Upvotes / Downvotes on Chess.com

Sort:
nTzT

Have they stated the reason for removing it? Good thing I prefer play. I can't stand how live looks ;/

Lord_Hammer

Play has the sh!ttiest interface they could have possibly made. 

EscherehcsE
B1ZMARK wrote:
llama47 wrote:

This is why I left reddit. When a horde of players rated 800 downvote you because they don't understand your post.

I know it's appealing to businesses because of its addictive quality (when your post get 1 upvote it's a little dopamine) but from a human being's perspective this sort of thing is pretty annoying.

Either have reactions or upvotes and downvotes. Not both. This is overkill.

I have a great idea - They could let us upvote/downvote the reactions... :-)

Martin_Stahl
nTzT wrote:

Have they stated the reason for removing it? Good thing I prefer play. I can't stand how live looks ;/

 

They're not going to keep two interfaces and update both. New updates and features are only going into the Play interface. Also, I'm pretty sure the site has updates coming that will require the old interface to be retired (or require coding both for those updates and they're not going to double the work and testing).

Chr0mePl8edSt0vePipe
#61

I guess that was a bad word choice. What I was trying to say was if a community doesn’t like your post what’s the point of posting. Just go to a different forum where your post will be “understood”. I know I didn’t have to explain that to you @batgirl. Notice how you delete the rest of my post in your response because that’s where I clarify what I mean.
nTzT
Martin_Stahl wrote:
nTzT wrote:

Have they stated the reason for removing it? Good thing I prefer play. I can't stand how live looks ;/

 

They're not going to keep two interfaces and update both. New updates and features are only going into the Play interface. Also, I'm pretty sure the site has updates coming that will require the old interface to be retired (or require coding both for those updates and they're not going to double the work and testing).

I am curious why they chose play to continue with? I suppose it's newer and faster?

Martin_Stahl
nTzT wrote:
Martin_Stahl wrote:
nTzT wrote:

Have they stated the reason for removing it? Good thing I prefer play. I can't stand how live looks ;/

 

They're not going to keep two interfaces and update both. New updates and features are only going into the Play interface. Also, I'm pretty sure the site has updates coming that will require the old interface to be retired (or require coding both for those updates and they're not going to double the work and testing).

I am curious why they chose play to continue with? I suppose it's newer and faster?

 

Play was developed to replace the old interface.

Kowarenai
little_guinea_pig wrote:
Lord_Hammer wrote:

Play has the sh!ttiest interface they could have possibly made. 

Lichess has the worst for me, simply unplayable. I've gotten used to play, I don't really mind either way. It doesn't look that different from live...

i like how hammer basically scares the staff members a lot, he aint afraid to curse them out which i kind of am sad but like as well lol, in response to lichess i think its good tho

Typewriter44
Lord_Hammer wrote:

If they remove live chess, I'm never playing a live game on this site again ( unless I'm playing with a friend or something ) 

Shouldn't really matter, you've played 4 games this year

Lord_Hammer

Lol

Lord_Hammer
Martin_Stahl wrote:

Play was developed to replace the old interface.

Instead of fixing actual problems with the site? 

Martin_Stahl
Lord_Hammer wrote:
Martin_Stahl wrote:

Play was developed to replace the old interface.

Instead of fixing actual problems with the site? 

 

The site has multiple developers doing a lot of different work. Play was realeased in beta a year and a half ago and has been available for everyone most of this year. In that time the site has added other feature and worked in bug fixes too. 

 

Every feature and bug gets their own priority, but the site can still do work on both.

IsraeliGal

yeah we can totally tell they're doing work on it.

You know, not like theyre wasting time on pointless things on upvotes or flares... oh wait..

Game_of_Pawns
llama47 wrote:

Well, for example.

I noticed one r/chess post that got a lot of upvotes (a type of puzzle). So I came up with my own version and posted it a week later, and got a lot of upvotes for myself.

It wasn't original or especially interesting. I wasn't being myself. It was just pandering.

In general it's about entertainment. Short, snappy, funny posts get upvoted. Long, thoughtful, posts tend to be ignored. And god help you if you present an unpopular opinion, even if it's correct.

Chess.com has done what now?

 

This might be my first post in six months, but some things just grab your attention and really rub you the wrong way. I highlighted the above post, because long thoughtful posts that prove unpopular "opinions" to be correct, are something of a staple of mine. I could have quoted many of batgirl's or your other posts though.

 

For the intelligent members here that still use these forums, I hope that this new system doesn't influence the mods. It will though. I guess I hope it doesn't influence them too much...

 

I mostly avoid forums of any kind, but a few weeks ago I set up an account on the forums for the game "Dead by Daylight", because I absolutely love that game. A pretty "toxic" place. Anyway, they have an "up vote" system (no down votes on theirs), which very obviously affects the judgement of their mods. I'm now banned there. It happened like this:

  • A fairly long time member made a post that stated that people "should not care" if anybody but themselves is having fun in their game.
  • That post received quite a lot of "up votes".
  • I quoted that post and labelled the "attitude disgusting". I didn't swear or attack anybody personally.
  • A mod removed my post within 30 minutes.
  • I saw that and asked why.
  • I got sent an official "warning" (I was later told I wasn't going to be warned until I asked why), stating that my post was "name calling".
  • Right at that moment I knew I wasn't in any way interested in staying a forum member of such a place, so I argued rationally and without insulting.
  • Part of my argument was that I'd made an post earlier in the same thread, flat out calling somebody else an "idiot". That actually was "name calling" and a possible candidate for action of some kind. Of course that post was still up, because it had a lot of up votes.
  • Anyway, yeah I just argued right up until the point that they banned me and the whole time I was just thinking how much like chess.com that place was.

 

That rant wasn't really fully relevant tbh, so sorry about that. My point is that Chess.com has been very badly moderated for as long as I've been here and I only envision this new system increasing it's already countless problems.

Martin_Stahl
Soniasthetics wrote:

yeah we can totally tell they're doing work on it.

You know, not like theyre wasting time on pointless things on upvotes or flares... oh wait..

 

I see bug fixes all the time, in addition to new features. 

llama47
Game_of_Pawns wrote:
llama47 wrote:

Well, for example.

I noticed one r/chess post that got a lot of upvotes (a type of puzzle). So I came up with my own version and posted it a week later, and got a lot of upvotes for myself.

It wasn't original or especially interesting. I wasn't being myself. It was just pandering.

In general it's about entertainment. Short, snappy, funny posts get upvoted. Long, thoughtful, posts tend to be ignored. And god help you if you present an unpopular opinion, even if it's correct.

Chess.com has done what now?

 

This might be my first post in six months, but some things just grab your attention and really rub you the wrong way. I highlighted the above post, because long thoughtful posts that prove unpopular "opinions" to be correct, are something of a staple of mine. I could have quoted many of batgirl's or your other posts though.

 

For the intelligent members here that still use these forums, I hope that this new system doesn't influence the mods. It will though. I guess I hope it doesn't influence them too much...

 

I mostly avoid forums of any kind, but a few weeks ago I set up an account on the forums for the game "Dead by Daylight", because I absolutely love that game. A pretty "toxic" place. Anyway, they have an "up vote" system (no down votes on theirs), which very obviously affects the judgement of their mods. I'm now banned there. It happened like this:

  • A fairly long time member made a post that stated that people "should not care" if anybody but themselves is having fun in their game.
  • That post received quite a lot of "up votes".
  • I quoted that post and labelled the "attitude disgusting". I didn't swear or attack anybody personally.
  • A mod removed my post within 30 minutes.
  • I saw that and asked why.
  • I got sent an official "warning" (I was later told I wasn't going to be warned until I asked why), stating that my post was "name calling".
  • Right at that moment I knew I wasn't in any way interested in staying a forum member of such a place, so I argued rationally and without insulting.
  • Part of my argument was that I'd made an post earlier in the same thread, flat out calling somebody else an "idiot". That actually was "name calling" and a possible candidate for action of some kind. Of course that post was still up, because it had a lot of up votes.
  • Anyway, yeah I just argued right up until the point that they banned me and the whole time I was just thinking how much like chess.com that place was.

 

That rant wasn't really fully relevant tbh, so sorry about that. My point is that Chess.com has been very badly moderated for as long as I've been here and I only envision this new system increasing it's already countless problems.

Mods are typically volunteers. Mods on video game forums are typically teens or young adults... they're not particularly competent or smart (intellectually or emotionally).

Chess.com has some good mods, and they go through enough training that even the so-so mods are consistently in line with the good ones. Chess.com also has very few rules on the forums, so you're very unlikely to run into issues like that here.

Game_of_Pawns

I missed a step. My apologies. I was referred to their head moderator and official staff member, almost immediately after the original mod worked out he had no way to argue that I'd "name called", like he had said. Of course, when I argued the same points to the official head staff member, I got shut down even faster with no reasons given at all.

 

I've had an account banned on chess.com for no reason at all. They even lied to me about the reason. I was so baffled at the time that I naively asked "is this for cheating, or something?", to be told yes. Looking back, it was because my account name and picture had a celebrity in them. In no way was I pretending to be that person, which will have apparent to everybody. I wasn't a forum troll in any way. They literally just banned me for no reason and lied when I enquired about it. OK, so this was probably 10 years ago now. Perhaps it's better now, but it certainly hasn't always been that way in my experience. I have had other issues too, this is just the biggest one that springs to mind.

llama47
Game_of_Pawns wrote:

I missed a step. My apologies. I was referred to their head moderator and official staff member, almost immediately after the original mod worked out he had no way to argue that I'd "name called", like he had said. Of course, when I argued the same points to the official head staff member, I got shut down even faster with no reasons given at all.

 

I've had an account banned on chess.com for no reason at all. They even lied to me about the reason. I was so baffled at the time that I naively asked "is this for cheating, or something?", to be told yes. Looking back, it was because my account name and picture had a celebrity in them. In no way was I pretending to be that person, which will have apparent to everybody. I wasn't a forum troll in any way. They literally just banned me for no reason and lied when I enquired about it. OK, so this was probably 10 years ago now. Perhaps it's better now, but it certainly hasn't always been that way in my experience. I have had other issues too, this is just the biggest one that springs to mind.

10 years ago there was some unhappiness with Kohai as I recall. That's quite a long time ago. She's retired from the forums.

I've had some mutes / bans over the years. When I've asked for details, frankly, sometimes staff is clueless about the circumstances (sometimes not), but they've always promptly replied to my emails and been friendly to me, and in resolving my issues, if anything, I've been given more leeway than I deserved.

Anyway, like I said, there are very few rules here that will get you muted or banned, and they're good with giving warnings and stuff. You're not going to be muted for disliking or disagreeing with someone, even if that person is a moderator or staff member.

nTzT
Soniasthetics wrote:

yeah we can totally tell they're doing work on it.

You know, not like theyre wasting time on pointless things on upvotes or flares... oh wait..

What issues should they be working on? The site is running fine for me. But anyways, they have different teams/people working on different things... not?

Vincidroid

It's a conspiracy. The system is rigged.