| knowing who voted.....
Posted: 4/8/2008 7:35:38 PM | | Apparently I have upset someone, and it seems that when I make a newpost someone is voting to have it removed, no matter what the topic is. Personally, I feel that the user who is wanting to delete a post should be identified, otherwise, this feature is just open to abuse by people who may have a chip on their shoulder. Seriously, I posted a question about a particular tendonitis problem in the health forum, and already someone has voted to delete it, claiming it's attention-seeking???? | |
|
| knowing who voted.....
Posted: 4/8/2008 8:34:07 PM | | It isn't possible for just one person to constantly vote off threads. Once someone has voted either to delete or keep a thread it won't allow you to vote a second time on that thread. It takes 7 out of 10 votes to delete, so there are at least 6 other people that voted, unless you think they are all mad at you. | |
|
| knowing who voted.....
Posted: 4/8/2008 10:10:06 PM | | Well, that's what I thought, that it took more than a couple of votes, but I used to make posts all the time and they never got deleted. These days it seems most of them do. I did get involved in one thread where I disagreed with the majority of posters, though, so when my posts started disappearing I assumed it was payback. It is kind of a silly feature that is open to abuse. Really, if people don't want to read a post, then just don't read it. Why vote to delete it when others may want to read it? | |
|
| knowing who voted.....
Posted: 4/8/2008 10:13:05 PM |
Really, if people don't want to read a post, then just don't read it. Why vote to delete it when others may want to read it?
I wonder if its this type of "logic" that could explain why your posts are being deleted?
Bottom line, its not a matter of just ignoring violating threads if you dont like them. Its about users help self-moderate the forums, according to the rules of POF. It doesnt matter how many people might want to read it. Its all about whether or not it complies with the rules. | |
|
| knowing who voted.....
Posted: 4/8/2008 10:15:57 PM | | I wish we could vote on deleting threads in Ask a Girl/Ask a Guy. It would certainly cut down the number of redundant threads around there. | |
|
| knowing who voted.....
Posted: 4/8/2008 10:40:54 PM | | Most new threads are voted off due to redundancy, being placed in the wrong forum or pity/attention, the same as the majority of reported threads. Posts are different, if they are deleted it is because they were reported and a Moderator deemed it to be a violation as well and deleted it. So, just because someone might be mad at someone and report posts constantly the Mods wouldn’t delete it if there wasn’t a reason. The Mods will also take action on the opposite end of the spectrum if someone is constantly reported a specific user and it appears to be personal they take action against that as well. | |
|
| knowing who voted.....
Posted: 4/9/2008 1:44:57 AM | Apparently I have upset someone, and it seems that when I make a newpost someone is voting to have it removed, no matter what the topic is.
Up to 13 People may have to vote before a Thread gets deleted or approved.
Personally, I feel that the user who is wanting to delete a post should be identified, otherwise, this feature is just open to abuse by people who may have a chip on their shoulder.
Moderators do see who votes and how. Those who habitually vote to approve Troll, Pity, Chat and Billboard Threads and vote to delete Bona-Fide Threads will have their Voting Privileges revoked, usually along with a Slew of other Posting Restrictions.
Seriously, I posted a question about a particular tendonitis problem in the health forum, and already someone has voted to delete it, claiming it's attention-seeking????
The Reasons for Deletion are often not correct, as I believe that to be the Summary of the first (2) Two same Reasons voted on. Failing that, the indicated Reason may default to the first Voter.
Its something I have already brought up to the Attention of the Admin, but no Response on the Matter yet.
|
| |
|
| knowing who voted.....
Posted: 4/9/2008 10:52:43 AM | | miss allison, please explain the lack of logic you find in what I said. I think it makes perfect sense, if you don't like the topic, don't read it. Compliance with the rules is what matters, not how many people want to read a thread??? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. This topic has been discussed to death in other threads, so I know I'm not the only person that feels old or redundant threads should just be left for people to read if they want to. Once they've been inactive for a time, then delete them, or archive them like other sites do. | |
|
| knowing who voted.....
Posted: 4/9/2008 10:58:20 AM | miss allison, please explain the lack of logic you find in what I said. I think it makes perfect sense, if you don't like the topic, don't read it.
First of all I didn't say your statement lacked logic, as you claim I said.
What I did say is its this type of logic that most likely explains why your threads are being deleted.
Perhaps I'm reading it wrong but its the same thing I've heard repeatedly on here.
People suggesting users turn a BLIND EYE to violations.
Obviously if people don't like a topic they don't have to read it
BUT to ask people not report it if it violates the rules, is something altogether different.
Regardless of what you feel the rules should be (ie: Once they've been inactive for a time, then delete them, or archive them like other sites do) it doesnt matter. What matters is the ACTUAL RULES. You're welcome to turn a blind eye to the rules, but I for one, will not.
Just my 2 cents but I can't help but point out the trend that it is people that follow their own set of rules, instead of the site rules that get their threads deleted for being redundant. Just cause you think older threads should be archived and that your redundant thread should be approved does not mean it will be or should be. | |
|
| knowing who voted.....
Posted: 4/10/2008 1:54:56 AM | | So what type of logic do you think it is then? The implication is that it is flawed, somehow. Quite frankly I think you are too hung up on the rules, but that's just my two cents worth. I never said my threads were being deleted because they were deemed to be redundant, in fact the one I mentioned was one that someone claimed was 'attention seeking', which it wasn't. Others have simply disappeared with no explanation so I don't know why they were deleted. My original suggestion was about wanting to know who voted to delete a thread, that's all, and some comments by people here have at least cleared up some of my questions. I still disagree with outright deleting threads just because the topic has been covered before, though. New people can add new ideas to a topic, and there's always new people here, but I'm straying from the rules again, my appologies, I'll go to bed now. | |
|
| knowing who voted.....
Posted: 4/10/2008 7:32:47 AM |
I mentioned was one that someone claimed was 'attention seeking', which it wasn't.
Perhaps in your opinion, probably not those that voted it down and the Mods.
Others have simply disappeared with no explanation so I don't know why they were deleted.
With such a volume of threads, posts and reports, there is not enough time in the universe to notify everyone of a reason. There are also many reasons. First ones that come to mind are redundancy, dissolving into chat or habitually referring to other’s by their screen name instead of addressing a specific point that still stays with the topic at hand and there is outright flaming, bashing and insulting a group or idividual. An every once in awhile occurrence will likely be overlooked but those that show a pattern will be nipped in the bud.
BTW, redundancy isn’t so much about a topic that was done a couple of times 4 years ago. It is starting a new thread on an old topic that has 3, 5 or even 10 threads going at almost the exact same time and still active that will cause the new one to be deleted. Thread search is your friend.
As far as flawed logic it is only flawed if you just can’t get the idea that there are rules in just about everything. It is the head honcho (in whatever form) that gets to make them and if anyone wants to play in the head honcho’s sandbox you follow the rules or at least attempt to as best you can. It isn’t so much to punish the few but to try and make the experience as enjoyable as possible for the majority. I guess there are those that think others should be more aware of the rules, those that think there are too many and those that don’t think they apply to them.
As far as the “knowing”, the only one that needs to know is the site and those that abuse the “voting system” also get nipped in the bud. | |
|
| knowing who voted.....
Posted: 4/10/2008 11:46:37 AM |
So what type of logic do you think it is then? The implication is that it is flawed, somehow. Quite frankly I think you are too hung up on the rules, but that's just my two cents worth.
Rules, smoules, right?
I have several words I would use but that isnt one of them.
I guess you can leave it to a former moderator to think a lack of understanding of the rules, hence a lack of practicing of the rules just MIGHT, result in your threads being deleted. Makes common sense to me, but heck, what do I know.
Let me put this very simply for you to save any further confusion.
If your threads were within the rules THEY WOULD NOT HAD BEEN DELETED.
My original suggestion was about wanting to know who voted to delete a thread, that's all, and some comments by people here have at least cleared up some of my questions.
Showing you who voted to delete your threads still wouldnt had help aid you in learning the rules you're violating, and thats the key thing, right? The only thing it would enable is your ability to be a vigilante. As moderators and users have already explained above, a single user "targetting" you can not get your thread deleted. Not only that but moderators moderate whos voting to delete/keep threads. Anyone abusing this feature can suffer serious consequences as well. As for a moderator personally contacting you each time they delete a thread you start, for whatever reason all I can say is that its your responsibility to read the rules and follow the rules. Mods shouldnt have to treat us like preschoolers by emailing us saying "please don't do that". Its much easier and more effective just to ban users that keep violating the rules. Keep in mind they are volunteers and aren't being paid to take care of daycare.
In closing, my prediction is this: users that don't grasp and/or follow the rules end up getting banned from the forums. No one is immune to the rules. One's personal opinion of the rules don't matter. People can opt to follow them or not. Although you might think I'm "hung up" on the rules, I'd like to think that its more that I know the rules and do my best to follow them. As a result I don't have threads deleted, suffer from bans, or any other similar consequence. Sure, I might not agree with some of them (for example I want to keep redundant threads) but as a mere user, that is not my call. | |
|
| knowing who voted.....
Posted: 4/10/2008 12:30:17 PM | I know I'm not the only person that feels old or redundant threads should just be left for people to read if they want to. Once they've been inactive for a time, then delete them, or archive them like other sites do.
Compliance with the rules is what matters, not how many people want to read a thread???
Threads that do not fit the Format for these Forums are deleted by Moderators or the User Base. People "reading" or "not reading" a Thread is irrelevant.
Quite frankly I think you are too hung up on the rules, but that's just my two cents worth.
"Hung up" is a Mental Phenomenon. Failing to abide by them results in Posting Restrictions in our Virtual World. It goes down by the Numbers, as Users vote to delete Threads on those Basis'.
Others have simply disappeared with no explanation so I don't know why they were deleted.
There won't be any Explanations as there are no Resources allocated for that. Perhaps one Day the Admin will code such a Function, but for the Time being, the following Link applies:
My original suggestion was about wanting to know who voted to delete a thread
That Information is not available to the User Base.
I still disagree with outright deleting threads just because the topic has been covered before, though.
You can agree or disagree with anything you like. But if you act on it, then its another Ball of Wax. Whether someone is oblivious to what constitutes a Forum, a usable Database, or how it differs from a Chatroom is neither here nor there.
New people can add new ideas to a topic ...
 | Hence search for existing Threads on the Topic and post there instead of creating New Threads. |
|
| |
|
| knowing who voted.....
Posted: 4/10/2008 1:04:43 PM | | You know, there seems to be a lot of assumptions being made here. I wonder, miss allison, if you even bothered to take a look at the thread that I originally commented about? You are assuming that I violated some rule, and that is the reason someone voted to have the thread deleted. The fact is that I always do a thread search before I post a new topic, but still my threads go missing. One of the problems here is that the search function on this site is somewhat useless. You can only search by title, not by content, so if someone hasn't titled a thread properly it won't come up in your search. For example; I am planning a trip to Scotland, and went to the travel forum looking for information specifially on train travel in Scotland. I didn't find anything so I posted a question. It was deleted almost immediately because there was already thread on travel in Scotland. It apparently doesn't matter that my particular question wasn't answered in that thread, all that matters is that I'm not allowed to start a new thread about Scotland. The question I posted in the health and fitness forum was about tendonitis, and yes, there are threads on tendonitis, but I had a very specific question that I couldn't find the answer for. Still, someone voted to delete it. Can you not see how this would be frustrating??? The funny thing is that I don't really disagree with most of the rules here because I know there are spammers, trolls etc. that can make a site an unfriendly place. It just seems very narrowed minded, to me, to delete threads based soley on the fact that they may have been done before. But, that's was not even my origninal question, and my original question was answered some time ago. I can understand if the resources are not available to do certain things, that's a reasonable explanation. However, you will not change my mind about my thoughts on deleting threads just because they are deemed redundant, so there is no point in discussing it further. I came here frustrated about something, and instead of getting some helpful, polite answers, I've been instructed, in a rather condescending manner, to obey the rules!!! Well, thanks a lot! | |
|
| knowing who voted.....
Posted: 4/10/2008 1:46:44 PM | You can only search by title, not by content, so if someone hasn't titled a thread properly it won't come up in your search.
If you see such Threads, report them here: Forum Rule Violations - Report Thread
I am planning a trip to Scotland, and went to the travel forum looking for information specifically on train travel in Scotland. I didn't find anything so I posted a question. It was deleted almost immediately because there was already thread on travel in Scotland.
Since your Thread is gone, I can't comment on it.
Make Reference in your New Thread that you have looked at the other "Scotland" Thread and failed to locate anything about "Train Traveling".
Feel free to cite Links of other Threads of similar Topics to assist Users to distinguish between them. Sometimes the Margin is very narrow.
Granted, there are Users not gifted with excessive Brilliance who cannot discern Points within a general Topic, and delete anything which even resembles it. We weed these Voters out.
I had previously suggested to the Admin to limit Thread Voting to Forum Posters only with a minimum Post Count & Time Track Record. Unless that has been commented upon or implemented some Voting Abuse will continue.
The funny thing is that I don't really disagree with most of the rules here because I know there are spammers, trolls etc. that can make a site an unfriendly place.
In Part your own Fate if you don't report them.
It just seems very narrowed minded, to me, to delete threads based solely on the fact that they may have been done before.
Those are the Reasons based on Rules why they are deleted. If you don't agree, don't post here.
However, you will not change my mind about my thoughts on deleting threads just because they are deemed redundant, so there is no point in discussing it further.
| We don't care about anyone's Opinions in respect to redundant Threads, but if they are being made, they get deleted, with Posting Restrictions applied on Top of that. This is a Database Archive and will continue to remain one. |
|
| |
|
| knowing who voted.....
Posted: 4/10/2008 6:09:55 PM |
Personally, I feel that the user who is wanting to delete a post should be identified, otherwise, this feature is just open to abuse by people who may have a chip on their shoulder. I believe that currently, the identity of a user voting to delete, is available to the moderators.
Allowing the mods to see who is voting to delete, or not delete, threads, is the best method of preventing the abuse of the feature.
Allowing voter's identities to be available to all the forum posters likely wouldn't prevent any abuse.
It would just lead to childish accusations and insults from the "if you don't like my thread don't read it" whiners.
It may also encourage abuse of the vote to delete feature as some people may simply vote off another user's thread as revenge, for their own thread disappearing.
if you don't like the topic, don't read it. If you don't like the rules of a privately owned website, don't use that site?
Nobody's forced you to use these forums against your will, have they?
Others have simply disappeared with no explanation so I don't know why they were deleted. 
I still disagree with outright deleting threads just because the topic has been covered before, though. A redundant complaint, that's been adressed numerous times before in these forums.
http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts4935422.aspx
New people can add new ideas to a topic, and there's always new people here, If a thread already exists, on a topic that's worthy of discussion: new people are completely free to add new ideas to those threads.
Wouldn't that make more sense, than having 1000 seperate threads on the same topic? | |
|
|
Home
login 
