A problem at the moment is that a downvoted post doesn’t move very far down the Hot page if people comment on it. Perhaps there needs to be a way to signal that a post is “irrelevant or of very low quality” which would be handled differently by the ranking algorithm. There could be a procedure something like:-
click “flag”
select a reason for the flag from the following options:-
irrelevant: unfree software
very low quality
Flagged posts could then be automatically downvoted into oblivion if it was flagged for the same reason by a majority.
I kind of feel a “ban on repeated offenses” is a better way of handling this because my impression is that those guys don’t give a s*** about downvotes or flags, they’re only here for the ads money. So they will keep posting regardless of any votes or flags. I personally wouldn’t mind a complete ban of their website, but whatever…
The difficulty with a ban on repeated offences is that it provides the offender with an incentive to have multiple user accounts and the enforcement of the ban becomes a tedious game of whack-a-mole. Much better to make it easier for members to recognise the offenders and ignore/downvote (or flag) their posts.
It’s worth considering a complete ban of websites which are pure garbage, but who should decide whether a website should be included in that set? And how to detect abuse of the decision process?
With a down vote of -8 it should not appear on the Hot feed no matter how many comments. People can still discuss there. With a higher down vote (like 12?) it should even disappear from the New feed. People would still want to discover posts like that. That’s why I would like to have a latest comments feed.
Oh that’s interesting. I haven’t looked at the code, but this clearly isn’t working: “Sad News! Development Stopped for Korora and BackSlash Linux” is currently ranked 12th hottest post and 12th newest post, but it has 16 downvotes.
edit: oh, perhaps you meant that this is how it should work, not that this is how it does work.
Unless there is a really really strong reason for this, I’m not keen on blocking an entire domain. itsfoss.com is not a “content farm” and is not spam, despite the objectively low quality. I think the problem here is that
most of their articles are not interesting to me/us here, as they are very low quality more often than not
they seem to post quite a lot of stuff about proprietary software which we are not interested in (I think I’m speaking for everyone here)
they repeatedly ignore any comments and requests to not post those articles here
A per-user black list would be an interesting feature, but it’s not implemented (yet?). What I can do immediately is disable their accounts. Let’s see how it goes.
Censoring shouldnt be forced. But give us the option to block the posts of certain users.
A problem at the moment is that a downvoted post doesn’t move very far down the Hot page if people comment on it. Perhaps there needs to be a way to signal that a post is “irrelevant or of very low quality” which would be handled differently by the ranking algorithm. There could be a procedure something like:-
Flagged posts could then be automatically downvoted into oblivion if it was flagged for the same reason by a majority.
I kind of feel a “ban on repeated offenses” is a better way of handling this because my impression is that those guys don’t give a s*** about downvotes or flags, they’re only here for the ads money. So they will keep posting regardless of any votes or flags. I personally wouldn’t mind a complete ban of their website, but whatever…
The difficulty with a ban on repeated offences is that it provides the offender with an incentive to have multiple user accounts and the enforcement of the ban becomes a tedious game of whack-a-mole. Much better to make it easier for members to recognise the offenders and ignore/downvote (or flag) their posts.
It’s worth considering a complete ban of websites which are pure garbage, but who should decide whether a website should be included in that set? And how to detect abuse of the decision process?
With a down vote of -8 it should not appear on the Hot feed no matter how many comments. People can still discuss there. With a higher down vote (like 12?) it should even disappear from the New feed. People would still want to discover posts like that. That’s why I would like to have a latest comments feed.
Oh that’s interesting. I haven’t looked at the code, but this clearly isn’t working: “Sad News! Development Stopped for Korora and BackSlash Linux” is currently ranked 12th hottest post and 12th newest post, but it has 16 downvotes.
edit: oh, perhaps you meant that this is how it should work, not that this is how it does work.
Unless there is a really really strong reason for this, I’m not keen on blocking an entire domain. itsfoss.com is not a “content farm” and is not spam, despite the objectively low quality. I think the problem here is that
A per-user black list would be an interesting feature, but it’s not implemented (yet?). What I can do immediately is disable their accounts. Let’s see how it goes.
Personally, I’d rather stick with downvotes on an article than censoring by domain.