patrick.net

justme says

HOW TO RESTORE PATNET TO ITS FORMER GLORY:

Thank you! Those are great suggestions. Look for your changes to happen this weekend @justme

@Patrick,

Thank you. I know I am probably being a bit crass lately, but it is well meant, and it comes from the heart. Make Patnet Great Aagain!

WookieMan says

me123 says

It appears you rather bitch about it instead of taking the easy step.

You have any suggestions for @Patrick ?

It's clear I'm just supposed to put spammers on ignore even though they're creating alt's left and right. I'm supposed to just be cool with that. Please enlighten us why a bot and/or user spamming the site makes it better?

I'll be waiting.

You’ve got to be fucking kidding. You’re responding to the biggest troll I’ve ever come across in all my history of Internet forums. The POS spends all day every day here, disrupting the forum and attacking the users. And you’re asking her to enlighten you?


https://patrick.net/post/1288883/get-a-life-you-fucking-loser

errc says

You’ve got to be fucking kidding. You’re responding to the biggest troll I’ve ever come across in all my history of Internet forums.

No I'm not kidding. Sure I've seen his trollish habits for sure. A lot of users here have trollish habits though. I recently trolled the bot. I've trolled crazy Gary in the past. Whether intentional or not, the typed word can be completely misconstrued by the reader as someone acting as a troll. I'm not saying that's the case in yours and others experiences with Me123 (or his previous alt's).

But from a personal level on this forum, I'll give everyone a chance in interactions with me. Me123 said I was bitching. I mentioned I don't think it's bitching when it's talking about the quality of something, basically. If you bought a new car and the transmission went in the first 500 miles, you'd be bitching. Almost anyone would. Not that patnet is a new car, but bots/spammers make patnet not work, so I was discussing it. That was my opinion.

He replied in comment 65 without attacking me. Yes he mentions other users that he thinks bring down the site. I tend to disagree with his opinion about the other users. He can read this and decide to respond or not. For me, the conversation is over. He has his opinion and I'm not going to change it. So I'm not going to now reply defending other users that I think are fine and he doesn't think they're fine. We all know the end game.

This is the stage in the conversation where a lot of users keep engaging in a back and forth. And it's not always with Me123. It's points like this where many active users here just drag it down into the gutter. It's so commonplace now that many users just jump straight into the childish BS regardless of what is being said or discussed. And honestly, if that's what people want to do, that's fine. I'll just be reading something else and hopefully having more thoughtful and interesting conversations elsewhere. If this were a farm, some people like a muddy pig pen, that's cool with me if that's your cup of tea. I prefer the heated horse barn is all I'm saying.

The above comment is only in regards to opinions. Not factual arguments. If someone is being a bonehead then that's obviously a problem. Lot's of people have bad opinions though. That doesn't automatically make me ignore them.

WookieMan says

Lot's of people have bad opinions though.

Today's trolling lesson for all Patnetters,pay attention:

So that's your opinion.Wonder if the other 11,157 registered users think that your opinion is bad.

WookieMan says

It's points like this where many active users here just drag it down into the gutter.

Any Patnetter that's not in the sewer should be banned for life. I'm sick of all the snowflake gutter residents.

@Patrick,

Should patnet be branded as an investigative site? What is the brand right now, after the "free speech" brand went by the wayside. Being investigative is a bit like being a wiki, bit while still being a blog.

At the moment, the brand is just #housing #investing #politics

#housing being the original focus
#investing being the one that could make money through advertising, and a personal interest
#politics being what people really write about mostly

But sure, I like the idea of being an investigative site. How would that work? I don't have time to investigate stories since getting a real job again.

I was just thinking that perhaps posts should have a "wiki" option, where the post author agrees to let others edit the original post, subject to moderation by the author. Diffs would show up as a new comment so everyone could see what changed in the original post, and by whom.

@Patrick,

Yeah, I don't know exactly how "being investigative" would work. But I like fact-finding, discovering truths that are not well publicized. But, there is the complication that many of the current patnet patrons are much more interested in political point-scoring than finding the truth.

I don't think that allowing other people to edit other's posts will work. Too many trolls around here that would vandalize. But one other idea is to look like a Wiki+comments. WIkipedia is good but the discussion behind it is hidden, which is bad. Also, the discussion is a bout word-smithing, although hidden behind the word-smithing is very often a political agenda. Come to think of it, the main defining property of a Wiki is that it has only one article/thread/post per topic. Having if not exactly one, then at least fewer redundant articles per topic would be a huge improvement.

Another way of reducing crap and redundancy is to have elevated counterpoint comments: If a thread is crap (according to some user), they can write a counter-comment and have it elevated to first position (or-side-by-side) position by Editor's choice, and even have its own top-level visible headline to fix those topical/obscure/bad headlines that are all over patnet. But I know, being Editor is work and I don't like doing it, either. I like to contribute when I have time, and when there is something useful being discussed.

Yet another way to do it, and this idea is growing on me as I write, is to have a side-by-side counter-thread with its own headline. Each thread-counterthread could have its own upvote but no downvote. Once you have upvoted one of the thread-counterthread pairs, you can only write on that "side" of the thread. Multiple usernames must of course be disallowed to avoid trojan-troll users that want to write on both sides and wreak havoc.

Nothing is ever easy, but I'm trying to brainstorm.

PS: Editing is work and I don't like doing it either, but the main reason it is too much work is the thread diarrhea.

@ Patrick,

Hashtags make for a more or less flat structure. To cut down on crap, I like the idea of a tree structure. Useless discussions about how Trump is MAGA or an orange idiot should be in one place. If you cannot find a place, then there should be no misc in which t put . I guess Redditt has a tree structure with user-defined groups? Okay, now I'm just rambling. Nevermind ;)

justme says

But I like fact-finding, discovering truths that are not well publicized.

Me too, like the article about the Sackler family.

justme says

I don't think that allowing other people to edit other's posts will work. Too many trolls around here that would vandalize.

How about if editing is limited to a set of people you approve, like your patrick.net friends? (Would need to recreate the "befriend" link then, but that's not hard.)

justme says

the main defining property of a Wiki is that it has only one article/thread/post per topic. Having if not exactly one, then at least fewer redundant articles per topic would be a huge improvement.

How does Wikipedia enforce that? Manual merging of redundant posts?

I do have a database uniqueness requirement for post titles, but obviously that's not enough. I could also require that any external link like the Sackler article be referenced in exactly one post.

The idea of point-counterpoint is interesting. So maybe there should be a single post with for and against comments about a clearly stated proposition, such as: "Should the Federal Reserve be abolished?" Each comment would have to take a side. Or is that too confining, if someone just wants to make an observation?

Patrick says

Me too, like the article about the Sackler family.

Exactly. Stuff that you need to know, but is well hidden, or has just been hidden by a flood of crap.

Patrick says

Or is that too confining, if someone just wants to make an observation?

Yeah, I think it is too confining. Too much like a debate team contest or some such. People want to make observations. Others want to spread propaganda. To counteract propaganda, you need a counterthread, side by side. I really have no way of knowing whether it would work, but I have never seen it, and it might be worth a try. Or at least a "featured countercomment" that appears first. But how to select it in a good way? And how to fight bad headlines?

I just had a look at http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/ . It was surprisingly interesting, but not sure whether it has any bearing on Patnet. Most significantly, politifact has no comment section :).

justme says

I just had a look at http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/ . It was surprisingly interesting, but not sure whether it has any bearing on Patnet. Most significantly, politifact has no comment section :).

Yes, this makes me assume it's just one more highly partisan site pretending not to be. Like the NY Times.

There is also

http://factcheck.org/

Lol, again no comments allowed.

justme says

1. post limits

New users: 1 post/day, 2 posts/week, Established users, 2 posts/day, 5 posts/week. Weeks could be rolling 7-day periods. The quality and usefulness of patnet is inversely proportional to the number of posts per day. New users are people who have been registered less than 1 year. People who change their usernames should be considered new users, but changing username really should be forbidden.

I sort-of agree, but don't want to be quite that restrictive. So here are the new post limit rules:

Anonymous users cannot create new posts (aka threads).
Logged-in users can create as many posts per day as the number of whole weeks they have been registered, up to 7 posts in a day for users registered 7 or more weeks.
Changing username more than one time will cost $5 per change. (Have not implemented that one yet.)

justme says

To counteract propaganda, you need a counterthread, side by side. I really have no way of knowing whether it would work, but I have never seen it, and it might be worth a try.

You might like procon.org.

That site limits the topics of discussion though, so users may only debate topics that the owners have approved as debatable. For example, the site permits users to debate whether people are born gay and have a right to the equal protection of the laws governing marriage, but the site does not permit users to debate Islam, nor the ban on Muslim immigration that candidate Trump suggested in 2016. As a result, Muslims may argue that gay people have chosen to defy Allah and that jihadis have a right and sacred duty to kill gay couples. In contrast, no one is allowed to say the President should exercise his Constitutional authority to defend our country from advocates of a totalitarian doctrine that commands believers must kill Americans, violently overthrow our government, and impose Sharia. “If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.”

justme says

4. up-and-down voting:

... Up/Down scores also need to be separated so that people can see activity level not just the final score. Just seeing N-N=0 does not tell me anything about a post, nor can it be used to rank the post for activity.

OK, the up and down vote numbers are not displayed separately, though the posts are still ranked by the net of up and down.

justme says

5. Ignore function should exist, and each user should have ignored-by-N-people showing. The latter is very important, because new users need to see who is being either a troll or just wildly partisan.

OK, making my way through the list.

Now there is a number and an ignore icon by each user's comment.

Patrick says

Now there is a number and an ignore icon by each user's comment.

Even better if this shows also on the top level of the threads. That is one place where it is sorely needed.

justme says

11. threads should have yyyy/mm/dd in their URL, so that one can more easily search by date.

OK, got that one done too just now. So urls look like this now, with yyyy-mm-dd in them:

https://patrick.net/post/1311413/2017-10-23-repubs-taking-aim-at-401k-contributions

justme says

14. comment layout: please insert a space between the comment header and the first line/paragraph of comment. If there is only one paragraph, comment is too easy to overlook.

@justme can you post or mail me a screen shot? I don't see what you mean.

This line is too tight up against the comment header. A space in between would help. @Patrick.

Patrick says

justme says

I just had a look at http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/ . It was surprisingly interesting, but not sure whether it has any bearing on Patnet. Most significantly, politifact has no comment section :).

Yes, this makes me assume it's just one more highly partisan site pretending not to be. Like the NY Times.

Politifact is owned by the radical, lefty, liberal Tampa Bay Times. They won't allow and alternate narratives to derail their partisan bullshit.

justme says

This line is too tight up against the comment header. A space in between would help. @Patrick.

OK, made the comment content a div instead of span and changed br to p.
Look better?

justme says

his line is too tight up against the comment header. A space in between would help. @Patrick.

Same goes for the original post or thread at the beginning. It would be nice to have the text start under the down vote arrow. Can't find an example quickly, but I've even seen it get bumped up to the right of a users avatar making it even closer to the header content. When it does that and the first part of the post is a link, I sometime miss the link completely.

I had been waiting for a daily post limit,so I started posting until a pop-up told that I had reached my daily limit,seven.
Peoples' inability to think critically keeps me entertained.
I can post seven threads in a row & constantly comment to keep them at the top of the page.
When I'm banned from making too many comments on my threads,I can constantly comment
on other threads that I think will piss off all the infants.

Patrick rule #1 will not be repeated again.Get it thru your thick skull!
Everyone must read all threads & comments & respond to let us know how brilliant you are.
If one can't think of something brilliant just bitch & moan.

Don't know how old I was the first time I heard,"Grow the fuck up!"

me123 says

Patrick says

justme says

I just had a look at http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/ . It was surprisingly interesting, but not sure whether it has any bearing on Patnet. Most significantly, politifact has no comment section :).

Yes, this makes me assume it's just one more highly partisan site pretending not to be. Like the NY Times.

Politifact is owned by the radical, lefty, liberal Tampa Bay Times. They won't allow and alternate narratives to derail their partisan bullshit.

So where do you go for Real News, free of partisan bullshit?

errc says

So where do you go for Real News, free of partisan bullshit?

This is indeed a problem.

I read a lot of foreign news to see their take on US politics. Chinese, Indian, Russian.

WookieMan says

Same goes for the original post or thread at the beginning. It would be nice to have the text start under the down vote arrow. Can't find an example quickly, but I've even seen it get bumped up to the right of a users avatar making it even closer to the header content. When it does that and the first part of the post is a link, I sometime miss the link completely.

OK, I pushed the original post content down a bit. Better?

errc says

So where do you go for Real News, free of partisan bullshit?

RT (Russia's Today)

Patrick says

OK, I pushed the original post content down a bit. Better?

Good by me! Thanks.

Hey @Partick was scrolling through and saw the new comment notification. Clicked in and it was my last post from a couple of days ago. Screen shot below from just now w/ the notification thingy. There a reason I'd see the notification on the home page with no new comment? Deleted anon post or that Oil user that I'm pretty sure is the Hong Kong bot?

Patrick says

errc says

So where do you go for Real News, free of partisan bullshit?

This is indeed a problem.

I read a lot of foreign news to see their take on US politics. Chinese, Indian, Russian.

Can't believe I am saying it but I recommend Al Jazeera English. Unlike US news which spews leftie rightie crap to trigger us into ratings gold, AL Jazerra covers just enough of the US to keep you informed.

The problem for them is "straight news" is boring, and since consumers sadly prefer tribal infotainment like Fox/MSNBC legit news like this is dying. They recently had to shut down their TV channel because of this.

Point being if you want quality journalism YOU must "vote with your eyeballs" and give them a gander or two.

WookieMan says

Hey Partick was scrolling through and saw the new comment notification. Clicked in and it was my last post from a couple of days ago. Screen shot below from just now w/ the notification thingy. There a reason I'd see the notification on the home page with no new comment? Deleted anon post or that Oil user that I'm pretty sure is the Hong Kong bot?

Seems like a bug. You should not get a new comment blinky for your own comment.

@Patrick, too many old users with new accounts and therefore names, not sure how to solve that one....

"Sniper" is the most recent one.

justme says

"Sniper" is the most recent one.

That's Me123, aka "piggy", CIC, ironman, etc. Patrick did mention charging money for username switches, which I think makes sense. I don't get the point of switching a username. Own what you type.

I've been harping on it for the last couple of weeks, but the anonymous posters have been bugging me. There needs to be a way to identify them and allow users to ignore a specific anon.

Working on it. I have a real job as a node developer now, which is rapidly improving my skills, but limits me to the weekend for big changes.

Anyone who wants to help please see the source code link in the footer.

Looks like anonymous feature with username anon_HEXHASH format is working. There is only one problem: Sometime people just forgot to login and then accidentally "out themselves" by following up on a discussion they were already in. Not me, hehe. Others take the opportunity to say what they really feel :-)

@Patrick, is the HEXHASH based on the ip address or what? I did not see an announcement, I may just have missed it.

@justme yes, it's just part of the hash of their ip address.

LOL outing my own anon name here.