I disagreeNot to be disagree-able... you couldn't have gotten any "disagrees" before (IIRC) March 2016. There were no options to "disagree" before then.
Then things changed....
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Degradation of the Community...
- Thread starter jeffro01
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Site Feedback
Not to be disagree-able
Then things changed....
We had some red/green negative/positive feedback bars with the old forum. I was getting nothing but goodness from those.
Still happening in many places.
Lots of service centers still have close relationships with owners. Owners take the time to make that happen. I've brought breakfast and other times brought treats. The local club in Rocklin, CA has done bbqs in the parking lot and other events to strengthen relationships for all owners.
View attachment 245823 View attachment 245824 View attachment 245825
In addition to local Tesla club events, camaraderie is alive and well at TMC Connect. At all of these, I highly value the opportunity to get to know the faces and people behind their forum aliases and maintain these relationships.
Do you think that it could be that the red/green feedback bars in the old forum actually carried a lot more weight?
IIRC, giving out enough red bars could ultimately get someone banned if enough members did it (please correct me if I am wrong). Currently giving out "disagrees" just irks people but has no real repurcussions... as far as I can tell.
So maybe folks were more judicious in giving out red bars, since it actually meant a lot in the community. (FWIW, I am a big disliker of the dislike/disagree button...refuse to use it...prefer to post a reply than give a dislike/disagree).
I believe red bars and negative rep were disabled due to either abuse or a general distaste, or some combination of both.
edit: Perhaps the software could limit the number of "likes" and "disagrees" that a member can give, based on how many they've received or some other maturity metric. This isn't an uncommon strategy elsewhere. That might make the quick click voting have a little more gravity.
Last edited:
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
AFAIK there were no direct repercussions to the red bars. However, the "rep" was visible directly under the user name, so someone with lots of negative reputation would be viewed in a certain way. Now you have to click the user name to view the stats (and some block their user page).
One advantage to the previous system was that the negative reputation can be accompanied with a short message on why it was given. The current system doesn't have that (although you can leave a separate comment on the thread, but it's an extra step most won't bother with). The old system however had that as anonymous.
Yes! Now I remember that. It was kind of confusing when I got a message out of the blue (fortunately it was complimentary) with some green bars. Couldn't reply to say thanks, and didn't know who to reply to! But I understand the idea behind it now, especially with the negative rep bars. Give a negative rep bar, try to provide useful anonymous feedback on why it was given.
Now it seems the "dislike/disagree" is just engendering a kind of tit for tat process instead. Some folks may be tracking who are "disagreeing" with their posts, and then spam that person(s) back... or is that a stretch?
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I don't know if people got as far as tracking people to other threads, but I have seen people who take offense and then retaliate/get into an argument in the same thread.
The current "disagree" button was actually "dislike" and then they changed it because "dislike" was apparently too offensive.
There were whole threads about how person X was "disliking" all of person Y's posts. How person X "stalked" all of person Y's posts and proceeded to "dislike" all their posts. Then the eventual retaliation.
This may have partially led to the change in terminology of the "dislike" to "disagree".
PS--your screen name is particularly appropriate for those types of "dislike/disagree" spamming.
In the old system, one accrued "power" as one accrued reputation points. So, if a person with a lot of green bars gave you a positive, it increased your reputation more than if, say, a brand new member did. TypicAlly, it would take a member a couple of years on the forum to accrue high reputation and reputation giving power.
You were also limited in how often you could give reputation.
As I recall, it was not that common to get granted points. You had to be very helpful, informational, or amusing. And, when they came with comments, it was a feel good moment.
Personally, I thought this system was pretty effective until groups started gaming it. Blatantly shilling for rep points: I'll give you some if you give me some. One member shot up to maximum reputation in a few months just by begging.
I believe some members felt this system was too exclusive and weighted long term members too much over newbies.
IMO, despite some flaws, the old system was far better. In each post, you could see member's total post count and reputation. It was hard to hide reality. High post count/low rep was usually a loudmouth. High post count, high rep was a prolific contributor. Low post count high rep: expect jewels frequently.
I think the current system would be greatly improved by removing both like and disagree. Then your options would be helpful, informative, or funny. If you want to disagree, you've got to say why. OTOH, it might just increase negative posts. I guess these sociological effects are hard to predict.
You were also limited in how often you could give reputation.
As I recall, it was not that common to get granted points. You had to be very helpful, informational, or amusing. And, when they came with comments, it was a feel good moment.
Personally, I thought this system was pretty effective until groups started gaming it. Blatantly shilling for rep points: I'll give you some if you give me some. One member shot up to maximum reputation in a few months just by begging.
I believe some members felt this system was too exclusive and weighted long term members too much over newbies.
IMO, despite some flaws, the old system was far better. In each post, you could see member's total post count and reputation. It was hard to hide reality. High post count/low rep was usually a loudmouth. High post count, high rep was a prolific contributor. Low post count high rep: expect jewels frequently.
I think the current system would be greatly improved by removing both like and disagree. Then your options would be helpful, informative, or funny. If you want to disagree, you've got to say why. OTOH, it might just increase negative posts. I guess these sociological effects are hard to predict.
Agree--the "disagree" button is lazy and does not contribute to the thread
anticitizen13.7
Not posting at TMC after 9/17/2018
I agree completely.
Under the old system it was easy for anyone to ascertain a member in good standing versus a troublemaker. Bad actors could not easily spread FUD and be credible on the surface.
That's not true today, unfortunately. If the admins here won't ban the chronic misbehaving people, there should at least be a visible marker of their record of bad acts. The red bar in the previous forum was a clear signal of low credibility and poor reputation.
Well I do agree that bad actors were more obvious but if I recall correctly, only mods could give negative reputation points (i.e. Red bar). So, it was still up to the mods... I guess that gave them a remedy short of suspension.
There is a function in Xenforo that is calling "warning points" which we can use here. We've discussed standardizing what those mean, because currently they're a bit arbitrary. But there is a record of the number of times a user has been warned, and the reason for each warning. Other mods can see this, so it does provide us nsome context on prior behavior in other areas of the forum.
cpa
Active Member
anticitizen13.7
Not posting at TMC after 9/17/2018
What do people think of posts that are made simply for the sake of being a [explitive of your choice]?
For example: 2017 Investor Roundtable:General Discussion, which is the kind of smarmy, devoid of substance post designed for one purpose: to sow doubt for the benefit of a known short seller.
The moderator(s) in the Investors forum have chosen to allow this kind of behavior, from what I am told, in the service of "Fair and Balanced" coverage of the stock. But there are plenty of people who provide honest feedback of where Tesla has issues or potential future problems, using reasoned arguments rather than FUD. It is a source of puzzlement to me why the administration here allows TMC to be used as a platform to attack Tesla and EVs.
For example: 2017 Investor Roundtable:General Discussion, which is the kind of smarmy, devoid of substance post designed for one purpose: to sow doubt for the benefit of a known short seller.
The moderator(s) in the Investors forum have chosen to allow this kind of behavior, from what I am told, in the service of "Fair and Balanced" coverage of the stock. But there are plenty of people who provide honest feedback of where Tesla has issues or potential future problems, using reasoned arguments rather than FUD. It is a source of puzzlement to me why the administration here allows TMC to be used as a platform to attack Tesla and EVs.
To be fair. That individual has publicly accepted a bet with another poster.
Depending on which car sells more (worldwide) next year, either that individual or the other poster will take a self imposed ban for a year from TMC. So for him/her to be posting negatively, we have to view in the context of this bet*. As far as I can tell it technically does not violate the rules of the forum.
*I wonder if a fixed imposed signature (that cannot be edited by said parties) can be added... referring to this bet for both sides, so everyone reading their posts will understand that they both have a stake in the outcome--not just TSLA stock, but here on TMC.
Similar threads
