Petition to add most ignored tab to notable members page.

[Masterjaxx]

Doubt it will ever happen, but i think it would be helpful to have a hall of shame where this data gets accumulated. I bet it would help the mods identify sockpuppet accounts more easily.

Rathmun was fantasizing about something like this existing in one of his threads and it struck me, why doesn't this exist?

There is no reason it cannot be implemented that i am aware of.

So this post was made to discover just how much interest there may actually be in having this change made.

 

[HypoSoc]

I imagine at least one person would take it as a challenge and intentionally try to be ignored. That outcome is all the reason to never implement this.

 

[Blackshard]

I imagine at least one person would take it as a challenge and intentionally try to be ignored. That outcome is all the reason to never implement this.

Click to shrink...

The kind of person who'd do that sounds like the kind of person who ought to be banned outright.

 

[Rathmun]

The ideal implementation would be a little more complex, since you don't want to include ignores from people who are ignoring tons of people. You want to weight a nuisance score based on ignores/posts by the ignore-ee and on the ignores/posts from the ignore-er. If you're ignored by an account with 10 posts it shouldn't mean much. If you're ignored by, say, Mr Tao, that actually means something. Likewise, someone with 10 posts and ignored by 1000 is clearly a troll, while someone with 100000 posts and ignored by 1000 doesn't mean much.

 

[Masterjaxx]

I imagine at least one person would take it as a challenge and intentionally try to be ignored. That outcome is all the reason to never implement this.

Click to shrink...

I agree with you that this is a likely outcome.

But since Worm is such a big part of this site i am going to use a Worm reference to dispute you.

Just because fighting the gangs will cause damages, does not mean they should not be fought.

Just because people will try to exploit this does not mean it won't be helpful. There will be a few who know how to work the system and will use this as an opportunity to get even more irritating. But a great many more will be swept out of the shadows and dealt with.

I believe this would be a net gain.

 

[HypoSoc]

But a great many more will be swept out of the shadows and dealt with.

Click to shrink...

Admins already have access to this information. The general public does not need it. The point of the ignore function is to add civility, not brandish it about. Actual rule breaking is covered by the report function.

Are you asking regular users to mob justice brigade against highly ignored users?

 

[Hell's Razer]

I imagine at least one person would take it as a challenge and intentionally try to be ignored.

Click to shrink...

That is a self correcting problem there.

 

[Rathmun]

Actual rule breaking is covered by the report function.

Click to shrink...

Until people simply give up on the report function, because the problem keeps coming back again and again and again and again.

 

[snthsnth]

Another factor is that people would put ignored individuals on their ignore list, simply because others think they should be ignored. "Oh, nobody likes Mysterious MrX, I should ignore him too." Instead of ignoring him because you personally don't like his responses.

 

[Megaolix]

Speaking as a user and not a moderator, I see no reason for a hall of shame. For the same reason we don't have a dislike option for posts.

 

[Masterjaxx]

Speaking as a user and not a moderator, I see no reason for a hall of shame. For the same reason we don't have a dislike option for posts.

Click to shrink...

Speaking as a user since i don't have the right to speak as a moderator. Some posts deserve a dislike button and our current society's obsession with not shaming people when they do something shameful is a very serious problem. If you don't shame people when they do something worth shaming them, they will keep doing it. Public shaming is fundamentally necessary to promote change for the better.

But i suspect this is an insurmountable fundamental difference in the way we perceive reality and society, and i will not rant about it.

 

[Megaolix]

Speaking as a user since i don't have the right to speak as a moderator. Some posts deserve a dislike button and our current society's obsession with not shaming people when they do something shameful is a very serious problem. If you don't shame people when they do something worth shaming them, they will keep doing it. Public shaming is fundamentally necessary to promote change for the better.

But i suspect this is an insurmountable fundamental difference in the way we perceive reality and society.

Click to shrink...

I know for a fact that Rants threads sure don't mind dunking others when someone say something stupid.

And it's not like everything would be a Rule 1 breach. But there's a point about not taking it too far.

 

[daniel_gudman]

this really did make me chuckle,
but I still voted "no"

 

[LurkingInTheDeceit]

The ignore function is for hiding (people you don't want to deal with)'s posts, changing it into a group shaming function seems inadvisable. If they're doing something that's against the rules, the staff will reprimand or ban them for it. If they're not, no need to constantly shame them for being disliked, people will verbally do that anyway without actual system support.

Also, making a ranking is just asking for people to compete to be the 'winner', in increasingly annoying but non-rulebreaking ways. You can't really avoid that either, at least without instituting a 'get ignored by this many people and you're banned' policy, which seems like a really bad idea.

Anyway, "we don't need this" is what it comes down to.

 

[Ddmkm122]

This did make me laugh, but I still voted "We don't need this, it would just cause problems".
Though I strongly suspect that this suggestion was a joke.

 

[magic9mushroom]

Until people simply give up on the report function, because the problem keeps coming back again and again and again and again.

Click to shrink...

Your case was a pathological one with no truly-good solution. Please don't pretend it's representative of the whole board.

On-topic... it'd be nice to be able to see who's ignoring you, but I don't see why it's relevant to be able to see who's been ignored by lots of people.

("Most followers" wouldn't be terrible to add, though, if we're going full pie-in-the-sky.)

 

[Rathmun]

Your case was a pathological one with no truly-good solution. Please don't pretend it's representative of the whole board.

Click to shrink...

It was, yes, but speaking as a software dev, pathological cases are exactly the things that show you where your current system needs fixing. Would a "most ignored" list help with that specific situation? Well, it depends. The majority of the problematic actors in that pathological situation were low-post-count accounts, and unless someone does something truly impressively awful, I doubt an account with 100 posts is going to end up on the proposed "most ignored" list if it's a naïve implementation. On the other hand, if the list is ranked by the ratio of ignores/posts, that could actually be informative.

Admins already have access to this information.

Click to shrink...

I'm not certain the admins do currently have access to that information. I don't know what the user database schema is like, but if ignores are linked to ignore-er instead of ignore-ee*, then simply sorting on ignores isn't a cheap query. You could synthesize another column that tracks how many people are ignoring someone, but it'd be O(N2​) to generate. Probably not something you want happening on a page load, so if you wanted that data to be easily available (even just to the staff) you'd need to go ahead and add that column for real.




*That's how I would do it. It makes the job of the server easier, because you can just hand the user's browser their own ignore list and some JS to hide the ignored posts, which also lets you have the "show ignored" button work without needing to make another server query. Assuming they allow JS anyway, if not then the fallback path is still fairly clean.