|
|||||
|
| Porn Users Forum » A few tweaks |
| 1-25 of 25 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
| 03-04-12 05:03pm - 4676 days | Original Post - #1 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User  Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
A few tweaks The following is a waste of time, but for once I have a few minutes where I can relax and write a load of rubbish. None of the ideas will be used, and nothing is going to happen. Purely for the sake of conversation here are a few ideas which I think would improve PU. For the record TBP imo is close to perfection in the way it is set out. Here are my suggestions for a few tweaks to PU. 1. Give the User Poll a week, or at the very least, a minimum of five days, to allow everyone to register a vote (yes I know you can still register a vote after months, but by that time an old poll is out of site and out of mind). It also allows a conversation surrounding the poll to be built up and stimulate ideas and opinions. 2. Keep a newbie's review from being official until he has built up ten points not five. 3. At the same time do not allow any trust voting to be awarded until that newbie status is complete. A new user called qualitycontrol was hit with a negative trust vote for a short review. The review may be short but that doesn't exactly make a new user feel welcome, and I don't think he deserved a negative. We need to allow time for members to develop. This site is hurt if new users are not encouraged. 4. Do not award cash draw tickets for trust votes. 4. Announcements - one every year seems inadequate. Maybe there is no news, but how about feedback from those in control, even if it is something like mentioning how to use the site properly. For instance, I never even noticed you could add favourite members until that poll appeared. I thought it was just for favourite porn sites. In fact overall we need more feedback and comments from Rick, Khan, Vegas Ken, whoever. I don't agree that PU is about the users. It isn't, and shouldn't be. It is Rick's site, and he and Khan are in charge. I don't mind that at all, in fact I would like to see more of them around, and contributing. 5. Only the best comments should be awarded cash draw tickets. In fact there should be two different types of comment: The review comment and the comment comment. For instance - "Does anyone know if this site uses Russian models?" or "is this site still updating?" or "the download speed has dropped recently," should be separate from the review comments. 6. Two tier reviews. The first review on the home page should be a top drawer review, and the second should be one that is not quite top drawer. That way all new reviews get a chance to be on the home page, but a good review is never replaced by a poor one. There should be room for two new reviews on the home page. 7. Late addition. It's an old one but - end anonymous trust voting. Not world changing or PU changing. I would ask though to mostly refrain from hitting new users with negative trust votes. Save that for the really untrustworthy ones. Edited on Mar 04, 2012, 05:12pm | |
|
||
| 03-04-12 07:37pm - 4676 days | #2 | |
|
Capn (0)
Active User  Posts: 1,740 Registered: Sep 05, '09 Location: Near the Beer! |
I think those ideas would make it overly complicated & also discourage users from bothering to comment or give trust votes. To me it basically works fine as is. I will agree on your last line though. 'Not world changing or PU changing. I would ask though to mostly refrain from hitting new users with negative trust votes. Save that for the really untrustworthy ones.' Cap'n.  Admiral of the PU Hindenburg. 2009 PU AwardHilarious Post of the Year 2010 PU Award ( I would have preferred it to be Helpful Post of the Year for Guys who Hate 'Retail Therapy' ) :0/ Sanity is in the eye of the Beholder! | |
|
||
| 03-04-12 08:51pm - 4676 days | #3 | |
|
Cybertoad (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 2,158 Registered: Jan 01, '08 Location: Wash |
Change is good I suppose, but I would not like to see dramatic changes. Like I have heard many times, if it aint broke don't fix it. Good rant though, lots of thought when into it.  Since 2007 | |
|
||
| 03-04-12 11:42pm - 4676 days | #4 | |
|
slutty (0)
Active User Posts: 475 Registered: Mar 02, '09 Location: Pennsylvania |
Didn't negative votes used to require you to not be anonymous? I can't recall the last time I gave someone a negative, but I could have sworn it couldn't be anonymous. Perhaps I'm just confused as usual. Bunny Lebowski: I'll suck your cock for a thousand dollars. Brandt: Ah hahahahaha! Wonderful woman. We're all, we're all very fond of her. Very free-spirited. | |
|
||
| 03-05-12 01:21am - 4676 days | #5 | |
|
graymane (0)
Suspended  Posts: 1,411 Registered: Feb 20, '10 Location: Virginia |
I'm gonna have to disagree with those who disagree. I think squrrels' suggestions make a world of sense. All, save one, of his seven ideas lacked what needed to be taken into consideration by those to whom they're directed. The one in question having to do with poll selections extended for a week. I might sideline on that one. Indeed, otherwise his ideas are extraordinarily thought-provoking and presumably dwelt with heart and a meaningful purpose. I have to applaud the wisdom associated with this thread, and further denote my wishes that his list is acknowledged by our hierarchy. | |
|
||
| 03-05-12 08:51am - 4675 days | #7 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
Thanks for the feedback on my little rant guys. It was nice to have enough time to put together a post. Not having enough time to view much porn or be around here certainly stops me being jaded. Which brings me to the messmer thread...see you there. | |
|
||
| 03-05-12 08:54am - 4675 days | #8 | |
|
Khan (0)
Suspended  Posts: 1,737 Registered: Jan 05, '07 Location: USA |
Just confused I fear. We now require a "reason" (comment) be given when you give a negative rating. That wasn't required in the early days. So maybe that's what you were thinking of. Former PornUsers Senior Administrator Now at: MyPorn.com "To get your ideas across use small words, big ideas, and short sentences."-John Henry Patterson | |
|
||
| 03-05-12 10:03am - 4675 days | #9 | |
|
Capn (0)
Active User Posts: 1,740 Registered: Sep 05, '09 Location: Near the Beer! |
Well, as the intent of the incentives are to promote site use, they are effective. If they were removed as suggested, I for one would not bother so much to give trust votes or comments, if at all. Cap'n. Admiral of the PU Hindenburg. 2009 PU AwardHilarious Post of the Year 2010 PU Award ( I would have preferred it to be Helpful Post of the Year for Guys who Hate 'Retail Therapy' ) :0/ Sanity is in the eye of the Beholder! | |
|
||
| 03-05-12 10:57am - 4675 days | #10 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
Capn, you are right in many respects. Doing the things I suggest may have a detrimental effect on PU. However I was looking at it from the perspective of what a detrimental effect, negative votes have. To give cash draw tickets for negative or positive votes could increase the number of negative votes and therefore could mean new members leave as they feel unwanted and annoyed that their best efforts and honest opinions are being looked at in an unfriendly way. It could convey a "we don't like strangers around here" sort of feeling. I don't want to see newbies crushed before they have a chance to develop. The future of the site depends on it. My suggestions are mainly driven by wanting to see newbies given a fair chance, and this place being about quality rather than quantity. I do understand things are as they are for a reason. It was considered the best way to conduct business, so I could be very wrong about my suggested tweaks. So Capn, I'm not saying you are wrong, because you could be very right. My so called improvements could have the opposite effect to what I am trying to achieve. I put forward my ideas purely as suggestions, to see what the response would be. Thanks to those who replied. | |
|
||
| 03-05-12 11:01am - 4675 days | #11 | |
|
Capn (0)
Active User Posts: 1,740 Registered: Sep 05, '09 Location: Near the Beer! |
Well, personally, I always use an early positive trust vote as an encouragement. On the less than a handful of occasions I have issued negatives, they have only been on blatant shilling. Cap'n.  Admiral of the PU Hindenburg. 2009 PU AwardHilarious Post of the Year 2010 PU Award ( I would have preferred it to be Helpful Post of the Year for Guys who Hate 'Retail Therapy' ) :0/ Sanity is in the eye of the Beholder! | |
|
||
| 03-05-12 11:05am - 4675 days | #12 | |
|
Khan (0)
Suspended Posts: 1,737 Registered: Jan 05, '07 Location: USA |
Well, let me respond to at least a few of your remarks here. I won't quote the full message but will keep your numbering ... though as you have two #4's, I'll use 4a and 4b. 1. That's a might-could-do. I've created a poll question to get some feedback from the users here. If it's something that really appeals to the users then we'll give it some serious thought. 2. Not exactly sure what you mean by "official" here. We already flag newbie reviews with an asterisk and they don't count towards a site's official score until the user reaches 5 points. 3. Not allowing trust ratings for new users would actually go against the main purpose trust ratings were added to begin with. Which was, to help curb shill type posts. Most of those only ever submit one review and thus, would never reach 5 points. While I understand *your* reservation about giving a negative trust rating to a new user, I wouldn't agree that it's always a bad thing. I know of at least one recent instance where an early negative trust vote (for a short review) inspired the user to start submitting detailed, excellent reviews. So really, it can work both ways. 4a. On a *personal* level, I can somewhat agree with this one but only because I often see users give positive trust ratings too quickly (in batches of 5 and often to users who haven't participated in years) just to earn a raffle ticket. However, on a professional level, I'm not seeing that the potential benefit would offset the ill-will generated by taking away that option for earning a ticket. 4b. Wow, a lot to this one so bear with me. We try to reserve Announcements for when we actually have something to announce. This is, in part, because Announcements generate an email that is sent to every user. With the addition of the forum and more recently the newsletter, the need for announcements is even less. As far as seeing more of the staff ... Rick is focused on other projects these days. Ken's plate stays very full working with webmasters to line up official TBP Reviews and negotiate PU discounts. He's also working with Kevin to develop some new stuff that I think you guys will like a lot. Can't say more about those just yet. So that leaves you with me.  I'd wager I'm "here" far more than even our most active user. I read every single forum post, comment, review and reply. I post fairly often as is evidenced by the fact that I'm still in the top 10 forum posters. So yeah, I'm "around". It's true that I don't frequently get into the ongoing discussions but Rick and I agreed on this early on ... the PU forum is not about me (or any of the staff). It's about you the users. Trust me when I say, you'd quickly tire of getting my 2¢ on every subject that comes up. With that said ... I have seen a few times recently where I though it might be helpful (to some) to have a reminder about some of the features of the site. If there's an interest, then I'm willing to work something out. Perhaps a read-only thread of "tips" or maybe they'll give me a little blurb in the newsletter. But that's only if there's a general interest. Otherwise, I'll just keep giving them one-on-one as the occasion arises. 5 & 6. I think this might add a level of complication that isn't offset by the potential benefit. 7. Simply not going to happen. The only reasons I've ever heard for ending anonymous trust ratings are things along the lines of: "I don't like them", "they're cowardly", etc. If you are given the user's reason for giving the negative trust rating (agree with it or not) then why do you feel you need to know who gave the rating? We're confident that if we forced this, some users would simply select not to give the rating at all ... and to us, that is not a good thing. By allowing anonymous trust ratings we feel we keep the system from being influenced by peer pressure or brow-beating. It also doesn't allow for the "pay back" negative trust rating that would likely occur if every user had to be identified as to what rating they'd given. FWIW, I know of at least one (of our top users) who gives anonymous positive trust ratings just so the new user won't feel obliged to give him a positive trust rating in return. I'm sure some of this is not stuff you'd hoped to hear. Still, we do thank you for the feedback and the thought you put in to it. As always, thank you for supporting PornUsers. Former PornUsers Senior Administrator Now at: MyPorn.com "To get your ideas across use small words, big ideas, and short sentences."-John Henry Patterson | |
|
||
| 03-05-12 11:40am - 4675 days | #13 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User  Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
Let me say that I'm a glad of your participation and I would love to get more of your input on the different threads but I can see why you choose not to. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 03-05-12 11:50am - 4675 days | #14 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
Likewise. Like it or not (or maybe he's completely indifferent) Khan is not only the boss, he's a character and forum member whose opinion is not only important, but entertaining. The downside is, for obvious reasons, he has to try and stay as neutral as possible. | |
|
||
| 03-05-12 12:17pm - 4675 days | #15 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
First of all there aren't two number 4's. I always thoroughly reread my posts and reviews so I don't make those kind of mis....ahh... It is the stuff I expected to hear, although admittedly more positive than I expected. You have things the way they are for what you consider good business reasons. You mostly get things right. Incidentally fwiw I consider the small improvements to TBP last year to be brilliant because they improved on what was already close to darn near perfect. 2. Yes, I meant don't count them until they reach ten points. That maybe considered discouraging to newbies, so will have the opposite effect, to the one I wished. 3-7. Not sure that Rick concentrating on other things is so good for PU, however that Ken is working with Kevin on something we might like, sounds encouraging. I had a feeling members probably voted in batches of five to receive raffle tickets. It happened to me this week, for I think only the second time, and somehow it didn't feel quite right. For me it weakens trust votes. They should really count. I understood the reasons behind what you do, almost before your reply. Everything you do, is done for a reason. It was nice to have the time to post some feedback and ideas. I am not around much nowadays, and that will probably remain the same for quite some while. If you look at the top contributors, most have been around more than 3 years and are still active. That is a very healthy sign. Let us all hope the recession doesn't shut down PU or TBP, and that Rick's enthusiasm doesn't wane. One last point. I think most of us enjoy your contributions. It's a shame you have to remain neutral a lot of the time, because with your experience and knowledge, you have the potential to contribute far more than any other member here. Your wealth of experience possibly makes you the most interesting member of all. The Doctor Manhattan of PU. | |
|
||
| 03-06-12 12:19am - 4675 days | #16 | |
|
slutty (0)
Active User Posts: 475 Registered: Mar 02, '09 Location: Pennsylvania |
Thanks Khan, not surprising, I'm often confused. I tried to figure out the last time I submitted a negative vote and if I had done it anonymously, but the last I recall was the Miss Hybrid incident, and all those guys deactivated their accounts. Bunny Lebowski: I'll suck your cock for a thousand dollars. Brandt: Ah hahahahaha! Wonderful woman. We're all, we're all very fond of her. Very free-spirited. | |
|
||
| 03-06-12 06:24am - 4674 days | #17 | |
|
graymane (0)
Suspended Posts: 1,411 Registered: Feb 20, '10 Location: Virginia |
Gotta hand it to our exceptionally capable Administrator .... he sure put more perspective in matters I discovered I knew less about that I thought I knew more about.  Hail to our Chief! | |
|
||
| 03-06-12 11:03pm - 4674 days | #18 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
Good lord! Oh, and I'm sorry.  I can only imagine what having to read all of our nonsense would do to a person. How you haven't quit and started living your life as a celibate monk is beyond me.  "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 03-07-12 09:16am - 4673 days | #19 | |
|
Cybertoad (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,158 Registered: Jan 01, '08 Location: Wash |
I think, in one aspect, eliminating trust ratings as part of the raffle would in my opinion: 1. Encourage more reviews / input. 2. Would make the trust more reliable as people would be doing it for the reason not for points. 3. I know I would be more pro active doing reviews myself. I have been lazy and have about 7 reviews I just have not done. And been guilty of adding a trust here and there. Think well next week I would do a review and make it up lol. Just being honest guys. But this posting brought me back to my senses. So thanks Squirrel Since 2007 | |
|
||
| 03-07-12 09:37am - 4673 days | #20 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
Thanks Cybertoad, and also graymane. It's nice that I'm not completely on my own, and out of tune with all PU members. Thanks also to Khan for taking the time to put together a reply. I always presumed that Khan, or some member of staff, had to read every single thing posted on this site, to weed out the undesirable stuff. I wasn't thinking about what that could do to someone until turboshaft's post. Edited on Mar 07, 2012, 09:44am | |
|
||
| 03-07-12 09:57am - 4673 days | #21 | |
|
Capn (0)
Active User Posts: 1,740 Registered: Sep 05, '09 Location: Near the Beer! |
1) How would that encourage more reviews & input? I don't see any correlation? 2) With human nature being what it is, I think a lot of folk just simply would not bother with trust votes at all. As I said earlier, their intention is to promote site usage & whatever the motivation, which is a moot point anyway, they do appear to work. Cap'n.  Admiral of the PU Hindenburg. 2009 PU AwardHilarious Post of the Year 2010 PU Award ( I would have preferred it to be Helpful Post of the Year for Guys who Hate 'Retail Therapy' ) :0/ Sanity is in the eye of the Beholder! | |
|
||
| 03-07-12 10:56am - 4673 days | #22 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
For obvious reasons - to get in the raffle, members would have to review or comment on sites or put in five replies. A trust vote would then be from the heart rather than used in order to get a raffle ticket. | |
|
||
| 03-07-12 11:03am - 4673 days | #23 | |
|
Capn (0)
Active User Posts: 1,740 Registered: Sep 05, '09 Location: Near the Beer! |
Promoting site activity is what it is about. I doubt many would bother about trust votes at all if there were no motivation. Cap'n. Admiral of the PU Hindenburg. 2009 PU AwardHilarious Post of the Year 2010 PU Award ( I would have preferred it to be Helpful Post of the Year for Guys who Hate 'Retail Therapy' ) :0/ Sanity is in the eye of the Beholder! | |
|
||
| 03-07-12 11:26am - 4673 days | #24 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
It appears Cybertoad is the only member who agrees with me on this, and admin isn't going to change it. For the record I don't believe most members abuse the system, and do use their vote in an honest way. If they do trust voting purely for raffle reasons, and furthermore, if they do review or comment purely to receive raffle tickets, it does undermine the system and integrity of the site. I don't think we are at that stage, although for complete integrity there should be no raffle. That doesn't mean I don't enjoy winning. I am opening up a few old wounds from when one member started talking about samey cookie cutter reviews. Would members still review or comment if they didn't receive raffle tickets? I certainly would and so I believe would the old guard. Once again for the record, I think they get it right most of the time, but I am virtually out on my own on this one. I do realise the reasons behind raffle tickets. It is to stimulate activity, and it seems to do that job very well. | |
|
||
| 03-07-12 11:34am - 4673 days | #25 | |
|
Capn (0)
Active User Posts: 1,740 Registered: Sep 05, '09 Location: Near the Beer! |
......and I think that is why it should be deemed to be sucessful as it stands. I can appreciate your altruistic intent on this, but nothing in this world is perfect, & in all honesty, whatever system you have folk will tend to play it to their own advantage. That is human nature coming out again. Cap'n. Admiral of the PU Hindenburg. 2009 PU AwardHilarious Post of the Year 2010 PU Award ( I would have preferred it to be Helpful Post of the Year for Guys who Hate 'Retail Therapy' ) :0/ Sanity is in the eye of the Beholder! | |
|
||
| 03-07-12 12:33pm - 4673 days | #26 | |
|
Cybertoad (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,158 Registered: Jan 01, '08 Location: Wash |
I ran a few forums for awhile back in the early 2000's not that I know everything there is to run one. But human nature from my point. Is if you give a person the opportunity to judge another person it empowers them. The same way ( lets be honest ppl) the same way we might judge a newbie on here. Not to be mean or rude but if you have been on here a few years and new pup comes on ppl enjoy poking the stick. Now also there is the part of us that loves being part of a support to say hey atta-boy. So I guess it could be said in-referring to the stick some like to poke with it and some will use it to reach out and give a hand up. Again not that I know anything but my forum I did people liked doing it and we had no rewards for it. Since 2007 | |
|
||
| 1-25 of 25 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
|
