 | | | | | | |
| |
|
I agree with your suggestions. In fact, I think it helps cut down the trash on
Lugnet becuase you have to be registered to post, AND Lugnet always shows your
real name.
Yea, we still get trash (and different people will judge what is trash
differently), but it is not nearly as lame as this BOBO character.
I really like MOCpages, too, but yea wouldn't it be great if there could be some
controls on what was thrown into the comments.
-Alfred
In lugnet.general, Anthony Sava wrote:
> Now before you climb up onto your high horse, let me begin by saying I love
> MOCpages, and I think Sean Kenney is doing the community a great service.
>
> But I hate the users on MOCpages, at least a few of them.
>
> Since I've joined, but over the last six months in particular, I've recieved
> bogus, vulgar, obscene and just plain idiotic reviews and ratings to the
> creations I have posted there. Granted, I'm not trying to claim that all my
> creations deserve high ratings or high praise, but some of these reviews are
> ridiculous.
>
> An example of the most recent lousy review of mine, in my opinion:
> http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/1695
>
> Well Mr. Josh Jenkins, it's MY cathedral and it's MY world that I've built. I
> don't care what your preconceived notion about what a Cathedral is and isn't,
> rate the model, not the idea.
>
> Well, ok, I'm just venting over that one. But...
>
> Here are plenty of examples of bogus and possibly vulgar reviews on my Black
> Dragon's page:
> http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/1682
>
> I've actually requested that several of "BOBO's" reviews be removed from several
> of my creations (which they have been) because they were just obscene.
>
> Another Bobo classic
> http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/1686
>
> Oh look, it's Bobo. Fun.
> http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/1683
>
> Here's Josh again.
> http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/1700
>
> Another pointless review, nice Job anyway to you too, Josh.
>
> So Sean, buddy, I'm not trying to cheapen your website, cause I really do think
> it's a great idea in theory. But would it be possible to impliment a membership
> requirement on reviewing and rating creations? Without accountability,
> anomynity allows for some serious abuses of the system.
>
> If people choose to review a creation without reading the description, or rank
> the MOC poorly because of personal problems with the builder, or just giving
> worthless reviews in general, I can live with things of that nature. That's
> just they way some people are.
>
> But people like Bobo need to be taken out. It's free to join MOCPages, so it'd
> only be an inconvenience to those who already are members to review or rank a
> creation. But if you had to put your own name and profile attached to a review,
> I would bet it would deter the Bobos of the world, at least a little bit.
>
> Sigh...
>
> Anyway, thanks for letting me vent, Lugnet. Sometimes you just need to make a
> public display.
>
> --Anthony
<unrelated rant>
P.S. Lugnet tells me this when I go to post:
"You added your reply at the top of the message. Proper netiquette suggests that
you add your reply at the bottom of the message so that people can read the text
in natural order from top to bottom."
I actually don't agree with this at all. I hate reading meaasages where you
have to scroll throught the trail to get to the new content. I don't actually
think this is a consistent netiquette either, as I see many interent posters
using the opposite convention: new material at the top of the post.
cross posted to lugnet.admin.general for any comment.
</unrelated rant>
-Alfred
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 05:56:54PM +0000, Alfred Speredelozzi wrote:
> <unrelated rant>
> P.S. Lugnet tells me this when I go to post:
> "You added your reply at the top of the message. Proper netiquette suggests that
> you add your reply at the bottom of the message so that people can read the text
> in natural order from top to bottom."
>
> I actually don't agree with this at all. I hate reading meaasages where you
> have to scroll throught the trail to get to the new content. I don't actually
> think this is a consistent netiquette either, as I see many interent posters
> using the opposite convention: new material at the top of the post.
See - there's your problem. Replying on the bottom makes a lot of
sense, as long as you TRIM THE QOUTED TEXT. Not you in particular
Alfred, but everyone. If people just hit <end> and type their text,
there's no point.
For instance, did you really need to quote the complete message you
replied to? For context, you could have left the paragraph with the
actual suggestion, but the rest could have been trimmed away.
Does that make sense?
--
Dan Boger
dan@peeron.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
On 14:06 09/02/04, Dan Boger wrote
> On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 05:56:54PM +0000, Alfred Speredelozzi wrote:
> > <unrelated rant>
> > P.S. Lugnet tells me this when I go to post:
> > "You added your reply at the top of the message. Proper netiquette • suggests that
> > you add your reply at the bottom of the message so that people can read • the text
> > in natural order from top to bottom."
> >
> > I actually don't agree with this at all. I hate reading meaasages • where you
> > have to scroll throught the trail to get to the new content. I don't • actually
> > think this is a consistent netiquette either, as I see many interent • posters
> > using the opposite convention: new material at the top of the post.
>
> See - there's your problem. Replying on the bottom makes a lot of
> sense, as long as you TRIM THE QOUTED TEXT. Not you in particular
> Alfred, but everyone. If people just hit <end> and type their text,
> there's no point.
Blame MicroSoft (again :-)... stoopid Outlook has trained people to reply
at the top of messages. It makes it hard to figure out what they are
talking about. If you try to interleave your comments it does crazy
formatting to the message and makes it worse...
I've tried to train people at my office how to interleave replies with the
original comments (and fix the weird format problem). You'd think I was
teaching them how to talk Klingon... :-/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Stephen F. Roberts wrote:
> You'd think I was teaching them how to talk Klingon... :-/
nuqDaq yuch Dapol!
-Jason
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Stephen F. Roberts wrote:
> Blame MicroSoft (again :-)... stoopid Outlook has trained people to reply
> at the top of messages. It makes it hard to figure out what they are
> talking about. If you try to interleave your comments it does crazy
> formatting to the message and makes it worse...
>
> I've tried to train people at my office how to interleave replies with the
> original comments (and fix the weird format problem). You'd think I was
> teaching them how to talk Klingon... :-/
Oh, Oh, teach me! So, how do you set Outlook to do the right thing?
I always have to cutNpaste things into an emacs window and reformat,
then interleave the replies, and paste it all back. And even then,
Outlook always wants to show how smart it is by mangling the pasted
text.
Don
Warning, FUT set to geek.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
On 14:31 09/02/04, Don Heyse wrote
> In lugnet.general, Stephen F. Roberts wrote:
> > Blame MicroSoft (again :-)... stoopid Outlook has trained people to reply
> > at the top of messages. It makes it hard to figure out what they are
> > talking about. If you try to interleave your comments it does crazy
> > formatting to the message and makes it worse...
> >
> > I've tried to train people at my office how to interleave replies with the
> > original comments (and fix the weird format problem). You'd think I was
> > teaching them how to talk Klingon... :-/
>
> Oh, Oh, teach me! So, how do you set Outlook to do the right thing?
> I always have to cutNpaste things into an emacs window and reformat,
> then interleave the replies, and paste it all back. And even then,
> Outlook always wants to show how smart it is by mangling the pasted
> text.
When you hit reply, it does that stoopid indent thing. You just have to go
down to where you want to insert things and use the "decrease indent" (has
a little left arrow beside some horizontal bars). You may need to do an
"add /remove buttons" to find it.
I do not know _why_ it doesnt just change indent level automatically when
you hit enter, but I guess that would be too convenient...
Then you've got to use the "font colour" button to turn your text black (at
least around here, it tries to make the original message blue).
If it were just doing the decrease indent, I think people would catch on,
but having to unindent and then change colours just gets too many little
steps for most simple messages (a whole two :-)...
Course, it would be _great_ if exchange would do that little trick like
LUGNET does and send a message back to you about netiquete if you put the
reply at the top... Maybe then people would get a clue...
or even better, a strong electric shock through the KB if they do it wrong...
---
wubwub
aka stephen f roberts
wildbrick.com - Jain's Guide : Promoting more than just the MOC
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Don Heyse wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Stephen F. Roberts wrote:
> > Blame MicroSoft (again :-)... stoopid Outlook has trained people to
> > reply at the top of messages. [...]
>
> Oh, Oh, teach me! So, how do you set Outlook to do the right thing?
Get OE-QuoteFix (or Outlook-quotefix) from
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/outlook-quotefix/
Suddenly Outlook (and Express) behaves like a real program...
--
Anders Isaksson, Sweden
BlockCAD: http://w1.161.telia.com/~u16122508/proglego.htm
Gallery: http://w1.161.telia.com/~u16122508/gallery/index.htm
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Anders Isaksson wrote:
> Don Heyse wrote:
> > In lugnet.general, Stephen F. Roberts wrote:
> > > Blame MicroSoft (again :-)... stoopid Outlook has trained people to
> > > reply at the top of messages. [...]
> >
> > Oh, Oh, teach me! So, how do you set Outlook to do the right thing?
>
> Get OE-QuoteFix (or Outlook-quotefix) from
>
> http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/
> http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/outlook-quotefix/
>
> Suddenly Outlook (and Express) behaves like a real program...
Or, you could use Mozilla Thunderbird for email.
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/thunderbird/
Downlad it free (it is opensource):
http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/releases/#install
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Dan Boger wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 05:56:54PM +0000, Alfred Speredelozzi wrote:
> > I actually don't agree with this at all. I hate reading meaasages where you
> > have to scroll throught the trail to get to the new content.
> See - there's your problem. Replying on the bottom makes a lot of
> sense, as long as you TRIM THE QOUTED TEXT.
In lugnet.general, Stephen F. Roberts wrote:
> Blame MicroSoft (again :-)... stoopid Outlook has trained people to reply
> at the top of messages.
I don't think it's only that. In my workplace, the general practice is to
always include the whole text of the message to which you are responding, but to
put the new content at the top. The reasoning, as I understand it, is that
after a few messages back and forth, the whole history of the topic is carried
along with the message, but you don't have to scroll down through all the old
stuff to see what is new. If you're trying to interleave comments throughout,
it becomes really confusing in a multiple message thread.
E-mail, though, is different from a forum such as this. Here, all of the old
messages are included in a thread. In e-mail, you can't count on all parties to
save all of their old e-mails.
Bruce
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Dan Boger wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 05:56:54PM +0000, Alfred Speredelozzi wrote:
> > <unrelated rant>
> > I hate reading meaasages where you
> > have to scroll throught the trail to get to the new content.
>
> See - there's your problem. Replying on the bottom makes a lot of
> sense, as long as you TRIM THE QOUTED TEXT.
I totally missed Alfred's rant because he replied at the top. When new text is
at the top of a message, I automatically assume there is nothing new further
down because very few messages do.
If the first line of a message begins a quote (such as the first two lines of
this post), I look for inserted pieces and then follow through until the quoting
level is up a couple (I stop at >>>>>>).
On topic: I never intentionally visit MOC pages and had no idea it had such
comments. Brickshelf is as far as I get and even then, only when a link in
lugnet.announce or lugnet.general directs me there.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Alfred Speredelozzi wrote:
> I agree with your suggestions. In fact, I think it helps cut down the trash on
> Lugnet becuase you have to be registered to post, AND Lugnet always shows your
> real name.
I think there's a HUGE amount of merit in that. Sites that allow handles just
aren't as pleasant, everything else being equal, in my view
>
> Yea, we still get trash (and different people will judge what is trash
> differently), but it is not nearly as lame as this BOBO character.
>
> I really like MOCpages, too, but yea wouldn't it be great if there could be some
> controls on what was thrown into the comments.
Yes, Perhaps only allow registered users to comment for starters. Maybe even
require a donation too before you can comment.
That does bring up a question, though... who are the comments for and what
purpose do they serve? Allowing a lot of commenters means you get more comments.
Restricting who can comment may get you less comments.
I like to think I build for myself (and my customers, I guess) rather than
random passersby.
I totally have no idea where the FUT ought to go. Publish maybe? I dunno.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Alfred Speredelozzi wrote:
> > I agree with your suggestions. In fact, I think it helps cut down the trash on
> > Lugnet becuase you have to be registered to post, AND Lugnet always shows your
> > real name.
>
> I think there's a HUGE amount of merit in that. Sites that allow handles just
> aren't as pleasant, everything else being equal, in my view
>
> >
> > Yea, we still get trash (and different people will judge what is trash
> > differently), but it is not nearly as lame as this BOBO character.
> >
> > I really like MOCpages, too, but yea wouldn't it be great if there could be some
> > controls on what was thrown into the comments.
>
> Yes, Perhaps only allow registered users to comment for starters. Maybe even
> require a donation too before you can comment.
At least registered users, with a real name. A donation will sort out a lot
more than I would want, I think.
> That does bring up a question, though... who are the comments for and what
> purpose do they serve? Allowing a lot of commenters means you get more comments.
> Restricting who can comment may get you less comments.
Less comments is ok with me. There are only two comments I like for my MOCs:
- Simply positive messgaes "Gee that's great" or "Cool"
- Constructive and positive feedback
Even feedback that says "its uninspired, you can do better" is ok (I
actually got that one in person for a moonbase module I made).
I guess if someone is going to comment, it would be nice to know that they
actually cared. I don't know.
> I like to think I build for myself (and my customers, I guess) rather than
> random passersby.
Random Lego fans, sure I think I build for them as well as myself. Completely
random people (aside from Public Show attendees)... not so much.
> I totally have no idea where the FUT ought to go. Publish maybe? I dunno.
Publish sounds right.
-Alfred
| | | | | | |
