Announcements

Android3.14

(5,402 posts)

53. Unfortunately, the number of posts a person has is an inappropriate metric

Fri Jul 12, 2013, 01:45 PM

Jul 2013

Two things -
One, a malicious person could create a programmed 'bot to post inane pap ("love this post", "I agree", "EOM", etc.) to multiple threads in order to to artificially boost their count, as could an organized group of trolls. As a journalist, observing some of the high-count posters and some of the memetic trends they tend to promote, my BS detector goes off in a serious fashion.
Anyone with long-time experience in marketing and media recognizes you have a problem in this area, specifically.
Second, the posting guidelines are far too strict when it comes to identifying a personal attack.
For example, suppose a poster claims to be...I don't know...a journalist. Yet a responder to the OP, using logic and data, challenges that poster on the validity of the claim, saying the poster is lying about being a journalist, or casting doubt on the poster's motivations. In any other community that thrives on informed rhetoric, it is the responsibility of the poster to defend his or her expertise, or to ignore the challenge to that expertise. At DU, someone slaps the label "personal attack" on the post, and suppresses the informative debate that should follow such a challenge. It is unnecessary and damaging to the purpose of debate for a jury to defend challenges to a poster's credentials, especially when the the juries tend to base their decisions more on the thread count than on the merits of the challenge.
(Now that being said, as a person who runs a website, I recognize that you will run it the way you see fit, and congratulations on having a popular site.)

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

130 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

We have changed the way your "Jury Score" is calculated [View all] Skinner Jul 2013 OP

Well it is incentive to behave then. hrmjustin Jul 2013 #1

Only civil people will be able to be on a jury; that will not be a fair representation of DU corkhead Jul 2013 #4

On second thought you have a good point. There are good members who had a few bad moments. hrmjustin Jul 2013 #8

Kind of like in real life. William769 Jul 2013 #90

Yes, it is. Skinner Jul 2013 #5

Does this mean that people with 100% or even 80% will serve on more juries? hrmjustin Jul 2013 #9

Yes. Skinner Jul 2013 #11

I am sorry but one more question. hrmjustin Jul 2013 #23

You are not going to serve more than that. Skinner Jul 2013 #24

Thanks because that would not be fair to other posters. hrmjustin Jul 2013 #25

Seems like an equitable adjustment to me. bluedigger Jul 2013 #26

Thanks for the explanation and for adjusting the scoring process iemitsu Jul 2013 #2

So I guess JustAnotherGen Jul 2013 #3

You can hide a disruption. Skinner Jul 2013 #6

Thanks! JustAnotherGen Jul 2013 #7

The penalty for hidden replies... This can't have been an easy decision. I hope it works. NYC_SKP Jul 2013 #10

I don't think that is true. Skinner Jul 2013 #13

Of course it's not the alerts that are utterly without merit. NYC_SKP Jul 2013 #15

What rules? Skinner Jul 2013 #16

It's not even a large percentage. Take Greenwald or Snowden as examples. NYC_SKP Jul 2013 #18

yes, DU shuts out unpopular thought. Legitimate, rational, unpopular thought. RILib Jul 2013 #39

Yes. My first and only hidden post was based on such a reason. SunSeeker Jul 2013 #52

I've had several blocked, and I was guilty BlueStreak Jul 2013 #64

the beauty of the jury Kali Jul 2013 #100

"The beauty of the jury" - Censorship is never beautiful panzerfaust Jul 2013 #114

it's a private website Kali Jul 2013 #115

But assholes are often dispensed with. cyberswede Jul 2013 #103

Well said! hrmjustin Jul 2013 #104

This is going to increase the lock step and quash legitimate criticism. L0oniX Jul 2013 #48

I agree with NYC-SKP. BlueStreak Jul 2013 #59

Agree completely - explantions are needed dbackjon Jul 2013 #113

I'm not sure that's true. I take many positions that are MineralMan Jul 2013 #111

Personality conflicts are one thing, taking an unpopular position is quite another. NYC_SKP Jul 2013 #112

Agreed, why I don't play rigged games nadinbrzezinski Sep 2013 #124

I've come to a similar conclusion, Nadin, and make the same assumption. NYC_SKP Sep 2013 #125

I expect things to get worse as elections approach. nadinbrzezinski Sep 2013 #126

Disagree completely dbackjon Jul 2013 #21

Unfortunately, the number of posts a person has is an inappropriate metric Android3.14 Jul 2013 #53

There are no such posting guidelines identifying a personal attack. Ms. Toad Jul 2013 #66

yes there are. and here is the link Android3.14 Jul 2013 #91

Those are the rules for DU2. This is DU3. Ms. Toad Jul 2013 #92

Thanks, but even the About page has this Android3.14 Jul 2013 #96

I'm not suggesting I agree with it - Ms. Toad Jul 2013 #98

Thanks Ms. Toad Android3.14 Jul 2013 #99

Although I disagree with what Ms. Toad Jul 2013 #61

Improvement suggestion krispos42 Jul 2013 #12

If you think a juror is doing the job in bad faith, you should alert on the notification. Skinner Jul 2013 #14

What he is saying is that there are jurors that DO act in bad faith dbackjon Jul 2013 #22

This happens a lot ...which makes the jury system a farse. L0oniX Jul 2013 #45

I've Seen Sites Use Like/Dislike Functions DallasNE Jul 2013 #49

The problem with like/dislike... Skinner Jul 2013 #84

If your game theory is very simple that makes sense.... Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #86

Well, food for thought, if nothing else. krispos42 Jul 2013 #95

I agree with that. Blanks Jul 2013 #107

Sounds good, Skinner. The only suggestion I have for the system intheflow Jul 2013 #17

I didn't know that. riqster Jul 2013 #27

I've seen that. One note - if TOS is checked all hides go to MIRT. 4-2, 5-1 or 6-0. pinto Jul 2013 #32

Good to know all TOS alerts with hides go to MIRT. intheflow Jul 2013 #105

Chance of serving on a Jury: 100% mike_c Jul 2013 #19

20 points per hidden post is far too much dbackjon Jul 2013 #20

That would be in the Obama Forum. Spitfire of ATJ Jul 2013 #34

The solution to that JustAnotherGen Jul 2013 #63

I like when I was told to DIE railsback Jul 2013 #28

Hell,....I've had people on line wanting to track me down and kill me for decades... Spitfire of ATJ Jul 2013 #36

Exactly liberal N proud Jul 2013 #50

Then we need an appeals system. MrSlayer Jul 2013 #29

Its already done. bunnies Jul 2013 #31

I know, me too. MrSlayer Jul 2013 #33

Agreed. bunnies Jul 2013 #35

I dont think that's true. Iggo Jul 2013 #44

I agree ...there's no point in donating anymore. L0oniX Jul 2013 #46

Sure there is. Donate to keep Du running. hrmjustin Jul 2013 #47

I don't donate anymore. Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #85

You would feel a lot better if you would actually took the time to read the rules. Ms. Toad Jul 2013 #69

You would be surprised as to how many here were born during the Clinton years. Spitfire of ATJ Jul 2013 #38

Or act like they were. RC Jul 2013 #51

I just started a poll on it. So far,...zip... Spitfire of ATJ Jul 2013 #54

There's one as of right now. Iggo Jul 2013 #57

Spooky,...ain't it. Spitfire of ATJ Jul 2013 #101

Yeah, weird. Iggo Jul 2013 #106

Once people hit 5 posts they are not eligible for jury duty Ms. Toad Jul 2013 #67

per post?! bunnies Jul 2013 #70

Exactly, that's the whole problem treestar Sep 2013 #122

(that person you replied to is no longer here) cyberswede Sep 2013 #123

The penalty % should increase with the amount of hidden posts, imho. bunnies Jul 2013 #30

(Edited, since I see you saw my earlier post) Ms. Toad Jul 2013 #71

I get that now. bunnies Jul 2013 #74

I saw a discussion yesterday - Ms. Toad Jul 2013 #77

See. I didnt know that either. bunnies Jul 2013 #81

It's just 5 posts x 20% = 100% of your chance of being on a jury obliterated. Ms. Toad Jul 2013 #83

One post hidden is -20. Ten posts hidden is -200. Skinner Jul 2013 #72

Yes. Ive been schooled. :) bunnies Jul 2013 #73

I just re-read my OP and realized it was unclear. Skinner Jul 2013 #75

Great idea. Pale Blue Dot Jul 2013 #37

I am at 60% but I have not served in a while iandhr Jul 2013 #40

you should also change the order of steps in the jury -> msongs Jul 2013 #41

Excellent idea. nt SunSeeker Jul 2013 #56

The point is for jurors to form their own opinion before they are biased by the alerter comment. Skinner Jul 2013 #60

It might actually help with the posts about which I am most concerned Ms. Toad Jul 2013 #79

You may really regret this if we have primary wars here dsc Jul 2013 #42

There will never be another "purge" on DU. Skinner Jul 2013 #65

but in total we were well under half dsc Jul 2013 #78

I agree with dsc on all points and hold my tongue because if I said more you'd be very upset. Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #80

Just checked, I'm still at 100% MrScorpio Jul 2013 #43

Golly gee whiz, I'm looking at 43%. Haven't done anything wrong, just haven't done enough firenewt Jul 2013 #55

oh sure Kali Jul 2013 #58

why don't you allow for one hidden post per 90 days Mosby Jul 2013 #62

Frankly I don't pay a lot of attention to the Jury system zeemike Jul 2013 #68

I served quite a bit more when I first started... Blanks Jul 2013 #110

Serve that majority, man. Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #76

The Gungeon isn't going to like this ThoughtCriminal Jul 2013 #82

A couple of thoughts. Behind the Aegis Jul 2013 #87

Is there any possibility of activating the Alert Transparency Function? bvar22 Jul 2013 #88

Juries arent enforcing TOS. Skinner Jul 2013 #89

I suspect the number of alerts is way down Ms. Toad Jul 2013 #94

I suspect you are correct nadinbrzezinski Sep 2013 #127

I hear you DonCoquixote Sep 2013 #128

exactly DonCoquixote Sep 2013 #129

I appreciate that you are working to improve DU. However, I think -20 is too severe. nm rhett o rick Jul 2013 #93

I guess this works if you feel compelled to be on juries. I long ago turned off the ability to serve KG Jul 2013 #97

What an excellent move when the Right Wing Trolls already control the site! rdharma Jul 2013 #102

Have you considered increasing the posting restriction time frame? Ptah Jul 2013 #108

Yay! I've been serving on a lot of juries. lately.. Cha Jul 2013 #109

Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2013 #116

Skinner, FYI davidpdx Jul 2013 #117

We'll fix that. Skinner Jul 2013 #120

Skinner, has anyone made a point in this thread, that has given you any cause to re think this? boston bean Jul 2013 #118

No. Skinner Jul 2013 #119

You have achieved the opposite dbackjon Aug 2013 #121

Someone got a post hidden for saying Fuck Ron Paul. Whisp Oct 2013 #130