Feature Suggestion: DH Thread Timer
TappedOut forum
Posted on June 14, 2014, 7:35 p.m. by vampirelazarus
Don't know if you and epoch are talking about this, but someone mentioned on his wall about disabling the ability to post a thread in Deck Help if you've posted a thread in there in the previous week.
Implementation of that would be awesome, as it would help reduce some of Epoch's workload, and its looking like people are starting to "attack" him for doing his duties.
I can understand if the implementation would be difficult and hard to achieve, however.
Thanks for your time. 7o (<------ thats a drunken salute http://i.imgur.com/hpT7fRe.jpg)
Epoch's edit: For those who aren't familiar, read this.
Basically, the situation is this: Deck Help and Traders are restricted forums for the time being. Users are allowed one Deck Help thread and one Traders thread per seven days. You can't post another DH thread if your most recent one is fewer than seven days old; same for Traders.
This measure is in place to prevent people from spamming the forums with DH and Traders posts. The problem is twofold: excess threads push other threads out of the activity feed on the home page, and they also hog real estate on the forum page.
No user is entitled to always have a thread on the front page or on the top of a forum's feed. We definitely want the forums to be a helpful place for everyone, but this means making sure everyone has a voice. If a few users spam their own posts, they immediately detract from others' chances to be heard.
I'd like there to be a system that automatically prevents you from posting a DH or Traders thread if your most recent thread in that forum is less than seven days old. This is the number I came up with for now; down the line, we may increase the number of allotted posts or decrease the waiting period. What we want to accomplish first is the kind of control to give all members fair use of these resources.
vampirelazarus says... #3
I agree with everything you said.
It is a matter of perspective, an individuals goals vs. the goals of the community as a whole.
I figured it was already in the works, but I know how it gets when people ride you constantly, you forget to mention ways to improve the situation, because it wears you down and such, so I was mostly just looking out for you... not that you need it.......
June 14, 2014 8 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #4
I certainly appreciate it. I'd actually like the community to weigh in on the issue.
Some users are obviously opposed to the limit, and yeaGO wants to find a less restrictive way to moderate the forums, but my stance is that people will eventually abuse the system because it benefits them and there is no "hard" control on it. I'd like to institute that hard control so we can maintain usability for everyone.
June 14, 2014 9:51 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #5
For those who aren't familiar, read this.
Basically, the situation is this: Deck Help and Traders are restricted forums for the time being. Users are allowed one Deck Help thread and one Traders thread per seven days. You can't post another DH thread if your most recent one is fewer than seven days old; same for Traders.
This measure is in place to prevent people from spamming the forums with DH and Traders posts. The problem is twofold: excess threads push other threads out of the activity feed on the home page, and they also hog real estate on the forum page.
No user is entitled to always have a thread on the front page or on the top of a forum's feed. We definitely want the forums to be a helpful place for everyone, but this means making sure everyone has a voice. If a few users spam their own posts, they immediately detract from others' chances to be heard.
I'd like there to be a system that automatically prevents you from posting a DH or Traders thread if your most recent thread in that forum is less than seven days old. This is the number I came up with for now; down the line, we may increase the number of allotted posts or decrease the waiting period. What we want to accomplish first is the kind of control to give all members fair use of these resources.
June 14, 2014 10:08 p.m.
vampirelazarus says... #6
I have to agree that community insight would also be very helpful.
I do have to say this: When I respond to a deck help thread, I don't typically note who started it, unless I've seen them around before. So maybe, just maybe, one a week is a little firm. How about two a week? This gives flexibility for the two threads, creates a balance of those regulars who can't seem to get the deck just right, and allows new people to still get their two cents across. (Not my favorite idea, I stand with Epoch on this issue.)
The other way of going about this is: On other forums, moderators can "sticky" threads. These threads always remain at the top of the page, and are typically named "(Thread Rules) READ FIRST BEFORE POSTING." Having this feature, which Im sure is being worked on, would be really handy, as those who don't read the rules their, and in the forum description (yes, keep the rule in the description, and in the stickied thread), will now have two references to be pointed to when their thread is deleted. (Along with this, moderators should have the ability to lock threads, so they can comment "Locked, read rules" or something rather than clutter someones wall)
June 14, 2014 11:35 p.m.
ducttapedeckbox says... #7
I've been following a few interactions regarding this, and it definitely has crossed some lines. However, I'm not sure that a hard limit should be placed on these two threads. There definitely needs to be something, but a "oops you've posted too many times" message when you click on the thread is a little excessive in my opinion. I have two ideas that may help ease the situation.
- People forget how often they post. If you're a relatively active user, there isn't an easy way to see when your last post was in a specific thread. And if it's not easy, people won't bother to check and they will post anyways. My first suggestion is adding "Last Deck Help Thread Started" and "Last Traders Thread Started" rows to each individual's profile - just like the timer on the deck cycles. This will ensure people can't say they didn't know when their last thread was (well, they can say that they didn't know the timer was there, but...). This will help solve the argument part (and make your life a little easier, Epoch).
- The forums aren't always busy. They are most of the time, but they have their ups and downs regarding activity. My second suggestion is to add a softer limit on the posting. When a user goes to post beyond their weekly limit, have a reminder that says that they've recently posted so their post may be removed to ensure that everyone has a fair chance to get deck help.
- Alright, I had a third idea while writing this. I can already tell it may not make sense since I'm half asleep, but here it goes. Have a "build up" system. The more threads that a user starts in one of the restricted forums, the easier it is to move off the front page. So, the abiding user that posts once per week gets their post at the top of the list, while the user who breaks the rules gets their second post in a week halfway down the page, etc. This would probably be a nightmare in terms of HTML, but just throwing some ideas out there
I hope my ideas make sense and are maybe even applicable... What do you guys think?
June 15, 2014 12:04 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #8
We have more in the works than we let on. Those ideas are already being discussed amongst the wise ones.
Anyway, if people don't bother to read forum descriptions, I can't imagine stickied threads will get much further.
June 15, 2014 12:10 a.m.
vampirelazarus says... #9
True, but you can just send people their and let the discussion end.
O-ring dat argument
June 15, 2014 12:16 a.m.
vampirelazarus says... #10
I like ducttapedeckboxs idea of the build up system, but thats the numbers guy in me.
Hooray, double post!
June 15, 2014 12:17 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #11
@ducttapedeckbox: I don't know how viable #3 is.
I entertained the thought of using point totals to determine post limits, but that's not a very good system because it stacks site usability against the newer users. Maybe that's a perception thing; I suppose you could argue that privs begin at a baseline and improve over time.
Regarding your idea, I'd rather see every user get full use out of his or her threads. I'd also rather delete the excess threads than allow them to continue to clutter the forum.
My system, as currently envisioned, would run a quick check when you attempt to post to DH or Traders. If your most recent thread in that forum was created fewer than seven days ago, your post would be rejected and you'd get a notification showing a site rules message.
June 15, 2014 12:30 a.m.
vampirelazarus says... #12
I think Boxes system would operate best on a weekly timer.
For each week, every time you post a DH thread, you get a point. The more points you have, the faster your thread moves from the front page.
However, I just realized that it interferes with the rest of the front page being based on most recent threads..... so it probably wouldn't work.
June 15, 2014 1:03 a.m.
ducttapedeckbox says... #13
I wasn't quite clear with my idea for a point system. The "points" wouldn't indefinitely stack; they'd stack with frequent excessive posts, and diminish over periods of inactivity in restricted forums. Once you haven't posted in a set amount of time, your point total will have diminished to zero. Hopefully that clears it up a little.
I do agree that a user should only be able to post if they are able to get the most out of their thread.
@ vampirelazarus- Are the front page threads and the forums page threads based on most recent with respect to their initial post, or with respect to their most recent activity? I think it's the latter, but I could be wrong. That does make sense though.
I think Epoch's idea is the most practical, and the most consistent. "Partial posting" won't be possible and it leaves little room for argument. I'm not sure how the reaction will be though- it could be like deckcycles where (most) people accept that they have 1 (or 3) per day, or it could cause even more trouble.
Has there been thought about "featuring" a thread? I'm just throwing ideas out there, feel free to tear this one apart, but here it goes. The section on the homepage is set to only include "featured" threads. Maybe we get a "thread cycle token" twice per week, and they can be used on any restricted forum (maybe all forums?). A monetary option to purchase these too? These threads would also be displayed on the "forums" page of the website. Once you're on the page for a specific forum, any thread is displayed. There will still be restrictions in this area too, but more relaxed.
This will give everyone an equal opportunity to get comments on their featured thread, but if they have smaller questions they will also be able to post those without breaking rules.
June 15, 2014 2:13 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #14
The front page activity feed is sorted by thread creation date. That's part of why unrestricted posting is problematic: it floods the feed and pushes other users' threads out prematurely. I'm not saying that everyone should have X amount of time on the front page, but when one user can diminish the attention available for every other user, there's a problem.
The forum-specific activity feeds are sorted by recent post date. There's really not much we can do to prevent people from bumping their own threads apart from asking them to be reasonable about it, but we can at least stem the tide of excess threads that appear at the top of these feeds upon creation.
@ducttapedeckbox: I'd rather see a thread sticky system than a thread featuring system. Regarding the proposed location, though, it's feasible. I'm pushing for a change in layout for the forum page because it's currently impossible to see more than a handful of forums on screen at any one time.
June 15, 2014 2:28 p.m.
Resolution is now all users limited to once per day. Effective... Soon :P
June 15, 2014 7:07 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #16
We'll be monitoring the system over the coming weeks. We hope is that this is enough of a nudge that people won't feel the need to post as many threads as possible. If it seems like the system isn't working, we'll consider changing the limits.
June 15, 2014 7:10 p.m.
Hello, I am only a minor user on Tappedout and don't post to the forum all that often and even so I feel like once a week is a tad bit too restrictive.
I personally think that @ducttapedeckbox was onto something with his first point about having a tracker for thread creations on your profile. What if this was set up like deck-cycles are for those that only get one every twenty-four hours (obviously with a longer timer though). When you start a thread it notes that and has a line on your profile listing when you last created a thread in that forum. I also think going with this, that every 72 or 96 hours (3 or 4 days) should be when you can start a new thread.
I am not a programmer and don't know how extensive the coding for this would have to be so I understand if you just set up a basic once a week restriction, but I think you should at least consider this idea a little.
June 15, 2014 9:45 p.m.
vampirelazarus says... #18
I actually had an idea.
What if you use a button to create threads, rather than the current quick post method?
Say a user creates a thread within deck help. They proceed to make a new deck the following day, and go to ask for help by creating a new thread. They click the button. They get redirected to a page sta ting the rules, and their thread remains uncreated.
Basically, have a button to create threads. Button runs a check on last post date if the thread is being created in a restricted place.
June 16, 2014 4:33 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #19
The current method requires you to preview your thread before you actually post it. I assume the catch would run during preview generation, much like the check for incorrect card links.
Epochalyptik says... #2
Already on the to-do list.
The "arguments" are mostly a matter of perspective. People tend to look at the issue from the individual perspective, while I look at it from the community perspective. Increasing usability for everyone can sometimes mean restricting options for the individual. While I can't blame individuals for using the individual perspective, I wish they'd be more compromising.
Of course, we may end up changing the time or number of allotted posts, but this is the initial "flood control" option. We need a system first. Then we tweak it.
June 14, 2014 7:42 p.m.