Old Fezziwig
hell yes bro
I thought you were suggesting those were mitigating factors in why the number of people blocking/ignoring you was misleading or otherwise not useful or meaningful. My bad.It wasn't intended as a defense.
I thought you were suggesting those were mitigating factors in why the number of people blocking/ignoring you was misleading or otherwise not useful or meaningful. My bad.It wasn't intended as a defense.
For some reason you seem to take delight in rubbing my nose in the number of folks who have me blocked and trying to make me look like the bad guy, making comments like, "You must be lonely here" and saying how little you care about how the block feature impacts me. I don't know why you do that.
I'm actually surprised it isn't more. A lit ray of optimism about humanity! I think when you have a strong culture, with clear rules, and active moderation, people start policing themselves or move on to other places if that are more open to their behavior.I was surprised that there were something like six pages of folks with at least 24 blocks. But I guess I don't have a good feeling for how many really active posters we have. (Makes me wonder what some sort of network analysis on who blocked who would look like).
And now I'm wondering how many warnings per 1,000 posts or per year it takes someone to be an outlier.
[The data on both would be really cool to analyze....]
Why is a little much, but I don't see an issue with knowing just the fact that someone blocked you.There's no social platform on the planet that tells you when somebody has blocked you and why.
Why is a little much, but I don't see an issue with knowing just the fact that someone blocked you.
Fair enough, but if you are truly villifying the person who was blocked like that, why are they allowed to stay on the site at all? Are we assuming that any time a poster chooses to block another poster, the one blocked must be a harassed? And if that's the assumption, shouldn't greater action be taken?Well, among reasons - people who are victims of harassment or stalking frequently don't want to give the harrasser any clues whatsoever.
It’d also be interesting to see what the percent of total blocks are from people with no posts and between 1 and 50 or so posts, etc.I was surprised that there were something like six pages of folks with at least 24 blocks. But I guess I don't have a good feeling for how many really active posters we have. (Makes me wonder what some sort of network analysis on who blocked who would look like).
And now I'm wondering how many warnings per 1,000 posts or per year it takes someone to be an outlier.
[The data on both would be really cool to analyze....]
High blocks are viewed negatively. Should high likes be viewed positively?
All metrics should be chosen to answer a specific question. So... a better metric for what? What are you trying to measure, and for what purpose are you measuring it?Maybe going by high likes instead of high blocks would be a better metric.
But like, aren’t the same cliques more or less just as likely to block the same people as they are to like each others posts?That's how we get clickbait. And cliques of people can drive raw number of likes without generating breadth of positive reaction.
For the same purpose high blocks get brought up in these conversations.All metrics should be chosen to answer a specific question. So... a better metric for what? What are you trying to measure, and for what purpose are you measuring it?
That’s great! Though that leaves me a bit confused by the emphasis on them here.We don't generally consider number of blocks in day-to-day operations anyway. When I am moderating a post, I don't go look at the ignore report to see where someone sits.