Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators
Thanks to johnstevens77,Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34, for Donating to support the site
Rec's Debate
-
- Lemon Pip
- Posts: 81
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:25 am
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 11 times
Re: Rec's Debate
I used the TMF BOB in a 24 hour option. So I could see the most rec'd posts in the last 24 hours. It was useful to pick out those little gems on boards that you rarely frequented.
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 4092
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:24 am
- Has thanked: 3233 times
- Been thanked: 2827 times
Re: Rec's Debate
stooz wrote:How does BoB work? I have been looking at options, and BoB's seem to be all time ever. I would assume it would be preferred to be a last 7 days option?
On TMF it defaults to 24hrs, but with an option for 7 days or any date window.
If you can't easily handle such detailed user-options, I'd vote for a fixed 24hrs or maybe 48hrs. I think 7 days is too long.... a post which is hot today and trending might be lost in older stuff which accumulated a load of recs but is now a dead topic
--kiloran
-
- Lemon Slice
- Posts: 313
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:43 am
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 55 times
Re: Rec's Debate
Stooz,
Bob could be 24 hours, past week, past year, custom!
Really, as an interim 24 hours will be fine I imagine, the "regulars" probably log in every day anyhow.
However, going forward, custom would be ideal. When I was away, I would come back and look for best of from the date I went away to "now".
Meatyfool..
Bob could be 24 hours, past week, past year, custom!
Really, as an interim 24 hours will be fine I imagine, the "regulars" probably log in every day anyhow.
However, going forward, custom would be ideal. When I was away, I would come back and look for best of from the date I went away to "now".
Meatyfool..
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 6381
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:35 am
- Has thanked: 1880 times
- Been thanked: 2026 times
Re: Rec's Debate
It defaults to 'last 24 hours'
It is possible to change to 'last 7 days', or a specified data range
The default number of posts is 25, but this can also be changed (up to 99)
It is possible to change to 'last 7 days', or a specified data range
The default number of posts is 25, but this can also be changed (up to 99)
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 3131
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:39 pm
- Has thanked: 3060 times
- Been thanked: 554 times
Re: Rec's Debate
I'm 'named-and-shamed' in the 1st post of the topic as being against recs. At least I'm named together with Pyad so I'm in good company! Perhaps I should say [here] why I think this, and no it's not because no one ever recs my posts
I have posted for many years [c20?] on fora that have a rec-system, and others that do not. My overall impression is that a one-way, rec-up^ only system distorts behaviour. Some people, 'rec-sluts/gong-collectors', write not so much for quality of content, but for garnering impact and recs from the client-audience they know will like whatever they say, as it speaks to and for them. I'm sure most of us can recall Fools who have had a tendency to post-for-effect/reward in this way. Therefore IME it seems it can lead to a tendency to write not something that might be of insight and value, but something the writer knows others will agree with and 'reward' you in return. Just have a look at how some Fools used to post when they were at risk of being ejected from the bottom of the Top-Favs board The other thing with this phenomenon, the often exaggerated style of rec-slutting, is that IME it polarises a board, it leads to tribalism, heightened tempers etc, and it's not beneficial to a board itself.
There are many good suggestions in this topic how a system might be constructed to help identify genuinely insightful posts, and it's clearly not a clear-cut matter. As suggested the 'genuinely insightful vs tribal/simply something I agree with' issue is the tricky bit to overcome, and right now I'm not sure how it might work.
[I know that the above is only 3 paras long rather than a fully comprehensive 3 pages, but if anyone has any recs to spare today I'd appreciate it, since I've a tarnished gong and was hoping to have it re-polished tonight etc ]
I have posted for many years [c20?] on fora that have a rec-system, and others that do not. My overall impression is that a one-way, rec-up^ only system distorts behaviour. Some people, 'rec-sluts/gong-collectors', write not so much for quality of content, but for garnering impact and recs from the client-audience they know will like whatever they say, as it speaks to and for them. I'm sure most of us can recall Fools who have had a tendency to post-for-effect/reward in this way. Therefore IME it seems it can lead to a tendency to write not something that might be of insight and value, but something the writer knows others will agree with and 'reward' you in return. Just have a look at how some Fools used to post when they were at risk of being ejected from the bottom of the Top-Favs board The other thing with this phenomenon, the often exaggerated style of rec-slutting, is that IME it polarises a board, it leads to tribalism, heightened tempers etc, and it's not beneficial to a board itself.
There are many good suggestions in this topic how a system might be constructed to help identify genuinely insightful posts, and it's clearly not a clear-cut matter. As suggested the 'genuinely insightful vs tribal/simply something I agree with' issue is the tricky bit to overcome, and right now I'm not sure how it might work.
[I know that the above is only 3 paras long rather than a fully comprehensive 3 pages, but if anyone has any recs to spare today I'd appreciate it, since I've a tarnished gong and was hoping to have it re-polished tonight etc ]
Re: Rec's Debate
Like many i think a rec system has merit- I suspect the reason that TMF struggled was that it was apparent that posters were more competent,thoughtful, analytical and just more useful to read than the company stuff.I hope that the "stars " of TMF migrate here ,where their expertise can continue to assist the rest of us.Many posters had earned their recs through years of well- informed thoughtful contributions , fool users could generally rely on the opinions, advice and expertise of those often at the top of the rec charts.
I think the fool audience is generally better behaved , and less inclined to slanging matches than any other forum I have found - we'r far from perfect but sensible enough in the main to use recs for the purpose of highlighting good quality input worthy of a wider audience than chance would provide. I strongly support a simple rec system covering ALL boards, and strict moderation to nip personal abuse in the bud maybe (a yellow/ red card sytem )to suspend those who disrespect the positive ethos of the boards.
I think the fool audience is generally better behaved , and less inclined to slanging matches than any other forum I have found - we'r far from perfect but sensible enough in the main to use recs for the purpose of highlighting good quality input worthy of a wider audience than chance would provide. I strongly support a simple rec system covering ALL boards, and strict moderation to nip personal abuse in the bud maybe (a yellow/ red card sytem )to suspend those who disrespect the positive ethos of the boards.
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 5768
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:22 am
- Has thanked: 4097 times
- Been thanked: 2559 times
Re: Rec's Debate
Maybe when we can have a poll, and.... things have settled down a bit... we should have a poll.
Do we want Recs?
Then, if so, how should they operate?
It also depends crucially on what is easily manageable in terms of programming.
As has been pointed out in another thread, it's all very well setting up options, but anything that requires amending the base code will bring problems when the software is updated, as any such changes have to be manually recreated.
Let's remember that this Rolls-Royce is being propelled by two wonderful unpaid guys on a tandem :}
V8
Do we want Recs?
Then, if so, how should they operate?
It also depends crucially on what is easily manageable in terms of programming.
As has been pointed out in another thread, it's all very well setting up options, but anything that requires amending the base code will bring problems when the software is updated, as any such changes have to be manually recreated.
Let's remember that this Rolls-Royce is being propelled by two wonderful unpaid guys on a tandem :}
V8
Return to “Room 102 - Site Issues, Complaints & General Chat”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: robbelg and 10 guests