From: Somewhere over the rainbow Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 04-15-2004 10:56
The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.
From: Rochester, New York, USA Insane since: May 2000
posted 04-15-2004 11:57
Ah! But either you or I misunderstand this!
You don't get points! Each time you have a random chance of accending. Your chance of attaining anything Lunatic is completely silly! As I think was the point.
Next, or previous, you talk about the validity of the post count. It is very much a double edged sword, because on the one hand, some people who post a lot actually have something worthwhile to say, while again, those who post a lot might not have something worthwhile to say. The post count can be a negitive and a positive.
I think by removing it we are able to clean the slate and work based on some better numbers or even on what you know of the person's name. With the removal of the post count, I would say give it some time. Give it a month, and if after a month of constant use if it is still bothering you bring the post count issue up again. Trying to change such a thing after such a small amount of time might not be the best idea. "Such a thing" need clarification, this means reverting back to a former state before enough time has been given to actually test the new state when the issue was a heavily debated one.
As for the banning. I have some stuff to say about this too, but it doesn't belong here, I have started a thread in the MS forum for that.
I understand why the new ranking system works the way it does--since you get a random calculation each time you post, no post count needs to be stored. From a technical standpoint, this method requires far fewer resources then the post count method.
Just from a general ranking standpoint, though, I don't really see the point to it. Since it is completely random, it doesn't really provide any indicator of a person's activities on the board. I myself am a maniac, as are many other inmates, but I have seen cases where inmates who had far fewer posts have become lunatics.
Technically, some slob could walk in here, post ten times, and become CI. I know the odds against that are very high, but it is possible. My point is that it is just not a reliable indicator of a person's activity, due to its completely random nature. My question is this: if we're going to do away with the post counts, why bother with a ranking system at all, especially a random one? Why not just stick with the "insane since" line and do away with the ranks altogether?
To be honest, I'd rather it be all one way (full post counts) or all the other way (no post counts/ranks). I give the ranking system points for novelty and creativity, but I just don't really see the point to it. If we're going to do away with the measures of inmate activity, I say we go all the way.
Tyberius Prime
Paranoid (IV) Mad Scientist with Finglongers
From: Germany Insane since: Sep 2001
posted 04-15-2004 12:14
well... post counts weren't a reliable measurment for anything, but for postcount. Insider had 1600 posts before he said anything valuable ;-). On average, the new ranking system is no more indicative to the 'activity&value of posts' value of an inmate than the post count was. Or just as indicative, depending on the way you want to look at it.
From: Somewhere over the rainbow Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 04-15-2004 12:20
The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.
quote:I find it funny, it's fun to change disease on occasions.
Hmm... I suppose so. I just can't see the point in exchanging one arbitrary system for another. But whatever. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. I'll survive either way.
I believe TP's main reason for doing away with the post counts was that they add to the number of mysql queries significantly. The problem being that the Doc's Dreamhost hosting package allows a certain number of queries per month only which we can't exceed.
From: Somewhere over the rainbow Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 04-15-2004 14:07
The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.
I agree with Suho - I really can't see the point of the new system. What is it telling us? Even less than post counts I'll warrant but now I don't know if this is someone's first few posts and they might need a bit more help with the ropes (although clearly bondage is only one of the strings to my bow ). If everyone wanted post counts to go then we should just get rid of them not replace them with something less useful. But I would say this then wouldn't I? Although the bonus is that no one now knows how really sad I am (at not from post counts - its a pity everything else gives it away ).
I understand the technically issues but this:
quote:kuckus said:
I believe TP's main reason for doing away with the post counts was that they
add to the number of mysql queries significantly. The problem being that the
Doc's Dreamhost hosting package allows a certain number of queries per month
only which we can't exceed.
is no longer an issue as DH have done away with that limit have they not?
Have they? Then it's a shame we didn't know earlier as I'm almost sure it was the only real reason for not implementing the post counts. Or was is not?
From: Somewhere over the rainbow Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 04-15-2004 15:01
The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.
InI: Up until recently DH did limit the number of MySQL queries you could make - granted the limit was high but it was a factor that had to be planned for. I don't know why (and it is gone now) but thats what they did.
kuckus: Well I was told by Jeni when she moved the company's site over to DH and I told TP who already knew. However, this limit was in place when the great work started so it had to be factored in. TP will have to give the technical details but I believe to get the post counts with the current system would take a number of MySQL queries so isn't very practical (I'd have to check my ICQ hisotry but that was my understanding when I had a chat about this with TP).
Tyberius Prime
Paranoid (IV) Mad Scientist with Finglongers
From: Germany Insane since: Sep 2001
posted 04-15-2004 15:42
it would only be one more query on each post. - but there are only 2 or 3 queries on a post right now, in effect, increasing the execution time by 25% to 33% percent. And at the speed the grail's currently reacting, that will seem like forever.
You're saying it'll take one extra "query" to add a post?
Considering that opening a MySQL connection and running a query is about a 1/20 ratio performance wise (1 connection command it equal to 20 queries on an alerady open connection), I hardly see how one extra query will make any noticable difference. It also depends greatly on the ammount and kind of data you're pushing/pulling from the DB server, which in this case is quite miniscule.
If this is in regards to reading the data to display the post, you should be using table joins which will incur even less of an overhead.
I also find the new ranking system strange to say the least. Honestly, did we really have so many problems with the old system that it required changing? If we did then well, it's news to me.
Tyberius Prime
Paranoid (IV) Mad Scientist with Finglongers
From: Germany Insane since: Sep 2001
posted 04-15-2004 19:31
persistent connections.
Displaying the most common threads now takes 0 queries, since the 'page' is being cached.
The extra query would be when posting things - which currently uses three queries - one to get the old page, one to verify the user, and one to chance the page. We'd need another one to alter the user. You'd feel that query.
Plus, the fact that post counts are inherintly meaningless still stands - and though the new ranking system isn't any more meaningful (but it isn't much less meaningfull, either), it rarely requires that extra query.
quote:Plus, the fact that post counts are inherintly meaningless still stands
Not really being to involved in all of this, I would have that say that post count is not meaningless,
just like Emp's said, it lets a user know how long someone has been around or how much they are
around and lets you judge how much info you feel the need to give to that person. And no matter how
much you guys seem to stress the fact that it doesn't matter, it still makes people happy to get to 1000 posts,
or 2000, or 500, or whatever. Even getting to just 100. This gives people an incentive to post more when they
would perhaps not be as active. And even though it seems like you guys think this is perhaps stupid or immature,
it is a fact of nature that people are driven by goals, and I see no real reason to get rid of it.
From: Somewhere over the rainbow Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 04-16-2004 00:32
The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.
From: Rochester, New York, USA Insane since: May 2000
posted 04-16-2004 03:36
You know I would really, I mean really like the random post count name rank thing a whole lot better if it were before the title. So in my case I would be a "Maniac Mad Scientist" and InI would be a "Paranoid Mad Scientist" and Cameron would be a "Bipolar Inmate" That would eliminate any tie to the post count and just make the people's names cool!
Now that would make me really happy. Think on that one.
Although, I must admit that my reasons for wanting the post count back is mostly for assesing how long someone has been aorund, how active they are and where their general interets lie (cause no one ever puts anything usefull about this in their profile). I'm never likely to remember what order the ranks progress in if there's more than 4, thus the random promotion is kinda cool, but being able to see how active someone is or weather or not someone is new to the forum is quite valuable.
We often encounter new people who aren't up to par with the way things work here. This is usually obvious by them having less than 10 posts, I suppose know what the bottom rank is will be enough to tell this. However, on occasion, I'll come across people on this board I've never seen before and notice they have over 500 posts, wonding why I don't know their username by now I go hunting through the forums I don't frequent to see what they've been up to and where, often discovering some amazing things about these people which helps me communicate with them.
Without that post count, I'll most likey just assume their new(ish) and not bother exploring the board to see what they've been up to. I'm also sure I'm not the only one who does this. I don't have time to read through every forum, but I like to know who's been actively posting about which subject -- the post count was probably the primary means by which I discovered this.
But if you still decide not to bring back the post count than that's cool, this is your baby after all. I just thought I sould express my reasons as to why I liked it.
My feelings on post count is that it has the potential to be read as some sort of indicator of status or seniority, when it's really just a measure of level of involvement.
Our new rankings, well, they are also no indicator of status or seniority, and, just like post count, they could still be misread as such. Lunatic is more senior than Maniac, therefore you could make the same incorrect assumptions as you could when comparing 5000 post counts to 1000.
The issue is, even though it carries with it the same problems as post count, it now also acts as an even less accurate measure of one's level of involvement.
After all, we all know our statistics - even if i'm still a neurotic after 999 posts, i'm no more likely to advance on the 200th than I was on the first.
Also, i don't see it restricting the amount of redundant posts either - in fact, it could increase. Previously, you knew if you posted one more time, your post count could go up by one. Simple. Now, there's a gambling aspect, so i suppose a trollish person could resolve to just keep on posting until they achieve paranoia.
The way i would like to see it working is that when one posts, it increments their post count by one, nice and simple. On their profile, it shows their post counts - i don't think it's required next to each post. That could accurately show our stance - it's not so important that we need to notify everyone, on every post, how many times each person has posted, but if you want, you can check their profile, see if they have a site, see how long they've been around the asylum, and how involved they've been.
My main reason FOR liking the current ranking system? Simple - it's unique, it's a little fun, and a whole lot crazy. I would like the current wind speed in mexico incorporated into the equation somehow, tho.
From: Somewhere over the rainbow Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 04-16-2004 12:59
The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.
From: From: From: From: From: Insane since: Aug 2001
posted 04-16-2004 14:11
You don't know what finglongers are? They're the biggest thing since something really big happened! Honestly!
And I personally think we should do away with the new ranking system altogether. The odds in the upper end are worse than the odds that I'll get struck by lightning while floating in the space shuttle wearing a kilt and yodelling American Pie in Hindi.
Everything under the old Wiki FAQ node is outdated, see ->aboutubb for the updated list - there's no need to insert a :FAQ: icon manually any more as the cool new [id] tags do that automagically for you
From: Somewhere over the rainbow Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 04-16-2004 16:38
The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.
The odds in the upper end are worse than the odds that I'll get struck by
lightning while floating in the space shuttle wearing a kilt and yodelling
American Pie in Hindi.
The funny thing is, that happened to me just the other day...
quote:it feels good to have a new playground,
you're not far from being a hero: all the inmates here owe you a lot now.
Would like to reiterate that point.
I would also like to reiterate, however, that post counts are not as meaningless as some would say, and can in fact be very helpful in many situations (I won't get into details, made all my arguments on the development site before).
I also feel that one extra query would be mostly, if not totally, unnoticeable for anyone not checking response times and comparing miliseconds. I'm willing to wait the extra milisecond, personally
I'm still a little curious about the performance issue though. I know this forums sees a lot of traffic but last I checked my DH shared server was running on an Intel Xeon 2Ghz processor, which sould pertty much shit all over this with miles to spare when it comes to one extra insert/update query when making a reply/post. DH have also upgraded all of thier MySQL servers to version 4.x, so you could perhaps even setup a simple update trigger which might be faster again (note: haven't fully read up on mysql 4 triggers yet so I don't know if this is possible).
I also think reitsma's suggestion of putting the post count in the profiles/cells only is a good idea.
just adding my .02 ..
i hate the loss of:
- the post counts
- the previous post/next post buttons (now i have to click back and forth to see the next topic)
- the "bottom of the page" link
- having my profile link to a cell which is not a cell - but a number
- a working edit page (the new edit page is almost browser specific (doesn't work in ie/crazybrowser)
- links which bring up a new page (only links which go outside the asylum bring up a new page)
and no, i do not feel better for having shared my thoughts
Tyberius Prime
Paranoid (IV) Mad Scientist with Finglongers
From: Germany Insane since: Sep 2001
posted 04-25-2004 20:21
quote:i hate the loss of
Harsh words to say about a software. A strong emotion, never the less I shall try to reply without feeling hurt by its strengths (though a heinleinian martian would certainly have discooperated)
quote:the post counts
an issue whish is still highly discussed and will be resolved one way or the other.
quote:the previous post/next post buttons (now i have to click back and forth to see the next topic)
Alas, this is not as easy to do as it was in the old asylum. Actually, I don't see a way without greatly increasing the number of queries used to display a page. Though multi-window browsing (just hold shift when opening a thread, and hit alt-f4 when you're done) might help your condition.
quote:- having my profile link to a cell which is not a cell - but a number -
This has been noted, and now is on the todo list.
quote:a working edit page (the new edit page is almost browser specific (doesn't work in ie/crazybrowser)
actually - You're the very first person to bring that problem up. And have not really replyed to the question wether you were using IE - which *might* be the problem. That one makes me want to invoke the c2->RemoteStrangulationProtocol Please send your caching options in IE as well.
quote:links which bring up a new page (only links which go outside the asylum bring up a new page)
Well - isn't this how it always was? Links within the asylum are in the same window, everything to the outside world in a new one? Or are there links that are not being treaded by this rule?
quote:and no, i do not feel better for having shared my thoughts
Well, maybe you feel better now, knowing that some of your issues are just issues of time... mine that is. Spare time to work is rare these days.
Just for the record - in the old asylum, *any* link in a thread opened a new window, whether it was internal or external.
Personally, I preferred it that way, since usually if a link in a post was internal, it was still reference material for the current thread, and not something you would want to leave the current thread for.
Of course, perhaps that's just a personal thing. No biggee for me on that, just wanted to clarify.
I actually never noticed the "previous" and "next" buttons on the old Asylum. Doesn't seem like all that useful of a feature to me either - again, a personal thing though...
TP - apologies if my thoughts sounded harsh, baby-sitting an 8 wk old puppy has left me frazzeled...
quote:i hate the loss of -
Harsh words to say about a software.
i didn't say i hated the software, just some of the losses that came with it.
quote:the post counts -
an issue whish is still highly discussed and will be resolved one way or the other.
yes, and what will it take to resolve it? consensus? time to code? (time which you have generously given to renovate this asylum.)
quote:a working edit page -
the question wether you were using IE - which *might* be the problem
i prefer crazy browser which uses the ie engine. unlike foxfire and opera, it allows me to bring up a link w/o the new page dominating the screen, so i can continue reading a thread while the new page loads under a different tab. as to the c2->RemoteStrangulationProtocol - restrain yourself bitte.
quote:send your caching options in IE as well.
quote:links which bring up a new page -
Well - isn't this how it always was?
no, all links brought up a new page.
quote:Well, maybe you feel better now, knowing that some of your issues are just issues of time... mine that is. Spare time to work is rare these days.
yes, i do feel better knowing that some of the issues are merely those of time and i sincerely do appreciate the time you and kuckus and others have put into this beta. for that is what it is and you now have the whole of the asylum giving their opinions on your creation and it's kinks and bugs.
the previous/next post buttons simplified running through the topics without clicking back and forth or opening a new page as you suggest. not being a coder, i've little idea on what would be involved reinstating them - but i still miss them
Just for the record - in the old asylum, *any* link in a thread opened a new window, whether it was internal or external.Personally, I preferred it that way, since usually if a link in a post was internal, it was still reference material for the current thread, and not something you would want to leave the current thread for.Of course, perhaps that's just a personal thing.
It makes sense but it did often annoy me. How about this for a compromise?
Internal links open in the same page and external links open in a new page. We could add a class to external links so we can indicate (colours, little extra graphic?) that it is an external link. This way the expereinced user won't be suprised and if they want to open an internal link in a new wndow they can right click and do it that way.
Just for the record - in the old asylum, *any* link in a thread opened a new window, whether it was internal or external.Personally, I preferred it that way, since usually if a link in a post was internal, it was still reference material for the current thread, and not something you would want to leave the current thread for.
IE users can still Shift+Click on the links to force them in a new window, and Mozilla users can Middle Click or Ctrl+Click them to force them in a new tab.
I'm fully for Emperor's idea. Though my Web Standard Advocacy self would prefer to avoid the use of a class and use pattern matching selectors in the CSS.
Sure, it's simple enough to open a link in a new window. It's just confusing for now, since it has worked one way for 4 years, and now it doesn't.
I think a stylistic differentiation could work, if done right. If not, it could just make things more confusing.
Overall I still much prefer all links in a post opening a new window. In the course of a normal website, and in the non-post areas of the forum, I full understand the idea of internal links opening in the same window, external in a new window. In the context of a post, however, it just doesn't make sense.
Again though - I don't have a big issue with it, just sharing my 2¢ while the subject is out and about....
I don't really have a strong feeling either way in regard to the FAQ. It would seem to make more sense there to keep internal links in the same window though.
By 'non-post' I meant that in general, the concept of internal links opening in the same window makes perfect sense, as opposed to in a post, where it doesn't.
Novelty, I guess. Seeing that it's so randomized, and the fact that it's (statistically) almost impossible for anyone to reach the highest ranks, I can't think of any other reason.
Going a bit off topic here:
quote:velvetrose:
i prefer crazy browser which uses the ie engine. unlike foxfire and opera, it allows me to bring up a link w/o the new page dominating the screen, so i can continue reading a thread while the new page loads under a different tab.
First of all, it's Firefox! *strangles velvetrose*
And if you're referring to the ability to open new tabs in the background (so they won't steal focus), that feature is available in Firefox. Just go to Tools -> Options -> Advanced, and ensure that the "Open new tabs in the background" option is checked. Or, if you only need to do this occasionally, Shift-clicking on a link also works.
Lets rank the Mad Sci's based on how many threads they archive and delete. say... 1 point for deleting a thread and 1.25 points for archiving (because archiving requires more work) after so many points you get upped to a new level.
posted 04-15-2004 10:56
). If everyone wanted post counts to go then we should just get rid of them not replace them with something less useful. But I would say this then wouldn't I? 
).
What are Finglongers?
icon
::cell::
IE users can still Shift+Click on the links to force them in a new window, and Mozilla users can Middle Click or Ctrl+Click them to force them in a new tab.
