invite responseComments 1 - 9 of 9 Search these comments
Dan8267
2012 Dec 6, 7:29am
A better solution would be to change the algorithm that picks which links to display on the front page to limiting the number of threads started by user X chosen to two.
That way, a user can still open many threads, but won't drown out other users. Also, if one user's threads all just happen to have the most recent comments, this won't drown out other threads as well.
Of course, if this change is implemented, I'd suggest having a page that shows all the threads that
1. the logged in user has read
2. have comments that the logged in user has not read
This will let users quickly scan threads to see if they want to continue a conversation.
Yea shrek, turn it down a notch. Keep all your redundant whining in one thread!
Patrick
2012 Dec 6, 7:53am
For example, one user posts so many news articles that he doesn't even have time to read them first and his headlines can vary widely from the actual articles. Most of his posts name the fashionable device that he posted from, as if advertising for the manufacturer.
I'm actually very grateful for Tovarich Peter's news links because that's where I get a lot of the material to send out in the nightly emails. I don't think he intends to advertise the iPad over and over, it's just the ghost of Steve Jobs popping up because of the way the iPad insists on inserting itself into what you copy.
But I did make it so that "Sent from my iPad" is removed from new threads.
A better solution would be to change the algorithm that picks which links to display on the front page to limiting the number of threads started by user X chosen to two.
Hmmm, interesting idea. Maybe getting on the front page should depend on the user's reputation.
Of course, if this change is implemented, I'd suggest having a page that shows all the threads that
1. the logged in user has read
2. have comments that the logged in user has not read
You mean like the home page does, but somewhere else?
Yea shrek, turn it down a notch. Keep all your redundant whining in one thread!
Yes, I always cringe when I see a new thread from Shrek/Mars Attacks/Melmakian because I know pretty much it's going to be just like all his other threads.
Dan8267
2012 Dec 6, 8:04am
You mean like the home page does, but somewhere else?
The homepage of patrick.net displays the most recently updated threads, where an update is either an original post or a comment that's been added.
The page I described would list all threads that the logged in user has read, but have been updated since the user last read them. This list could differ greatly from the threads shown on the homepage because the user might not have read all the threads that have most recently been updated.
To summarize, the homepage shows the most recent thread activity, whereas the user's "following page" displays the most recent thread activity for threads that either the user has read or has commented on (or perhaps both in separate lists with dups removed from the second list).
Patrick
2012 Dec 6, 8:15am
The page I described would list all threads that the logged in user has read, but have been updated since the user last read them. This list could differ greatly from the threads shown on the homepage because the user might not have read all the threads that have most recently been updated.
Now I understand better.
How about I just make the home page show only the threads that are new or have unread comments for that user?
So if you're logged in and have read a thread and there are no new comments on it, it would not show up. That would be pretty easy to do I think.
curious2
2012 Dec 6, 10:32am
They need to take one extra second and click on one of the tabs at the top and then they can read all the threads under that category.
There are 13 tabs at the top, so if you can click and refresh and read all of those in one second you must be extraordinarily quick. Besides, the vulnerability to quasi-spamming would remain, whether concentrated in a single tab or spread across them. If Patrick wants to let PatNet become ShrekNet, that's his choice, but it would be sad.
Much of Craig's List got taken over by spammers, and in my opinion it was a sad loss.
Patrick
2012 Dec 6, 10:37am
the vulnerability to quasi-spamming would remain, whether concentrated in a single tab or spread across them. If Patrick wants to let PatNet become ShrekNet, that's his choice, but it would be sad.
The idea of becoming ShrekNet is horrifying. But if people don't respond to his threads, they will rapidly fall off the home page.
Maybe there should be some limit to the number of new threads you can post though.
elliemae
2012 Dec 7, 1:09am
T-peter's stuff is interesting, I like it. Has there been a problem with too much crap posted? If so, then limit that person. If it's not a problem, why make it one?
Sometimes a single User seems to spam the front page with New Threads, hijacking much of the site and drowning out all other topics.
Sometimes the intentions are good but the results aren't. For example, one user posts so many news articles that he doesn't even have time to read them first and his headlines can vary widely from the actual articles. Most of his posts name the fashionable device that he posted from, as if advertising for the manufacturer. At least he is a Premium member, so the excess may be forgiven because he's helping to pay for the site.
Other times the intention seems to be trolling for attention. For example, one user posts political harangues regardless of reality, and even harangues against Patrick. Allowing free debate doesn't require allowing a troll to hijack the front page, drowning out other topics. The user doesn't seem interested in helping the site, rather the goal seems to be to get attention and foment acrimony (which he calls hate though annoyance would be more accurate).
So, might it be a good idea to limit basic Users to two New Threads per day, and Premium Users to maybe five?