On the topic of mod/admin comment voting, I make plenty of doofy and/or "regular user" comments that should be subject to score. I've seen other sites (most notably Reddit) allow "staff" level accounts to flag certain comments as being "official business" which marks them in a special way and/or keeps them visible. I'm not sure how hard tha'd be to code in, but I'd imagine it being a checkbox next to "No Bump" that would add something below the timestamp denoting that the comment is "official" (no decently clear words or short phrases come to mind right now) and make it immune to voting.
so whats the deal with the comments being hidden when downvoted...why's that a thing?...no other site has it.
It's a user setting that allows users to filter out comments that don't have a certain score. To turn it off, just set a ridiculously low number like -1000 in your settings.
I just don't see why its a thing to begin with...personally I believe it shouldn't exist, the main reason being that trolls could use it to downvote and therefore hide comments from other people simply becouse they can.
I just don't see why its a thing to begin with...personally I believe it shouldn't exist, the main reason being that trolls could use it to downvote and therefore hide comments from other people simply becouse they can.
Trolls can easily be noticed, negged, and/or banned by a Mod+. I believe we handle them on a case to case basis, but it's not (or shouldn't be) as big a problem as you make it out to be.
There should be a nice big disclaimer that says to read howto:comment unless you're Gold+, I believe. It gives some decent guidelines to go by.
Also, other sites have a voting system (most notably Reddit). It's just that their default viewing threshold is lower than ours (-6 or something?) whereas ours is 0 by default. I think it should be lower (-1) but that's up to others to decide, and it can always be changed back in user settings.
EDIT: Apologies, thinking of another user my friend complains about.
so whats the deal with the comments being hidden when downvoted...why's that a thing?...no other site has it.
On the contrary, almost every other major site hides comments when they are voted below the certain threshold. It's just that our threshold is -1 by default.
define "major site" Type-kun...last time I checked youtube, dailymotion, facebook, twitter and a bunch of other major websites that I either can't be asked to name or don't remember the name of, didn't have this pointless comment system...as for you guys who have to deal with trolls avery 24/7...wouldn't it be easier to avoid being so hands on all the time by getting rid of the comment hiding...we can all be so much more better off without all this trouble from this comment systum...the comment systum of which we really didn't need to begin with.
That is not a really good idea to make this optional. One moderator only needs to forget to "immunize" their comments and they may get downvoted, although they gave a warning. That is a risk factor for users and should be eliminated to 100%. Therefore moderators shouldn't have this option. If at all: Make it vice versa: Let the moderators themselves decide if the comment should be able to get downvoted. That means, Mod A's are by default not down-voteable, unless Mod A decides to let it downvote. If they forget something here, it isn't nearly as much as important as having it the other way round. Besides that, downvoting and have the threshold set to -1 is, like I said, not so good since it destroys discussion pretty fast.
That is not a really good idea to make this optional. One moderator only needs to forget to "immunize" their comments and they may get downvoted, although they gave a warning. That is a risk factor for users and should be eliminated to 100%. Therefore moderators shouldn't have this option.
Nope, optional is the best way for now to avoid more controversies on the future. I suggest that the "immune" system also exist when Mods are editing their comment. Let's say, Mod A forgot to place "immunity" and trolls are downvoting him. All that Mod A need is to click Edit, check the "Immune" checkbox and Submit it. By doing this, the downvote becomes nullified and Mod A's comment can be shown again.
Nope, optional is the best way for now to avoid more controversies on the future. I suggest that the "immune" system also exist when Mods are editing their comment. Let's say, Mod A forgot to place "immunity" and trolls are downvoting him. All that Mod A need is to click Edit, check the "Immune" checkbox and Submit it. By doing this, the downvote becomes nullified and Mod A's comment can be shown again.
And what if this mod or any other mod is noticing this, for example because they are not aware of that change and are just going on with their daily work after creating such a comment. I'd say that even 0,1% probability of not using this option is too high. And what "controversies" would be created anyway? I can't imagine any.
RE: comment thresholds, any opinions on what the default should be? Currently it's -1 (two downvotes hide a post), but I just noticed this was changed from 0 (one downvote hides a post) in Sept. 2012, and I don't think existing accounts were updated for that change. I know mine is still zero. At the very least, I think old accounts should be updated with the current default.
I think if this comment systum must stay it should at least be fair...therefore I suggest that the downvote count for a comment to be hidden should be bumped up to 6 downvotes and for mods and other staff...3 downvotes...with great power comes great responsibility...and I believe this should be reflected in some way -_-
RE: comment thresholds, any opinions on what the default should be? Currently it's -1 (two downvotes hide a post), but I just noticed this was changed from 0 (one downvote hides a post) in Sept. 2012, and I don't think existing accounts were updated for that change. I know mine is still zero. At the very least, I think old accounts should be updated with the current default.
I think the -1 threshold (-2 to hide) is fine. Probably the bigger concern is updating all the older accounts' thresholds to the same one. There's a lot of older users that browse the site, and it heightens this perception that you can only post comments that are only lukewarm in nature, which can get boring. I know mine is still 0 and here I was wondering why people were mentioning -1 as the default. I've never changed it, last I remember.
EDIT: Though another way to sort of do this is maybe have all comments start with a score of 1? However it's preferred...
Is it normal, that if I use the bookmarklet on nicoseiga, that the artist name stays "None"? Because everytime I try to upload from nicoseiga, I don't get the artist tag.
Ironically, if I upload from Shunga with the bookmarklet, I get the artist name.
BrokenEagle98 said:
Yeah, for some reason, the artist lookup for NicoSeiga never seems to work, even though the artist link the Upload page provides can be used to look up the artist from the Artists page...? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Hmm, it looks like there is no artist finder support for NicoSeiga at all. The search on the artist index is wrong, those are bogus results because of issue #2696.
Hmm, it looks like there is no artist finder support for NicoSeiga at all. The search on the artist index is wrong, those are bogus results because of issue #2696.
Ah... no, actually they are legitimate results. The primary indicator is that it only returns one result. The secondary and perhaps most important indicator is that I always check the results returned, and therefore verify that the URL I searched for is indeed reflected on the artist page. I started doing that last part mostly because of issue #2696...
