Where's the Love...I Mean Likes, Instagram?

So what I have to log in to Facebook to know the details of this article?

How's about I don't?

Are you enjoying this pointless read?

Click GA so I know.

Punctuation would help.

Correcting:

So what? I have to...

Thanks! For unscramble my gibberish.

"It's detritus in the information stream" << This comment is profound(GA). Kissup and its reverse without any "why" provided is a major waste of time of thread readers. Kissup is particularly destructive when one is hunting for real content such as an approach to a pressing problem the reader is having. Without knowing the reputation of the comment provider it is simply a major waste of time in the thread archive. In CR4 there is at least a convenient reputation (GA's relative to total posts) but since some worthwhile posters also participate with lots of kissups the time-thief practice still perpetrates its crime.

Librarians have a dual (a yin/yang) that they use to describe search engine results attributes. They characterize a search return corpus on the spectrum of relevance vs recall. Recall is how much stuff you get back and relevance is how useful it is. I like to add another dimension to the spectrum of how much additional depth the answers explore.

In librarian speak, a large recall with low relevance is a major pitfall of search engines. These popularity posts have exactly that character. On CR4 there are quite a few readers who criticize long, detailed posts with great depth but think kissups with zero relevance or depth are just fine. They are annoyed when they are challenged to actually think about a comment as opposed to just being able to feel good about the sign on the kissup post matching their opinion. If the sign on the in-depth post opinion does not match their opinion, they do not proffer an explanation, they merely rate the other comment as off-topic and usually also post a kurt, "no" or some other content-free drivel. I consider this unscientific and a major waste of time for all of us trying to model reality. In short, it is also detritus to be waded-thru and culled.

As an inherent level of culling, I propose that GA's and off-topics be required to have explanations which do not appear directly in the original thread. The poster still has the ability to post additionally in the original thread but would have at least a little responsibility to evaluate their own relevance vs recall prior to explicitly imposing such a post on the original thread readers. The GA's and off-topic's spin-off thread would be available as a branch link off of any rated original thread comment thus isolating detritus into a see-also thread which could be explored explicitly by readers of the original thread if they were interested in a more in-depth discussion of the issues spawned in response to the original thread post. This capability is one of the major advantages of hypertext and needs to be gainfully employed. Using this spin-off thread inherent in GA/off-topic management could reduce the time readers of CR4 threads would need to spend to review the direct comments to any specific topic while not preventing them from reaching down into the see-also(kissup) tangents. I realize that posters can already create new threads of their own initiative but the kissup GA/off-topic posters(including me with my frequently excessive depth) need a little default encouragement, IMHO. The see-also threads could also be included in any table of contents/index pages with the rated post number and a See-Also#PostNumberSuffix for OriginalPostTitle label and hyperlink to the OriginalPostThread.

I realize that I am implicitly assigning work to CR4 administrators that they may not need or want. BlueRibbon and others: Please consider this as a suggestion rather than a demand and include it, or not, in your plans or outplans as you see fit within your time available. I am already pleased with how you run this site and my perception of your judgement is already high. Realize that I am suggesting a new thread for every newly rated (not each rating) post on your forum. Over time this would generate an "extra" thread for every comment that gets rated but it isolates the see-also comments into their own set of threads which are the new likely site for management of flame wars and other problems rather than the original thread. One might detach an entire flame war by merely delinking the see-also until appropriate clean-up can be implemented. An empty see-also might be attached in the interim so that non-problem posts can continue as long as the new empty link follows forum guidelines. The alternative see-only might or might not include a cleanup-in-progress notification to encourage a cease-fire. Happily, my perception is that this forum is relatively low conflict so far but it is always nice to have tools allowing administrators to act easily to douse any flame war sparks and gently feed back to groups of participants that they are becoming loose cannons without completely shutting down their ids unless they persist.

___________

thewildotter

In the case of Google these days, relevance seems determined by who pay them the most for placement in the searches. Just give me a true "relevance" rank related to what i am searching for.

I am so tired of results based on what i have searched or viewed in the past and the pay to place BS. And the google ads... search for something 1 time and you will see ads related for 2 months, whether you were really interesting in it or just surfing around on whatever crossed your mind for the day.

Just turn off your search history...or make it like a day or two....you can do this in google and chrome or probably any other browser you are using...

https://stopad.io/blog/shut-off-browser-tracking

1. Access google.com using any browser app.
2. Tap Sign-in to sign in using your Gmail ID.
3. Tap the Settings link at the bottom, and then select Search settings.
4. Tap Manage, which located beside Search History.
5. Next, tap the Settings button.
6. On the Settings page, tap Turn off.

I use duckduckgo.com for searches. Eliminates all that google goop.

Isn't ticking 'like' in Instagram much the same as ticking GA here?...or 'Off-Topic....often abused ..... as an equivalent to 'don't like' ?

Personally I tend to ignore the GA's (except for picture quizzes), but following the OT threads are often interesting.

But CR4 is the only social media I actually visit. If the GA count and Post count went away, it wouldn't hurt my feelings. Actual responses mean a lot more than a 'like'. Or an O.T.

(But sometimes an O.T. is positive confirmation you hit a nerve. )

I thought both FB and Instag have the option to choose the recipients of your posts.

Instagram: By default, anyone can see your profile and posts on Instagram. You can make your account private so that only followers you approve can see what you share. If your account is set to private, only your approved followers will see your photos or videos on hashtag or location pages.

Facebook: "The audience selector also appears alongside things you've already shared, so it's clear who can see each post. After you've shared a post, you have the option to change who it's shared with. If you want to change the audience of a post after you've shared it, click the audience selector and select a new audience.

CR4 should, in my opinion, either do away with GA/OT votes (remove the history too) or tag the voter so that they are known to all. Same with cancelling votes.

I agree with your saying about the competition. And I don't like being part of it at all.