Suggestion Box Queue Items
From Voice of the Proletariat
Contents |
[edit] Quickie Navigation
Suggestion Box for banniNation Improvements New Items * Template to Add a New Suggestion * Most Active Suggestions (Moved to page because of too many comments) * New Suggestions Older Open Suggestions (These items are still open for voting!) * Suggestion Box Queue Items * Suggestion Box Comments Items (Tagging Items Included) * Suggestion Box Metrics Items * Suggestion Box Other Stuff Items Suggestions Being Implemented or Archived (Closed to voting) * Under Development * Quality Assurance * Implemented Suggestions * Stalled and Rejected Ideas Suggestion Box Total Table of Contents (ALL items not on main page indexed here) * Suggestion Box TOC
[edit] How to Vote
* Log in (same user/pass as Bannination) * Click "edit" on the section you want to vote on, * Find the line that corresponds with your vote, Yea/Nay * Add a comma to the last name in that line, * Type three ~'s to add your name without a timestamp, * Click Save.
Please click (edit) next to the subsection you want to vote or comment on, and not the entire page, to avoid accidentally erasing someone else's changes to this page.
[edit] Queue
Suggestions pertaining to the queue go here.
[edit] Discussion Thread Fast Tracking
- Submitted By: Vin diesel
- Submitted On: July 23rd
Description
Approve discussion threads immediately (maybe after a couple of upvotes) onto a secondary "discussion threads" page, where they can be talked over immediately and not spill over into queuespam of an entire discussion taking place via multiple discussion submissions. If they exceed some traffic threshold of number of posts per hour, plus unique posters, they get bumped to the main page automatically. If they get no traffic or get five (or whatever number) inappropriate votes within the first ten minutes of being live, they're zapped off the discussions page. (Vin Diesel)
Comments
- Against this idea because bN is primairly set up to avoid the thread wasteland trap that exists on TOS, allowing people to post in threads that never get mainpaged. Ratfucker 20:59, 25 July 2007 (PDT)
- I disagree with you on that one. First I don't remember that as an original "primary" purpose of bN, second I don't see a problem with there being a "thread wasteland." I'd rather have threads that seemed like a good idea at the time, but wind up not being popular, disappear into the ether (to be resubmitted the next day?) rather than clogging the main page with a metric shit-ton of threads that have fewer than 25 comments.
Voting
| Yea | Nay |
|---|---|
| brazil, Eddyatwork, Sarmydoc, Vin diesel | Ratfucker, Kesshi |
[edit] Turbo Queue Notation
- Submitted By: MuninsFire
- Submitted On: 14:47, 23 July 2007 (PDT)
Description
Implement a "LO" or "HI" button at the top of the queue, to inform visitors whether the queue is in 'normal' or 'turbo' mode. MuninsFire 14:47, 23 July 2007 (PDT)
Comments
- Yes, but only if you stick yellow racing stripes, and NOS stickers all over the bN banner up top. Because everybody knows things are faster when they have yellow racing stripes and NOS stikers! Just kidding, but a cool little graphic indicating which mode the queue is in would be nice to see. Kesshi 14:52, 23 July 2007 (PDT)
Voting
| Yea | Nay |
|---|---|
| MuninsFire, Kesshi, Eddyatwork, Andbruno | None |
[edit] More Transparency, without Ganging Up
- Submitted by: Unknown
- Submitted on: Unknown.
Description
Some people claim that bN is "rigged." Grahams would like to disprove this by showing who votes for what, but he doesn't want to increase herd behavior. Solution: Only show who voted for or against a zapped post after it gets zapped; only show who voted for or against a frontpaged article after it gets frontpaged; only show who voted for or against an article sent to the Pit after it gets sent to the pit.
Problem solved.
Comments
- Eww no. Kesshi 14:47, 20 July 2007 (PDT)
- Why not? Sites like Digg and Reddit show who votes stuff up or down. But this mechanism won't encourage herd behavior; it'll publicly air any douches who habitually vote crap down for political reasons; it'll publicly air queue commandos; it'll quiet people who say the system is rigged. Someone worried about vendettas, but I don't think that will really happen, especially since a single person annoyed at a poster or queue entry can have a huge effect. Elchip 16:03, 20 July 2007 (PDT)
- Oh no, it won't quiet anyone. Not even a little. I'm dead serious. Trying to satisfy those people is like trying to get rid of a bubble under wallpaper; it'll just push them to some other topic to complain about. This will not quiet anybody. I'm in favor of giving it a trial run for a few weeks just to prove my point. If the complaints go away, keep it, otherwise, ditch it. It seems to have only encouraged herd behavior on digg and reddit (the voting appears far more biased on those sites than here, to judge from both their links and comments). --Vin diesel 16:59, 20 July 2007 (PDT)
- Fuck that. Don't let the whiners decide our policy. The people who claim the site is rigged are few, and the vast minority, although highly vocal (whine). --Andbruno 17:27, 21 July 2007 (PDT)
- The vocal minority (whiners) are also the biggest offenders, so most of them would just complain that the system is even further rigged to exposed them and them only. Ratfucker 18:09, 21 July 2007 (PDT)
- I would go further and state that the vocal minority are really the only offenders here, and are accusing others of doing precisely what they are doing. I -strongly- disagree with this proposal, and instead propose that this proposal be taken out back and shot. MuninsFire 07:29, 23 July 2007 (PDT)
- I would rather not see the actual numbers of all votes until the thread is mainpaged. That prevents herd mentality better than the threat of who voted for what. Same for inappropriate/cool. I don't believe outing the offenders is going to change anything. --Token 15:29, 26 July 2007 (PDT)
- That's why I specified only show who voted for or against a frontpaged article after it gets frontpaged Elchip 11:46, 30 July 2007 (PDT)
- It's still asking for trouble, and pandering to a very limited demographic who are, again, the usual suspects for doing this in the first place. There is no reason whatsoever to show who votes for an article or votes against it--doing so will lead, in fact, to -more- trouble, as there will be, right off, "Well, I see that soandso voted for this abortion of a thread--big surprise" or "I see soandso voted against this thread--typical." It asks for flamewars and drama--and so, I maintain a very strong No. MuninsFire 13:38, 30 July 2007 (PDT)
- That's why I specified only show who voted for or against a frontpaged article after it gets frontpaged Elchip 11:46, 30 July 2007 (PDT)
Voting
| Yea | Nay |
|---|---|
| Elchip, Eddyatwork | Kesshi, Andbruno, Ratfucker, MuninsFire, Token, Howie_Feltersnatch |
[edit] Downvoting Options
- Submitted by: Kesshi
- Submitted on: Around 20th, July 2007
Description
Whenever someone uses the vote down options (Spam, Illegal, NSFW/Obscene, Dupe), add a blurb saying Bob thinks this is (whatever) This will serve several purposes:
- Warn people who might click on the link that it's NSFW, if it's not tagged as such.
- Prevent queue commandos from anonymously giving items a full -1 instead of the appropriate -0.5
- Let a submitter know why his entry is being voted down, to teach him next time.
Comments
- I like the idea, but the queue will be even more cluttered this way - ignoramus
- Yeah, but if the "alternate headlines" bit is cleaned up, it should help. Elchip 09:10, 20 July 2007 (PDT)
Voting
| Yea | Nay |
|---|---|
| Kesshi, Elchip, Ratfucker, Andbruno, fark, MuninsFire, Finkmota, Token | Ignoramus, Joe091 |
[edit] Dupe Reporting
- Submitted by: Unknown.
- Submitted on: Unknown.
Description
Let a person optionally enter the article ID if they think it's a dupe, in case they can't find the link in question.
Comments
- If the 'dupe' is so burred that even though you are sure it's a dupe, yet you are having difficulty finding it, I think it would be fair to say that most people missed it the first time. --Kesshi 15:15, 10 July, 2007 (PDT)
- If half a dozen people don't think it's a dupe, and everyone else thinks it is, it could still make the front page because the people who know it's a dupe can't make their suggestion known and encourage it to be downvoted... if that makes sense. I don't know. Elchip 06:57, 11 July 2007 (PDT)
- That's my whole point. If you can't find the article, then it wasn't that noticed to you, and probably not noticed by many others. Thus there is nothing wrong with it being a dupe in this case. Kesshi 11:44, 18 July 2007 (PDT)
- Or have it search the database for that URL, as well, when you push the dupe button. That being said, I don't mind dupes when people vote them up for another discussion. What does dupe do now? Just subtract 1 or 2 and label it as such? If so, works for me. --brazil 22:11, 8 July 2007 (PDT)
- But sometimes dupes come in the form of the same story, but from a different source (i.e. one from Reuters, one from AP). Voting "Dupe" right now just gives it -1, while voting "Report Dupe" and specifying a thread will give a notice to everyone. Also, to ameliorate "dupe-shitting," allow people to maybe report "Not a Dupe!" if someone said it was a Dupe. But don't let the submitter of the thread flag "Not a Dupe."
Voting
| Yea | Nay |
|---|---|
| ratfucker, Elchip, MuninsFire, swami-on-rye, Andbruno, Finkmota | Kesshi |
[edit] Recant Downvoting
- Submitted by: Kesshi
- Submitted on: 20th July 2007
Description
Add the ability to remove your own Bob thinks this is (whatever) in case you change your mind, mis-click or submit the incorrect 7 digit id.
Comments
- Can we make it so we can also recant our own alt-headlines? Points, if any, would go to the current leading headline.Mughi 14:04, 23 July 2007 (PDT)
Voting
| Yea | Nay |
|---|---|
| Kesshi, Elchip, MuninsFire, Finkmota, Mughi |
[edit] Preview your Submission
- Submitted by: Kesshi
- Submitted on: Around 20th, July 2007
Description
Add a forced (or optional) preview before submitting a new story/discussion. This will help reduce spelling and grammar errors.
Comments
- Optional only. Forced is unnecessary.
Voting
| Yea | Nay |
|---|---|
| Kesshi, Elchip, fark, ignoramus, Finkmota, MuninsFire |
[edit] It's a Followup, Damnit!
- Submitted by: MuninsFire
- Submitted on: July 16th.
Description
For links that would otherwise be flagged as 'dupe' that contain new information about the topic at hand, provide a flag for the submitter to check indicating that said link is a followup, not a dupe--same general idea as the "dupe" flag, in that the previous thread would need to be cited, but would note "followup" status instead. MuninsFire 10:35, 16 July 2007 (PDT)
Comments
- Follow-up - Remember that guy who put scorpions in his pants? He got stung on his peter. <--- Why is is so hard to do that? Kesshi 12:18, 16 July 2007 (PDT)
- Because some folks like keeping headlines short and sweet, without sticking a big klunky 'followup' at the beginning.
- Simply typing "Follow-Up - " is sufficient, as people do with [Video] and whatnot. Ratfucker 17:13, 17 July 2007 (PDT)
Voting
| Yea | Nay |
|---|---|
| MuninsFire | Kesshi, Ratfucker, Finkmota |
[edit] More queue flexibility
- Submitted by: Elchip
- Submitted on: July 8th
Description
Rather than the current rotation of items to be popped from the queue, why not make it more flexible; for instance, set the rotation to be "Any NSFW, any NSFW, any NSFW, any" and repeat. That way, if there happen to be several good discussions (or no discussions when it's time to pop out a discussion), there's more flexibility. Elchip 19:34, 8 July 2007 (PDT)
Comments
- I'd rather see it changed so that it still discriminates between stories and discussions, but if there's no discussion candidate and there is a story, it pops out a story instead, and vice versa. This maintains the current queue practice of trying to have a higher ratio of stories to discussions, but gets rid of the problem of having high rated stories sit in the queue for 24 minutes and possibly get discarded when there are no discussions submitted.
--Lincoln 17:25, 20 July 2007 (PDT)/* More queue flexibility */
Voting
| Yea | Nay |
|---|---|
| Elchip, Vin diesel, fark, Finkmota | None |
[edit] Display original headline
- Submitted by: Lincoln
- Submitted on: July 20th
Description
When an alternative headline gets mainpaged it would be handy if the thread showed the original headline submission and possibly any other alt headline. maybe even show vote total? --Lincoln 17:25, 20 July 2007 (PDT)
Comments
- I think that's a good compromise for my aforementioned (and disliked) "disable alternate headlines" bit.
- I think not... so many alt headlines become such serious trolls that they shouldn't be immortalized on the page that makes it. --Andbruno 17:33, 21 July 2007 (PDT)
- Not only, that, we have the option to vote down crappy headlines Isn't that the whole idea of Queue voting? Kesshi 21:27, 22 July 2007 (PDT)
- agreed with bruno on this one. Ratfucker 18:15, 21 July 2007 (PDT)
Voting
| Yea | Nay |
|---|---|
| Lincoln, Elchip | Andbruno, Ratfucker, Kesshi |
[edit] Navigation Box
Suggestion Box for banniNation Improvements New Items * Template to Add a New Suggestion * Most Active Suggestions (Moved to page because of too many comments) * New Suggestions Older Open Suggestions (These items are still open for voting!) * Suggestion Box Queue Items * Suggestion Box Comments Items (Tagging Items Included) * Suggestion Box Metrics Items * Suggestion Box Other Stuff Items Suggestions Being Implemented or Archived (Closed to voting) * Under Development * Quality Assurance * Implemented Suggestions * Stalled and Rejected Ideas Suggestion Box Total Table of Contents (ALL items not on main page indexed here) * Suggestion Box TOC
