Credibility of postings

Subject: Credibility of postings
From: steve in ottawa
Date: 16 Sep 01 - 06:39 PM

When I last sought comfort at Mudcat, just after the Colorado high school shootings in April, 1999, the atmosphere was uniformly warm and friendly. Not so these days. Ugh. When did this trolling and sniping begin?

I wonder if a credibility rating system deserves some thought? It's now a common science fiction idea that in the future all creditable news would have to come from people who have built up a reputation over time (and that they'd be able to digitally sign their reports to show that no censorship took place). Perhaps something similar is needed here? We already have passwords.

Idea: postings from catters who have made ten postings and have gone over a year without reputable complaints of trolling or displaying blatant rudeness ought to automatically show up in a different colour? Maybe posts from people who have solved more than ten problems for other catters (such as getting lyrics) could get a reserved suffix added to their name, like "XYZ the Helpful" (this could be done by nomination by themselves or others). Maybe professional folkies could appear as "XYZ the Talented" Maybe people who have helped over a hundred times could get a suffix added to their name like "Joe Offer the Mighty Helpful"

This isn't censorship, it's highlighting; it's recognition.

Initially, a few regulars could have their membership properties manually set to "reputable". They would be the only ones capable of lodging reputable complaints against others. The rest of us could slowly become reputable over time.

Apologies if this idea has already been discussed to death in the forum.

Mudcat is a binge behavior for me. I'm not sure if I'll be able to follow up on any discussion for more than a few days.

Subject: RE: Credibility of postings
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 16 Sep 01 - 06:45 PM

Love the concept - But what would you do about 'Spaw?????

Subject: RE: Credibility of postings
From: katlaughing
Date: 16 Sep 01 - 06:49 PM

Interesting thought. Kind of like the honour system on eBay, you get 10 good feedbacks and get a certain colour of star, then as you garner more positive feedback comments, more stars of different colours, if I remember correctly.

Right now, I think it might be a bit too much to ask, though, of our already over-extended volunteers, such a Joe Offer and Pene Azul. Of course, if it cut down on the time they have to spend cleaning up spills in "Aisle 0000" due to trolls and flamers, it could be beneficial in the long run.

Thansk and welcome back,

kat

Subject: RE: Credibility of postings
From: Bert
Date: 16 Sep 01 - 06:57 PM

Unfortunately Mudcat has been inflicted with a "GUEST" who is a perfect asshole and just likes to stir up trouble. Equally disastrous is the fact that many otherwise sensible people seem to be unable to resist responding to this asshole and thereby just add to the assholes delinquent behaviour.

It has been said that there is more than one such asshole, but that is completely irrelevant because if there is more than one, then they are so similar as to be indistinguishable.

The thing to do is ignore the silly bugger and enjoy the rest of the site.

As far as credabilty is concerned, if it's someone you know then they are as credible as their behaviour shows. If it's Catspaw then he's just having fun with you, if it's Gargoyle then he's probably trying to say something which you might not agree with. But if it's a nobody then they have absolutely no credibility.

Bert

Subject: RE: Credibility of postings
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 16 Sep 01 - 07:05 PM

I have seen rating ideas and I don't like them in forums(ebay is an exception as I think ther reliability of a vendor is a different matter). They are more likely to give indications of who likes who or popularity votes than anything useful.

Personally, I quite like people who occasionally take contraversial stances, go against popular opinion, I don't mind the occasional loss of temper, etc. and as such I'd probably ignore any such system if it was in place anyway.

I take people as I find them - not as others may find them...

Jon

Subject: RE: Credibility of postings
From: steve in ottawa
Date: 16 Sep 01 - 07:08 PM

I can't remember Catspaw ever being a jerk...but then I obviously don't read everything here. I wish I'd realized what Gargoyle was immediately. It took me about ten minutes of puzzling a response and then fifteen wasted minutes of going through old postings to discover what Gargoyle was. I don't think the average person would have even thought to search Gargoyle's record, but then again, I don't think Gargoyle cares a whit about average people. Most Catters do.

Subject: RE: Credibility of postings
From: wysiwyg
Date: 16 Sep 01 - 07:13 PM

IMO you make your own rating here by doing a Usersearch on a member's name in the post, and seeing what sorts of things they have written. Start with their first posts, and their responses to music threads. Then look to see how much BS they participate in. See how controversial you think the BS is, and choose a few to see how they handle themselves.

We all have to deal with each other in our own way. Adding to the judgmentalism already here by institutionalizing it will not help things settle down, it will make them worse.

Maybe a supersearch on the phrase "I'm sorry " would be interesting.

~Susan

Subject: RE: Credibility of postings
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Sep 01 - 07:14 PM

Interesting idea.

The scoring system could get complicated. What about people who charge round trying to be helpful all the time but consistently get it wrong.

And you get heavy irony of the form "Oh what a very sensible thing so-and-so just said" - and someone somewhere has got to decide who started the subsequent mayhem. In fact with an international membership dealing with things like irony could be an insuperable hurdle.

I think that the people who go on about cliques and gangs and so forth would freak at this sort of thing. Which might be a reason in itself for introducing it.

Perhaps a modification might be that any thread started by a GUEST would show up in a different colour. (And I now there are some very good GUESTS who have the courtesy to add some kind of handle, but who for various reasons don't want a cookie - but the percentage of trolling threads started by GUESTS is high enough to merit a warning of some kind.

Subject: RE: Credibility of postings
From: Joe Offer
Date: 16 Sep 01 - 07:31 PM

I would like to be known as "Joe Offer the Occasionally Impatient."
[grin]
Actually, the concept of credibility of postings becomes quite important when it's music information you're posting. If you're posting lyrics of composed songs, please try to include songwriter, date of publication, and copyright information; and include your sources for whatever information you post. Try to be as accurate as possible with lyrics, and furnish background information if you have it. I think the credibility of whatever you post should stem primarily from the content of what you post, not from your name or prior reputation - this applies to everything, not just music information.
-Joe Offer, also partly balding-

Subject: RE: Credibility of postings
From: Rich(bodhránai gan ciall)
Date: 16 Sep 01 - 07:36 PM

Pretty soon we'll have flamers posting a bunch of nice stuff just to get a good rating so they can pull off THE BIG FLAME! We have cookies. Beyond that, there's really not much we can do. If we keep our respective sides of the street clean, it doesn't matter what the other guy does.

Except Spaw. Gotta watch him ;-)

Rich

Subject: RE: Credibility of postings
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Sep 01 - 07:37 PM

I don't think the cause of promoting thoughtful and intelligent discussion would be served by turning the Mudcat into a popularity contest.

Subject: RE: Credibility of postings
From: catspaw49
Date: 16 Sep 01 - 07:38 PM

I was gonna' go for Spaw, The Pure and Chaste.....Whaddaya' think?

Say what? SAY WHAT????

Well FUCK YOU!!!

There goes my gawdamn star......Shit!

Spaw

Subject: RE: Credibility of postings
From: Amos
Date: 16 Sep 01 - 07:49 PM

Well, Spaw, just shift it around a little bit and go for Spaw, the Pasty Churl.

A

Subject: RE: Credibility of postings
From: Rich(bodhránai gan ciall)
Date: 16 Sep 01 - 07:53 PM

OK Spaw,
3 demerits. Now you gotta carry the America Attacks threads to part 10 and keep them going in a respectful manner if you want a yellow star, but you won't be eligible for a red star for 2 months!

That'll learn you.

Rich

Subject: RE: Credibility of postings
From: DougR
Date: 16 Sep 01 - 07:57 PM

Two assholes, Bert? Do all Flamers have two? :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: Credibility of postings
From: Dicho (Frank Staplin)
Date: 16 Sep 01 - 08:04 PM

Credibility? In BS most of us are just talking off the tops of our heads. On songs and information, I agree with Joe, but even so we can foul up if we pick the wrong authority. I don't think it would help, and it probably would be hell to set up. Ignore guest trolls is good advice, but some of us can't resist taking a potshot.

Subject: RE: Credibility of postings
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Sep 01 - 08:20 PM

The truth is you just have to learn whom to trust, and that is an important part of the Mudcat. And that is the main reason posting as GUEST(unhandled) is such a damaging and unsociable thing to do.

Subject: RE: Credibility of postings
From: AliUK
Date: 16 Sep 01 - 08:38 PM

normally people who turn up as GUEST stick on a handle or just their names and that's fine. This thing about a points system is, IMHO, a bit elitist. Not that I mind being part of an elite mind you, but the problem is that Spaw will have to be included just by the fact that in Cat terms he's a fogey, what with having been around here since Babbage first invented the computer, but that's okay cos he normally brings Cletus along and he's loads of fun!
What's that annoying squeak. Spaw you blowing that damned Possum up the arse agin'?!

Subject: RE: Credibility of postings
From: Jeri
Date: 16 Sep 01 - 08:46 PM

I enjoy reading people's posts and deciding for myself who I should respect or not.

I think the ratings would be a popularity contest, and we really would be a clique if we instituted them. Maybe an exclusive club - don't they have that black ball/white ball thing to show approval of new members.

I sort of like the idea that folks can just join in the conversation and feel like they have as much right to post as anyone else.

I like the fact that people can present an opinion that differs from the majority, and only have to think about disagreement - not losing points or having some label applied to them that would make some folks ignore them. I also like the idea that folks who are misunderstood aren't punished for it. I like the idea that people can change their minds or behavior. A label would make that difficult.

An unwanted label would cause resentment. Resentment often causes people to behave badly. I think there are 3, maybe 4 consistent flamers now. I think there would be more with the popularity contest, and we have more than we need now.

It's our responsibility to not support (by posting) things we don't like here (like flaming). I also think it's our responsibility to read what people write and make our own judgements about them rather than have the group tell us what we should think. I think we'd be better off if we could be a bit more self-sufficient when it comes to those things.

Subject: RE: Credibility of postings
From: steve in ottawa
Date: 16 Sep 01 - 11:48 PM

Well, that really sounds like a big nope from the regulars. For me, the only real reason not to have ratings is 'cause it might be an administrative nightmare.

I guess I just have a couple more points to make:

Asking everyone to form their own opinions about other posters over time is itself elitist and clique-ish; few people have time to check out old postings or to keep up with postings in general, thereby knowing who to trust. Smart trolls aren't always obvious. Smart readers aren't always feeling smart and can be fooled. Spaw? I'm not offended by cheerfully rude people like Spaw; he ain't trying to screw with my mind or make me feel smaller.

Second, some people do take the stuff that they read here very seriously, for instance in the thread: http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=25365 Someone says: Subject: RE: BS: Mind-Changing at Mudcat? From: Marion Date: 14-Sep-00 - 09:32 PM ... I have become much more reticent about singing my original songs, because now I think people may be muttering "another girl singing her diary".

Marion got some encouragement furthur along in the thread, but there is no furthur posting from her to indicate that she read the encouragement. I don't have time to check out her postings in other threads. Instead I have written to her:

(intro. cut)

I hope you don't still feel that way. Yes, of course, most of your songs probably aren't as good as the old folk tunes we love. As Art Thieme said, the song isn't good because it's old, it's old because it's good. But that's not the point. The point is that people like to hear what's on the mind of other people; they like to feel connected with other people. When you perform your own songs, you can probably put more emotion into the performance and people can probably feel more connected to you.

My girlfriend likes to ask me how my day went. What I usually want to say is that nothing very interesting happened. But she still likes the details (or claims to, until I sometimes get carried away). And she *loves* to relate the details of her day. The mundane things connect us.

Odetta says she sings other people's songs because she doesn't want to reveal too much of herself by singing her own. I guess she just wants better control over what she reveals. Odetta sings old songs well, but she'll never be as popular as people who sing new material. Sometimes I think that people who stick to old folk are all simply shy.

If you feel like, hey, my songs are all just variations of songs that have been written before, all I can say is, there's some truth in that, but when you sing them, the audience sees them as special because they happened to the woman who's right in front of them.

Steve

Subject: RE: Credibility of postings
From: Jeri
Date: 17 Sep 01 - 12:54 AM

Some clarification on "I also think it's our responsibility to read what people write and make our own judgements about them rather than have the group tell us what we should think."

I believe people should make up their own minds about other posters here. It's how life works. I do NOT believe studying the posts of others is necessary. If I sounded like I was saying everyone should have to familiarize themselves with the on-line personalities of others, I didn't mean to. Some folks are into personalities, some aren't.

Subject: RE: Credibility of postings
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Sep 01 - 05:31 AM

Close textual analysis of what someone has previously written isn't what's needed. But it helps to build up the sort of familiarity that helps tell when someone has their tongue in their cheek, or is speaking ironically, or has clearly had a bad day and is just shouting off his or her mouth and so forth.

Subject: RE: Credibility of postings
From: Pseudolus
Date: 17 Sep 01 - 12:43 PM

How about anyone posting to a thread started by a guest would get the question, "Are you sure you want to post this?". It could be a reminder that only ignoring flamers will get rid of the threads. If it's in fact a thread just looking for help, I think none of us would mind the extra click, and it may make some of us change our minds when responding to the nonsense. Just today, I had to convince myself NOT to post to a thread that had the audacity to poke fun at this tragedy we are going through. I convinced myself it was best to stay silent.....the most difficult non-post I've ever not made.....

Frank

Subject: RE: Credibility of postings
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 Sep 01 - 01:33 PM

I didn't see any thread poking fun at this past week; I've seen a Humor thread that is staying away from it... but I know what you mean about tough posts not to make!

Subject: RE: Credibility of postings
From: Pseudolus
Date: 17 Sep 01 - 02:09 PM

It's in the thread claiming that Bin Laden is not guilty and perhaps it could be Gary Condit and some other crap. Amazing how low some people can stoop. Even talking about it here is playing into the hands of the guest so I'm gonna stop.....This is really sad.

In case someone may have misunderstood my comments, I have no problem with the humor thread, in fact I'm very supportive of people mourning in whatever way that they need to. But the thread aboutBin Laden being not guilty is just plain cold and callous. Please folks, DON'T POST TO IT!!

Frank

Subject: RE: Credibility of postings
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Sep 01 - 02:20 PM

I'd like to see the name of the original poster on the title of the thread. I'd also like to see registration for everyone so that I can sort out the GUESTS. I know what to expect form many catters. On some topics there are certian folks I will skim an dothers that I look forward to. But these GUESTS... Every now and then a gem comes from them. I would like to ask the ANON GUESTs who aren't here to insult and be rude to please identify themselves so that they get the credibility that they deserve.

Subject: RE: Credibility of postings
From: wysiwyg
Date: 17 Sep 01 - 02:52 PM

Oh wait, I don't mean STUDYING each other-- just that we do already have a tool to check our thinking once we start wondering what kind of idiot or saint someone around here seems to be. More especially we have that tool to rely upon when our communication with a certain individual continually fails, and one wants to check assumptions with a fresh look.

~S~

Subject: RE: Credibility of postings
From: M.Ted
Date: 17 Sep 01 - 03:29 PM

This is a very funny, thread, and this comment,"Asking everyone to form their own opinions about other posters over time is itself elitist and clique-ish" is going into my permanent collection--. Thanks for this lighthearted diversion in what has been about the least funny week of my entire life--

Subject: RE: Credibility of postings
From: Bernard
Date: 17 Sep 01 - 06:17 PM

What amuses one person often insults another...

With such a wide and varied group of people with a common interest it is inevitable that differences of opinion will occur, so is it so surprising that there will be a minority who deliberately set out to antagonise the rest?

Flamers and trolls thrive on attention; it can be very difficult not to rise to the bait. A certain 'GUEST' is most definitely a baiter - and a master at it...!!!

Subject: RE: Credibility of postings
From: Jeri
Date: 17 Sep 01 - 06:49 PM

Bernard, yep. Although when you're looking for signs of trolling, they're pretty transparent. Of course, if you're REALLY looking, you can find them in comments other people made perfectly innocently.

Perhaps the best attribute to have around here is an open mind. We think we've figured out what a person might have really meant. Sometimes we're right, but we've got to be equally accepting of the possibility we're wrong. We can jump in with both feet, treating our perception as reality, and perhaps have to apologise later, or we can wait for more information. Trolls usually get more and more obvious the more they post - perhaps one big reason for them not using a consistant identity. Writing style, as well as tactics, pet hates, and favorite words, can be distinctive. It's just a fact when humans communicate, some small bit of who we are comes through in our words.

Subject: RE: Credibility of postings
From: SharonA
Date: 17 Sep 01 - 06:50 PM

Bernard: A master baiter? (I have no doubt that GUEST does that in his spare time...)

Subject: RE: Credibility of postings
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 17 Sep 01 - 06:58 PM

master baiter? Sharon I bet you never had the wonderful Captain Pugwash in the US and you may not know this one even though it has been mentioned here before (some time ago): It was a kids tv program but an urban legend grew about the names of characters used - Master Bates and Seaman Staines being two and had a lot of people convinced that those were the names used for a while...

On a musical note, the tune to Captain Pugwash was the Trumpet Hornpipe - a great tune.

Jon

Subject: RE: Credibility of postings
From: Mr Red
Date: 17 Sep 01 - 07:01 PM

Steve
guerilla tactics to lower other posters' ratings would ensue.
policing that would be a task beyond measure.
I suspect that the popularity of Mudcat attracts trollers and the equivalent of graffitti artists and the events of the week are polarizing opinions
terrorists have raised our game and we wouldn't be the beligerant race we are if it weren't so. We can rise above it, but not while the adrenalin is coursing.

and the meek shall inherit the earth --- if that's ok by everyone else.

Subject: RE: Credibility of postings
From: Rich(bodhránai gan ciall)
Date: 17 Sep 01 - 07:06 PM

You don't rate the people you know in the 3D world on a point system, do you? You hopefully get to know them over time. Most of the the warm-fuzzy, ultra-friendly, amiable, well-meaning people here have ripped someone a new asshole on this forum at one time or another, or posted something early in the morning, or late at night that they had to apologize for later. I know I have. I'd like to think that those apologies were accepted not because I rated a 7.9 on the Mudiquette scale at the time, but because people know me. The concern over whether Larry (InOBU) or Sinsull were alright,last tuesday was not because they rated 9.1 and 8.6 respectively but because they're our friends here.


Rich with the green star on his forehead

Subject: RE: Credibility of postings
From: Jeri
Date: 17 Sep 01 - 07:17 PM

SharonA, jeez - I completely missed that!

Subject: RE: Credibility of postings
From: SharonA
Date: 17 Sep 01 - 07:18 PM

Jon Freeman: No, I'm not familiar with Captain Pugwash, and I'd been blissfully unaware of that particular urban legend... till now... Thanks for making me smile at that. It was much needed!

Subject: RE: Credibility of postings
From: GUEST,ginnnie
Date: 17 Sep 01 - 07:37 PM

I think the mudcat could be improved by making sure that everyone's posts are at least fifty percent music. Count your posts for a week. If you just talk, reduce it so you can contribute to the music at a level of fifty percent. It isn't alot but it would improve the forum a great deal.

Subject: RE: Credibility of postings
From: steve in ottawa
Date: 21 Sep 01 - 06:11 PM

I wasn't insulted by Med T's comment. Glad he found it funny. Too bad he didn't puzzle through the logic behind it. Personally, I don't see movies until I've seen ratings; if I miss something I would have loved by relying on the opinions of others, well, tough luck for me. My life is pretty full, though.

As for my idea, I was pissed off by a troll that caught me with my guard totally down. After a few days consideration, yes, I agree that rating Mudcat posters is pretty impossible.

It's sad that Mudcat isn't quite so warm and cozy as I remember it, but I'm glad that it's nevertheless thriving.