At 3/3/03 03:39 PM, LeatherQueen wrote: Cute pic. Makes sense, I suppose. They are all fuckers after all, eh?
Glad you guys like the pic. I didn't make it up, though :(
I got it from maddox.xmission.com ... The guy is hilarious :)
As for blamming videos, at least the Fulps that Be have made it so you have to at least click on the video before you blam it...which is all they can really do. If people want to be dicks, unfortunately, they can be dicks.
This is getting kind of sad now.
Has anyone noticed a disturbing trend of mass blamming?
Johnny Rocketfingers, John's Arm 3, and The Grim Reaper 2 have been subject to mass blamming lately. JA3 and Grim Reaper have both lost -almost- a half point in one week. And strangely enough, crappers, like B, have been rising steadily of late.
Now, I have expressed my opinions on the Clock Crew time and time again: they have as much right to post stuff as anyone else. But this mass blamming crap is really annoying. Sorry to be taking this seriously, but I would be pretty pissed off if I had to watch my QUALITY submission (such as Johnny Rocketfingers, which managed to snag Daily Feature, Review Crew Pick, AND Weekly User's Choice) sink in score like a brick.
I would propose a few ideas to help fix this:
- Limit the number of accounts people can make per IP. Limit it to like two, so brothers/sisters/dogs/whatever could make an account from the same computer too. Sure, a lot of people can just change their IP, but at least it would deter SOME of them.
- Limit the number of times someone can vote on a video to one or two per account. Combined with the first idea, this would limit mass blamming AND mass boosting. After all, if people really like something, they'll vote high for it. And if they don't, they won't.
- Erase votes after so long. This would show if a submission survives the test of time. After all, people get tired of submissions after awhile, but if they still liked it when their votes were erased (after like two weeks or so), they'd vote for it again.
I think this would make NG a lot better and encourage people to make quality submissions, because they wouldn't have to worry about assholes keeping crap on and blamming quality work.
At 10/24/02 12:51 PM, WadeFulp wrote: Also we changed the color codes. So a movie with 3.00 or higher is GREEN, and a movie with a 3.50 or higher is BLUE.
The colors come after a movie has 100 votes.
this helps a lot, it helps a lot of thier scores too
Now You Have To Wash The Floor And Do All Of My Laundry!!!!
At 3/21/03 06:25 PM, Zotmaster wrote: Has anyone noticed a disturbing trend of mass blamming? Johnny Rocketfingers, John's Arm 3, and The Grim Reaper 2 have been subject to mass blamming lately. JA3 and Grim Reaper have both lost -almost- a half point in one week. And strangely enough, crappers, like B, have been rising steadily of late.
good point, STOP TRYING TO BLAM THOSE ONES. those ones rule, and another thing, too many of the ones that are getting saved just because of who made them, just because they got a big name doesnt mean their work is any good
Now You Have To Wash The Floor And Do All Of My Laundry!!!!
ok heres something. can you get blam points by voteing on old movies. that seems odd considering that there is a pee pee one in the portal right now that has a score of 0.19. i have been preaching and trying to help people, but I have assured them that once a movie has 100 votes it can no longer be destroyed.am i right or was it all a lie
It occurs to me that perhaps one way to understand user's voting patterns and the solutions to some of the problems mentioned in this thread is to display past votes in a "poll-type" fashion; instead of simply putting the average vote, perhaps the number of votes 0-5 can be displayed separately, allowing us to see if people are mainly voting 0 or 5, or if the distribution is equal. If people are voting at the extremes mainly, then the system should be redesigned to accomodate this. Perhaps a thumb's up/down system like download.com would simplify the matter. Then the rank of a flash work could be determined by it's %good votes times the total votes, it's score by simply the %good votes, and with 50 or 100 being the minimum amount necessary to display its score/pass judgement. Perhaps after 100 votes, a 20-25% minimum 'good' rating is required to protect the submission.
On another note, I agree with the idea that any user should only be able to vote on a flash work once, rather than once a day, unless scores are slowly being reset, just in case some people are voting multiple times on the same work (over time, it could create biased scores).
Perhaps also, instead of just having users click on the 'view movie' tag to be able to vote, there could be a short scripted time delay (10-20 seconds) before the option becomes available (after they click the link). Perhaps that would help limit the number of "quick voters" who don't watch the content before voting.
Obviously, it has become a complicated issue. These are just some thoughts on ways to improve the system. (which may be impractical; I don't know the complete situation). Feedback, Tom?
Sincerely,
BinaryAlgorithm
