Forum's quality dropping

I had to delete my stupid comments, kco, because they were stupid. I think the forums are very interesting with a variety of interesting people. I personally read 15-20 different people everytime they post something, because they are either informative, witty, or unintentionally funny. I think that answers your question better than the previous crap I posted.

You really didn't have to delete your stupid comments others find them interesting or funny.

You don't have to "depend" on other's feedback about the posts, it's just another way of sorting the threads.  You can always look at whatever you want to.   Jeez such a "nay sayer"...

was that one of artfizz's thread ? 

When was that?  Anyway, shot down or not I don't seen any other way of doing any "quality control" for forums.  Sure it could be abused, just like ANYTHING ELSE, but abusers could be identified and dealt with as necessary.  Besides, I don't see how it really could be abused in any meaningful way if limits were placed on how often someone could "vote".

Seriously is your point that there are "gangs" of people out here at chess.com just waiting to pounce on some innocents person's thread in order to screw with all of us?  I don't believe that that's true and furthermore if that really is the case theen there's absolutely nothing to be done and this entire thread is pointless.  I don't beleive that for minute.  

I'd be more interested in some way to be able to look up recent posts by specific people.  Tracking only works for threads someone starts, and with the exception of a few twits most people don't start very many threads of their own, even if they post regularly in other threads.

Good point Anthony.

I like the forums so far :)

true but how do you stop them ? you can't really just block them all the time.

See last-chance-to-see.

This idea has been floated a few times, in these threads (and the wishlists):

what-to-expect-from-chesscom-forums

daily-puzzle-comments2

site-trophies-and-top-blogging

rewarding-points

voting-posts-up-and-down

forum-comment-rating

The prime candidate is Loomis' thumbs up/thumbs down rating (similar to digg.com).

One of the main issues is that there is no mechanism to reference individual posts.

I am not too sure about the thumbs up/thumbs down thing artfizz, there got be some other ways that could possibly work. 

Many expert support ( Help me, Obi-wan, my code is broken) forums tend to reward a good post with a "Best Answer" tag that gets voted on.  

Would that be the same as the thumbs up/down system?

You mean like in Yahoo Answers?  What a joke that is. Look at how often a top-voted answer there will be outright incorrect (check any science-related questions for a real laugh) and you get a perfect demonstration of just how useless most vote-based evaluation systems are for individual posts.

Is the proposed evaluation system supposed to be some sort of time saver?  Someone gets down to a post, looks at the score, and then decides whether to take a chance and read the post? Or is the goal to actually eliminate "unpopular" posts or even the posters themselves?

As far as an option for sorting threads by votes of approval, that would only work for those threads where a specific question was asked in the OP.  Most threads have an evolution of thought and replies that wouldn't make much sense if they were rearranged.

That is usually awarded by the person who posed the query. It's a fairly simple situation: one question: multiple candidate answers; the points can be shared between several respondents.

chess.com's forums are much more complex. Someone starts one off e.g. best-ratting-formula. The discussion can then veer off in several directions, with people making jokes, criticising other posters, going off topic, misunderstanding the question, etc.

What would we be trying to assess? That forum topic as a whole? The original poster? The posters who contribute? Their individual posts?

And who would be making the assessment?

please report them. 

forums seem fine to me, but i don't monitor them 24/7...

If you don't like a thread, why don't you just skip over it for crying out loud! I'm sick of people on here trying to tell other people what they can, and cannot post. What's boring to to you might be interesting to somebody else, and vice versa.

Good questions, Artfizz.  In my opinion, the answers to any questions here or anywhere else online will depend on age, time, maturity (not dependent on age), gender and location.   Some questions are easy, other questions or statements may be misunderstoood.  I've been here less than a week and I've already experienced a great example of what I just stated. 

I made the statement in the game I am currently playing, "that was a bad move", meaning,  I made a poor choice, however, my opponent thought I was talking about his move, and based on  his reply,  "that may be a bad move, but you will always be a fat who*e, "  I am assuming the person hasn't matured at all, or may be very young, and of the male gender.   My purpose in the statement originally was to read what he thought of my move. (being friendly)

In saying that, perhaps our questions have to be very limited and very precise (in detail), so the correct avenue is taken to arrive at the answer someone is searching for.

Do they have a distinctive style of graffiti, too?

Maybe not 24/7, but it seems like it must be at least 23/6.9  .  You do a remarkable job of keeping on top of things.  At the slightest hint of unrest or rebellion by the chess.com denizens (and we can't go more than a few hours without getting our rabbles all roused about something), you're on the scene.  I have concluded that there are more than one of you, most likely three, which I'll designate Erik-alpha, Erik-beta, and Erik-gamma.  Which one wrote that post?