Posted under General
I don't think users hiding comments for themselves is worth the strain. Even if it is done on the client side, like Granola said, once you see the annoying comment, the damage is already done. How many times do you read comments on the same post anyway?
Furthermore, I don't see why the average user should have a say in the first place. Appoint a few dozen comment moderators if you have to, but don't let every t0m, D1ck and Har0r go around hiding things.
Shinjidude said:
Basically this would be a new "favorites" system, but with the opposite meaning, and as such, if done server-side it would require a new DB table and would probably get a lot of records from a lot of users and would need queried any time any post or the comments are viewed. This sounds like a huge amount of additional load for little gain.
Since users can only vote on a given comment once, I assume that there must already be a table storing which users have voted on a given comment (or a table storing which comments have been voted on by a given user). If that exists, I wouldn't think it would be too much of a strain to make an analogous table for hiding comments for given users.
I could be wrong, though; I know very little about the underlying structure of Danbooru and virtually nothing about the database structure.
That's true, I had forgotten about that, so the same table could potentially have an additional boolean value for "hide-for-me".
My guess is though (and I just verified this), that as far as DB hits go, that table is only accessed any time a person votes or tries to vote.
By contrast, if the system was to automatically hide comments, it would need to hit the DB each time a comment would potentially be displayed to see if it's flagged to be hidden for that user or not.
Because of that frequency, it would be much more expensive than simply checking to see if someone had voted already or not.
Soljashy said:
I don't think users hiding comments for themselves is worth the strain. Even if it is done on the client side, like Granola said, once you see the annoying comment, the damage is already done. How many times do you read comments on the same post anyway?
I second this.
Also, I thought this system was aimed at "educating" users to raise the general quality of comments. Enhancing everyone's personal reading comfort isn't really going in this direction.
Is there a way right now for janitors/mods to see the total of up/down votes a particular user has accumulated?
glasnost said:
Er, that was me. I voted them down because they aren't relevant to the picture; nananonina misunderstood you and you corrected him. What's more, the discussion was finished, and you had already answered the one question that was relevant to the picture. In my opinion, that exchange wasn't something that everyone who looked at the picture would be interested in. Was I wrong?
I'm late to the party, but this stance is completely, utterly wrong. They're relevant to the picture, because they discuss matters of translation of the picture, and are direct followups to earlier comments. Whether it's done or not is bloody irrelevant. You're doing the same thing as idiots who edit out their question and replace it with "nevermind solved" because they got an answer in the forum. I want to bitchslap each and every one of you, because you'bre breaking the system by doing that. We have shit archived to make it possible to view it later, and just because you were finished with reading it 5 minutes later doesn't change anything in how relevant the comment is. This is exactly not what the voting system was for and consititutes pure abuse. Just think of it, do you tear out pages you have already read in a book? If not, why the hell would you do the same with comments?
This whole voting thing is a complete disaster, because it doesn't solve the problem of idiots commenting (why would it, if 99.9% of registered users are said idiots who come here only to fap?), but now it also allows them to hide comments for everyone else. Whence come things like mod warnings being downvoted by masses busy with adding "yaaaay~". And it does fuck all to solve the problem of inane comments bumping posts to the top.
I don't remember why comment voting was instilled in the firt place, but it wasn't a good idea in the slightest. Since opinions are subjective, there's always going to be people who don't agree with other comments, and downvote them just because, which prevents others who might be interested in them. How can anyone see warnings about spamming when fuckups immediately hide them? And since fuckups will always be fuckups, dumb comments haven't changed a bit.
Dogenzaka said:
I don't remember why comment voting was instilled in the firt place, but it wasn't a good idea in the slightest.
It was put in place because the old system was worse, and no one has yet proposed something better.
Since opinions are subjective, there's always going to be people who don't agree with other comments, and downvote them just because, which prevents others who might be interested in them.
That's why it's a vote. You aggregate the opinions of everyone on the assumption that reasonable people will prevail over the idiots. And before someone makes a snarky comment claiming that the idiots are in the majority: if that's really the case then we're probably fucked no matter what technical solution we try.
The old system was "users flag comments for review, which nobody actually bothered to do because comment moderation was a huge pain in the ass." Effectively there was no moderation and crap comments never got deleted. If you want that back, then just set your comment threshold to -100 in your profile settings.
evazion said:
It was put in place because the old system was worse, and no one has yet proposed something better.
Yes we did. I for one have been repeatedly requesting better moderation tools. Other people were repeatedly requesting to have the default threshold set at something lower than just -1.
That's why it's a vote. You aggregate the opinions of everyone on the assumption that reasonable people will prevail over the idiots. And before someone makes a snarky comment claiming that the idiots are in the majority: if that's really the case then we're probably fucked no matter what technical solution we try.
Bullshit. If that's the case, how come our image moderation works just fine? The current system has been compared to youtube from day one, and it gives exactly the same results. You don't leave idiots to decide what's stupid or not, and it's hardly "technical", it's just a matter of common sense.
evazion said:
The old system was "users flag comments for review, which nobody actually bothered to do because comment moderation was a huge pain in the ass." Effectively there was no moderation and crap comments never got deleted.
I don't see crap comments getting deleted now either, but at least back then you didn't have random users hiding legitimate and potentially informative comments (and setting my own threshold won't change that).
If that's the case, how come our image moderation works just fine?
But you don't rely on image votings (at least not decisively) when comes to approvals, so where's your point?
Votings should be for plebs, for their fun and for our sanity sake. For example instead of responding to one comment by writing and bumping thread with another hyper exciting oneliner like "I lol'd" you click +1, instead "U FAIL" you click -1, this is so plain and simple that even monkeys get that. But you must implement it correctly first, I'm afraid.
The current system has been compared to youtube from day one, and it gives exactly the same results.
There is no comparision of current system to youtube (with youtube being clearly superior one).
And like I said before - unfortunately - because, tadaam, this "oh so disgusting youtube system" works better and better with its every new edition.
You don't leave idiots to decide what's stupid or not, and it's hardly "technical", it's just a matter of common sense.
But why the hell not. Let them vote. Just let's not forget to give admins an axe to use when TOS is violated and everything should be perfectly fine.
Soljashy said:
But richie, this was never meant to be a system for gauging how much users like each others' comments. It was meant to replace the comment moderation queue as a moderation tool; it was supposed to abolish comments that violate the rules.
Most people don't feel obliged to moderate comments. To give their personal (dis)approval - yeah, maybe, why not; but to moderate them? especially when they are simple users? *shrug*
Still, there are areas when TOS overlaps with common sense, so yes, we can expect that comments will be moderated partially. I think it's an improvement from not moderated at all and could be a good help in real comments moderation, done by mods or let's say, enlighted users.
I think the point is not that inappropriate things get don't get moderated some of the time by the userbase as a whole; it's more that appropriate things get "moderated", and inappropriate things get "unmoderated" if there is enough crowd support to break the rules or squelch appropriate discussion.
The way things are set up currently, each user has the same clout as a mod in the comment system, and if two or three people want to override a mod to do whatever they want, or to silence them, that is well within their ability to do so. That doesn't seem to be how a functional moderation system should work.
If anything make comment moderation for priv+ (probably a good idea). We can't take away every feature the regular members have, unless we are planning on closing to the public again.
Regular members have valuable questions and commentary too. We just need a good way to winnow them from the chaff, and hopefully eventually teach them that posting garbage has repercussions.
