the internet lyrics database
en
5
Back to old website
Follow 3
Share
Add topic
Search
roxcyn
1
roxcyn | 06:14
Since we have the "follow" logo to see who follows. Now we have the option to hide threads. How about a logo to show who is unfollowing threads? [Thanks to Practice for this idea].
20 comments
Captain_Keeta
0
What is the purpose of that though? It just shows who unfollows the topic? Do people even care who follows and unfollows certain topics?
PracticePractic
1
[Thanks Scott for posting the idea!]

More like just using the already present!! i.e.: [3] number box that shows how many are following a topic...below that list on same pop up might as well list the (few I hope!) those members who are blocking a topic.

Its all because if you remember, Jeff, following is really a popularity contest showing how good a topic is, so why not reveal how many (and who!) are not following i.e. actively blocking, a topic so the creator of the topic or music page can alter or change it if they see many people are not following it...its just extra valuable information that the computer has which I thought might be useful to share with everyone else to improve things.....small easy change I hope since the "unfollow/blocked/hide threads" option was created--which Ray mentioned would take a lot of effort to code---
,,.and the idea waited 3 years to be done so I know it was difficult to code initially across all the pages--and I don't use it but Jeff seems to report that it works just fine, so its a valuable addition for people/members like Jeff.
Captain_Keeta
0
Practice it really wouldn't improve anything. There could be a lot done on here and I just see zero reason for something like this. The ability to hide the threads was simple... no reason to announce to the world who is hiding the threads. Who cares? It's useless information.
Cheater138
1
Cheater138 | 18:17
I have to agree with Jeff here. Technically every member who isn't following a thread, whether on purpose or just because they never use it, is "unfollowing" it.
And listing who is actively blocking something is just asking for arguments. What or who you're blocking is no one's business but your own. If you're doing it to avoid conflict, making it public defeats that purpose completely.
Captain_Keeta
0
I couldn't agree more with the arguments. Knowing who is blocking what is just asking for a fight. Let's not.
PracticePractic
0
Right for both Sarah and Jeff, on making no arguments....
But before I just let these comments slide on by....

I see that I was not clear enough that I meant there are three categories (whether or not Ray does it)

1. Those who follow a thread (they support the thread and say they "like" it by doing do).

2. Those who decide to block a thread---actively seek to not know who is posting to a thread! They don't want an argument but it is good to know if a particular thread is "not" popular.
Currently in polls...why do they also list for people who "favor" a particular politician,.why do they BOTHER listing those who are against them? i.e. making up poll saying 70% in favor, 20% against... (leaving 10% not giving opinion?) Why not just say 70% in favor and leave it at that? [As is currently done in LetsSingIt?]

My answer (from a professional who has been there) is that it is most important to know one's negative rating at well.
Not just as simple as Sarah puts it:
Technically every member who isn't following a thread, whether on purpose or just because they never use it, is "unfollowing" it.


Of course that is true! but you really want to know your "negative" ratings for a thread...does one thread or another have a higher or lower negative rating? [Don't get upset at my using politicians as example....also used for rating television shows, movies, they give who actively give negative reviews! without naming each reviewer or viewer surveyed by various rating organizations!]
Maybe you would like the idea better if it just said "NUMBER" of those against it without naming them? I'd go for that...at least its a number with information attached] Now you got me thinking in that direction...,...

[Now I don't want Jeff to get upset..but he is only other one commenting on this topic here...
so I guess I am sorry but I will use him here in this posting as the foil only because I have no one else who has publicly stated they are unfollowing or blocking a thread---unless dozens of others come out of the shadows and post after I write this sentence below]

So if its ONLY JEFF who ends up being the ONLY user of the blocking function....then I'm sorry Ray...its a lot of work just for one member of the membership here to avoid having to look down a long list of "Active" threads to read the one that they are interested in...
That is sad...if its ONLY JEFF who is using the function...
I plan NOT TO...I'm interested in what others post even if I don't respond to all their posts ...I just did a few lately to try them out..I'll go back to just ignoring the ones I ignored without using a blocking function.

Oh and not to forget my list, third category is:

3. is as Sarah says..."everyone else" who declines to give an opinion either for or against a thread.

--------------------------
So there are three categories and I never meant that Ray posts the names of all those members in the universe who are "not" following a thread.
Only those who chose the negative function...the I am NOT IN FAVOR of viewing that thread
for whatever personal reasons....remember its a friendly site..no arguments....they don't have to state them for the blocking to happen! [Or just the "number" of those who are blocking the thread---that gives the creator of the thread, or any of us in fact...the power to fix anything so the thread becomes MORE popular and less "unpopular" by changing what is wrong with it.]

Just had to write this detailed correction, Sarah and Jeff....
As a professional..
I know these things to be true about Social Media and the "likes" or "following" functions and their effect on creating or fine tuning threads
.....sorry to pull rank on you for knowing these things......too long a story.....sad story sometimes....
Captain_Keeta
0
So basically what you're saying is you wanted this thread to be made to call me out on blocking threads even though I still post in one of them?

I'm confused. This is just getting out of hand now.
PracticePractic
0
No Jeff...sorry apologies right away...
I did not write the initial post as I thought it would be too wordy so I thanked Scott for doing so shorter than I would have.

I said I was "using you" only because you are the only one who created the "Option to Hide Threads" request back in 1-28-2016 in Killer Ideas, correct? Others then were able to comment on it positive or negatively....

You did put your name out there, so I was using it to ask for the next missing piece of information NOW that we have blocking ability.

That's all.
Please do not confuse my requesting something or explaining it in detail using a concrete example...as an argument.

If I had just said "what if someone did this or that" well everyone would have assumed it was you, Jeff and I'd be muddling each sentence to get around saying and using your name... so I did say before the example above :

Now I don't want Jeff to get upset..but he is only other one commenting on this topic here...
so I guess I am sorry but I will use him here in this posting as the foil only because I have no one else who has publicly stated they are unfollowing or blocking a thread--
Captain_Keeta
0
Okay. Anyways, we don't need this feature. There's no point to it.
Cheater138
1
Cheater138 | 04:12
But those who are actively blocking threads are those I don't think should be "exposed". It's their business whether they want to see it or not, no one else's. And that CAN cause conflict if others who use the thread or the OP are offended by their thread being intentionally blocked. Especially if they think the blocker is doing it just to piss them off. It's just not a good idea.
PracticePractic
0
Yes, I get it Sarah! So I
MODIFIED
my request (if Ray wanted to do this to provide the extra information)

Just list the "pure number" of those who are blocking it... i.e. [1], [3], or [11] etc...
That way NO ONE's name or identity is exposed.

Even though you're not in favor of the concept, does this modification take some of the arguments and sting out of posting just a number for the thread creator to know how many "like" it than don't ? [Remember its not every member who did not say if they liked it, just the number of those actively blocking the thread for reasons of their own, which is their business, nobody else's ok?]

Then they can re-write the thread title page or re-post a new thread with corrections in it, depending upon their choices....

As a designer of threads (and sites) I consider this is good information to have available !
Captain_Keeta
0
Practice, again, there's really no need for it. We really do appreciate the explanation but it's just not a useful or productive idea.
PracticePractic
0
But those who are actively blocking threads are those I don't think should be "exposed". It's their business whether they want to see it or not, no one else's. And that CAN cause conflict if others who use the thread or the OP are offended by their thread being intentionally blocked. Especially if they think the blocker is doing it just to piss them off. It's just not a good idea.


Which brings me back to original thoughts about being able to "block" a thread.....

And that CAN cause conflict if others who use the thread or the OP are offended by their thread being intentionally blocked.


So remind me again.....WHY do we now have this function at all?

Especially if they think the blocker is doing it just to piss them off

We don't have to worry about listing the blocker's name...if purposely blocking that thread is their PURPOSE in life....they will announce to the whole Forum that they are blocking the threads and which ones exactly!

Isn't that a lot of power in the hands of someone just to cause trouble? Just to avoid skipping over the threads that don't interest them???

Any thoughts on that point Sarah? [now that I emphasized what I just read and realized, in your quote above?]
Cheater138
1
Cheater138 | 15:05
I said if they (the OP) THINK the person is doing it to piss them off, not that someone actually would intentionally block a thread to be an asshole.
Giving the OP a list of names of who is "ignoring" them gives them the ammunition to call someone out who they think is being mean for doing so. There is no logical reason to give them that ammunition. If the thread isn't popular, it will eventually die out. You don't need a list of names of who is ignoring it to tell you that people aren't using it. That will be obvious on its own.

Allowing people to block threads they don't want to see has so far not caused any issues. No one is out there bragging and being a dick about what or who they've blocked. So again, putting their names out there is just going to give others a reason to ask why they're blocking something and that is no one's business but their own.
FireWaterBurn6
0
It boggles my mind that some of you care about things like this
PracticePractic
0
No problem with that ! There are whole buildings full of people investigating all sorts of minutiae topics that would really blow your mind if you stopped to think about the knowledge that each one of them uses and discusses and publishes about their own small area of study! "boggle away"!
FireWaterBurn6
3
Absolutely. This thread did, however, alert me to the fact that blocking threads is possible, which allows me to now block this one. Cheers
PracticePractic
1
This thread did, however, alert me to the fact that blocking threads is possible, which allows me to now block this one. Cheers

Good for you !

Actually it proves my point that you can learn new things from threads or other topics that you "don't like"....so cheers back! [So I l liked your post to see if likes still break through via notifications and you click on it in curiousity and are directed back to here , despite your blocking it.... only a test!]

[And for those who keep track of such mundane things....
this whole thread has been a hotbed of ideas reaching the rare and valued red [H] for "Hot" designation----so while the idea is dead, the discussion was very much alive and had many participants, correct? ]
Ray
2
Ray | 18:34
Looking at the number of comments, this idea drew some attention.

The option to hide threads is slighly outside the area of what I think is useful. I'm still monitoring usage to decide if it's a feature to keep for the long term. So far, I see it's only Jeff is using it. So I'd better hide this feature on the site and make it only visible for Jeff

This also answers the question if it's useful to give this feature a more prominent place on the site. I'm not a fan of this. Sorry guys.
Captain_Keeta
0
Yeah the option to hide threads is absolutely brilliant and showing who hides them is pretty useless. Keep us updated.
guest
guest
POP OUT SAVE saving ...
Read more: