headline, the first paragraph and moving on. I could do that 20 times and hour, but what's the point of that? If you want to act like a news feed, then create your own site, get traffic to said site and watch it grow if you think the articles you're throwing up are any good. That type of behavior here is annoying, but this is just my opinion. But based on this post and others it seems there is a growing problem or at least the perception of a problem.

lostand confused says

Patrick-thanks for the site! Like they say don't look a gift horse in the mouth-folks have way too much expectations for something that is free.

I agree with this. I just know in the past Patrick has looked for feedback on some things. If he stopped tomorrow it wouldn't be the end of the world for any of us, or so I hope. I also don't think he would be doing this if there was some enjoyment or satisfaction in it (I'm not saying that's what you're saying with the comment). On a good day the site is really enjoyable. On a bad day I take one look and go somewhere else. That's all I'm getting at in the long run.

36   Dan8267   Aug 3, 1:55pm     ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

curious2 says

Patrick could grant "Premium" status to certain Users based on payment or trollishness score

Pay-for-troll? Wow, that would make Patrick a millionaire. Go for it.

This is the most brilliant business model I've ever heard. Monetize trolls.

37   PeopleUnited   Aug 3, 2:02pm     ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

Patrick says

curious2 says

A disadvantage, without Post limits, is the forum (including especially the home page) risks getting taken over by trolls.

What do you think of putting posts in the active list only after they get at least one comment from someone other than the post author?

The problem might be that no one would ever think to look in the "new" column and make the first comment on a post, which would then languish in obscurity no matter how good.

What I'm really looking for is a measure of "good" for a post.

A lot of people read posts but don't necessarily wish to comment. If there was a way to rank posts based on page views by (people other than the author) rather than time of most recent comment it would give the user the hot topic of the day based on what people are reading rather than just what trolls and other users are saying.

The biggest concern from a user perspective is the reduced value of time spent on Patnet due to:

1. Ad hominem and uncivil comments
2. Segregation and censorship by the ban button
3. Excessive posting by a vocal minority

38   curious2   Aug 3, 2:43pm     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

PeopleUnited says

If there was a way to rank posts based on page views by (people other than the author) rather than time of most recent comment it would give the user the hot topic of the day based on what people are reading

There are tabs to sort Posts by most "active" "comments" "likes" and "new", so a "views" tab would make sense. There is no perfect solution though. For example, if you post an accurate headline and summary short enough to fit the home page, it might not get many views, because you've covered the topic. On the other hand, if Blurtman posts a provocative headline without accurate summary, people might view it to see what it's about, even if it turns out to be a waste of time.

39   someone else   Aug 3, 3:36pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Here's TPB's most recent post count per day:


select count(*), cast(post_date as date) as d from posts left join users on post_author=user_id
where user_name='Tenpoundbass' group by d order by d desc limit 20;
+----------+------------+
| count(*) | d |
+----------+------------+
| 8 | 2017-08-03 |
| 16 | 2017-08-02 |
| 13 | 2017-08-01 |
| 6 | 2017-07-31 |
| 7 | 2017-07-30 |
| 7 | 2017-07-28 |
| 5 | 2017-07-27 |
| 3 | 2017-07-26 |
| 8 | 2017-07-25 |
| 6 | 2017-07-24 |
| 3 | 2017-07-23 |
| 5 | 2017-07-22 |
| 2 | 2017-07-21 |
| 4 | 2017-07-20 |
| 1 | 2017-07-18 |
| 4 | 2017-07-17 |
| 1 | 2017-07-16 |
| 2 | 2017-07-15 |
| 1 | 2017-07-14 |
| 15 | 2017-07-13 |
+----------+------------+

40   someone else   Aug 3, 3:44pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

curious2 says

There are tabs to sort Posts by most "active" "comments" "likes" and "new", so a "views" tab would make sense. There is no perfect solution though.

I did have a "views" tab at one point, but thought comments was better because it proves at least enough interest that someone responded. Also, you can pump the views number easily just by reloading the page over and over. I could make that harder to do, like requiring consecutive views to come from different IP addresses in order to be counted, but it's work, and could still be gamed.

Maybe net likes is the best? That's what Hackernews and Reddit use for their home pages. But not all that many people are using the vote up and down arrows on the home page.

OK, likes it is for the home page if you're not logged in.

Comments 1-40 of 55     Next »     Last »

users   about   suggestions   contact  
topics   random post   best comments   comment jail  
10 reasons it's a terrible time to buy  
8 groups who lie about the housing market  
37 bogus arguments about housing  
get a free bumper sticker:

top   bottom   home