Rate Comments with Integrity

I would like less anonymity for all postings. Maybe an anonymous posting must be approved by an administrator.

As for the GA/OT debate, I never liked these two categories being combined into one numeric. It obfuscates the reviewer's intent. Revealing who voted GA and OT in a requested popup might fill the bill but the code might not support that.

CR4 didn't have a rating system when I first joined in 2006 as member 'europium.' We got along fine without it. For my part, I agree. GAs and OTs are mixing apples and oranges.

Btw, I've been reading a lot of the old threads from back then and the thing that struck me most is how comparatively civil members were to each other then, even where there was considerable disagreement and debate. Even trolls were treated better then, if you can believe it - even when their own behavior eventually got them ejected from the forum. Possibly the Mods had more time to be Mods then - these days IHS keeps them very busy on other tasks - but, still, the Mods seldom needed to intervene. I miss the old CR4.

even where there was considerable disagreement and debate

And a LOT more pseudoscience threads.

I miss the old CR4.

Please, don't start the old chest nut "back in my day.....", you'll make me feel old.

;)

"And a LOT more pseudoscience threads."

Yes, there were. Why do you suppose we're getting fewer now? Surely we haven't exhausted the world's supply of TechnoCretins.

We still get the odd one or two, but I like to think that we explained so many of them that people who think of asking similar questions on CR4 use the search function, find the old threads which answer their questions and they go away happy and educated and hence we never even know they were here.

Perhaps I am just dreaming........

I hope you are not right, because this would mean that we will get more and more crappy threads, since the good already got what they want.

But I cant deny that there is a certain logic and maybe its time for CR4 to renew parts of their system to keep some more interest flowing.

Admin do you read this?

I think my feelings on anons is well understood already. the GA is purely ego with no value for the forum. I suppose it might assist s few Cavalier owners in scanning for a quicker answer to get their car started but I don't see it actually saving time or validating a response. I'm neutral on the GA topic. I see no reason to alter the existing system.

Why are you trying to force a different answer from Fredski? His comment was very clear.

I'm not. He clearly said he saw no reason to change the system. I accept that.

.

I was interested, in view of his suggestion that the current system was without value, if he saw reason to oppose a change. I was curious if he foresaw negative consequences. It is a sincere question. He seems opposed to the action beyond merely not seeing value in changing it. I feel like I am missing what he sees.

.

In retrospect, rereading what I wrote, it does seem pushy. That wasn't my intention. I'll mark it off-topic.

No. You have a clear question but it is not a sincere question. It disagrees with the first line of your reply. If you cannot see that you are disagreeing with yourself then you will not understand most conversations.

I agree it was poorly worded and have marked it as off topic, but have left the follow-up discussion clearly visible so as not to hide my error. That is about the extent of what I can reasonably do about it right now.

.

If you are sincere in your opinion that I was not sincere, and you also are convinced that this indicates I will not understand most conversation, isn't is rather strange for you to make an effort to explain it to me....in this conversation?

.

I'm going to assume that you are being sincere, and that you made the comment with a hope that I might come to a moment of clarity, understand your admonishment, and choose to understand conversations from this point forward. In fact, let's just go with that. Admittedly, exchanging my sincerity for this agreement that with your guidance I can now understand conversations, wouldn't have been my first choice, but as long as we all know what is actually going on, I'm willing to try out this new game.

.

What next?

.

You sound like you're speedin'.....You're not making any sense....

Hmmm.

Sounds one or more of the following might be happening....

.

1. Perhaps this is merely confirmation that Redfred is right that I am unable to understand most conversations....and beyond that, the road runs both ways, people can no longer understand me.

.

2. Perhaps my diagnosed affliction is contagious....and you are contagion victim #1.

.

3. Perhaps I should take more time to edit and make sure the humorous thing I think I have related is recognizable at all, before rushing to hit 'submit'.

After taking a step back and now returning to this issue, I think you are missing the distinction.

There is a difference between 'not seeing a reason to change something' and 'having reason to oppose changing something'.

My question certainly could have been worded better, but it wasn't insincere. I don't think a conclusion of either insincerity an inability to comprehend conversation is reasonable. I will do a better job in the future of making sure others don't have such a hard time comprehending my portion of the conversation.

Those are compelling arguments.

I should probably just be trying to encourage people to be more responsible and not so petty in their voting. Actually, I should probably just take a hint from Fredski and value the GA-OT system at a more appropriate level.

"We have the privilege of anonymous votes in our country, why stop for this?"

GA. (awarded anonymously)

If someone has conviction about a topic and field of experience why wouldn't one be open to having their name or "handle" shown?

If one isn't certain or confident in their opinion they shouldn't give a GA or OT vote anyway.

It is interesting to see a thread of how participants think and make comments on various topics. Knowing who gave GA's or OT's would give a little more clarity to people's thinking and opinions.

"If someone has conviction about a topic and field of experience why wouldn't one be open to having their name or "handle" shown?" I for one prefer not to know who has given GA's or OT's. This is an "Engineering" forum and not a verbal bashing boxing ring. When things get out of hand it is derogatory for the forum's continuation. Have you ever had someone really take out their venom on you for a post you have made? I have and it is a distraction from the purpose of this forum when the other contributor or I decide to waste time bringing out the big verbal "gloves". Why should I care who gave out the GA or OT. What I want to know is it a good or bad comment engineering or other subject wise.

Ironically it usually isn't too hard to almost determine who the other is. A few days ago I posted a comment and it had. If I remember correctly, 2 GA votes for it. Within the period of one hour someone had posted a comment opposing my comment, voted an OT for my comment reducing it by one GA, arranged for his comment to get one GA, another contributor gave an OT to him nullifying his one GA vote and anything else possible. Although you probably would like to know who was involved in this, I'm not. Such information by the parties involved is a waste of time, something I would not want to give to the person who thinks he should know who took away his GA. This is not a "personal" forum and I treat it as such. What is important to me and many, many others is whether the comment was good (GA) or bad (OT) and if bad, why.

Also I try not to be vicious in any reply to a commenter, it is a courtesy I won't so I don't do it myself.

Good Luck, Old Salt

Please excuse me for not wading thru all this. Why on earth should somebody not stand by their vote ? If a post is offensive, the 'report' button is there and rightfully anon. It's not like politics - members can simply state if they think a post has credibility or not.

Sorry if anybody has made that point. This is not politics - a post either has merit, and anyone may commend others to read it, or it is inapt to the topic under discussion.

People do get bashed for controversial views, but the onus is upon others posting to be civil minded about it.

Why on earth should somebody not stand by their vote? This is supposed to be engineering, scientific, etc. forum putting the comments first. The GA's and OT's are secondary or the third item of the forum, at least as I read the detailed information about it. A comment is the same whether it comes from Old Salt, Mighty Mouse, Road Runner, Anonymous Poster or Elmer Fudd. The GA's and OT's are the same. What does it matter who gives them? We are supposed to be engineer like people, not Forensic Psychologists. (My opinion, I'm not trying to force anything on anyone).

This is not politics. Sorry to disagree with you but me and many others have seen many examples of politics on this site. A couple of members I know of will automatically bash Old Salt by questioning his intelligence if any at all, reply to his comments with extremely disparaging remarks, question his mothers lineage, and numerous other hateful things. Why? They didn't agree with a personal "rule of thumb" I mentioned.

People do get bashed for controversial views, but the onus is upon others posting to be civil minded about it. Unfortunately this is not a perfect world. Some people feel that only they are the correct ones. Look at some of the other posts in this thread. The core of the comment is preceded and followed by many things that could be hateful and not centered on the engineering aspect of the post.

In summary, I feel that GA's and OT's are better off being autonomous and the above explains part of why. Hope you have waded through all this. It makes more sense if read in full and not skimmed through.

Good Luck, Old Salt

Not sure what you mean by 'autonomous', but those are points well worth making.

GA's and OT's are not the same. A poster can give themself a whopping 5 OT if they feel it fits the bill. A certain amount of troll voting has always taken place on CR4 (both for GA and OT). Perhaps there might be some reasoning to it all if only a post getting, say, 5 positive votes was highlighted. It'll never happen, CR4 don't have the resources to tweak the existing system.

People have the power to vote. In an ideal world, power goes hand-in-hand with responsibility. In turn that can only but mean transparency.

The only practical solution is to simply ignore votes if one chooses. They're rarely a good reflection of any given discussion.

Not to speak for old salt, but, I will anyway.

Presently, GA/OT votes are both autonomous and anonymous.

Here is my only beef with the OT/GA system.

When I began typing this response, old salt's comment #8 had a GA/OT tally of 7 yes/one no votes. The GA count by the post #8 response was 6. 7-1. I do not recall giving old salt any GA's for that response, but I did give him an OT vote, which changed his GA tally to 7GA/2OT votes. This can be seen by clicking on the rate button.

The reported number by that response was then reduced to 5, even though I had not given him a GA vote originally.

The point of all this rambling is that I do not believe it is fair to be able to cancel out another member's GA vote with an OT. The original GA voter cannot right this because they get only one GA vote.

Now, old salt, by virtue of his still having 5 GA votes will have the same GA count by his name, but if he had had only two GA's his total GA count would have been reduced by one.

I'm not even saying this should be changed, because it does mean programming time to satisfy a whim. But, if I had a real beef with the voting system, that would be it.

Once again, I'm fine with this forum as it is. Happy to be a part of it!

Thank you for your comment.

Not to speak for old salt, but, --- Thank you for clarifying my comment so that others better understand it. I too do not like the cancelling effect of the GA/OT system but for the time being I don't know of any other system that would work as good as it does. Sometimes some people have to be patient till they get what they want. In the mean times we need to use the system the best we can.

Many should be thankful that we have the system we have. What other forum accommodates/tolerates what this one does? As my mother, the coal miner's daughter used to say "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth". Many participants should be happy with what they have!

Good Luck, Old Salt

You're welcome.

And, the good thing about this system is that I can go back, and by giving you a GA vote, I can cancel out my OT vote and restore your GA count. As I have done.

I know that the count is not an issue with you, but it does serve to demonstrate my point.

Keep up your good work.

Kris,

Hilton apparently considers your comment to be offensive....and possibly even sees the whole thing as inappropriately sexual....which is baffling to me, but perhaps I'm just misreading the 'perversion' part.

.

Anyway, in the spirit of our rating system....which I am very happy to have, even if I do occasionally wonder aloud about possible improvements.... I am going to override/negate that written-in 'bad answer' vote, by issuing this write-in ballot that votes your comment to be 'on topic'....even if you feel otherwise.

.

If 'off topic' cancels a 'good answer' vote, it only makes sense that 'on-topic' should cancel a 'bad answer' vote.

.

I do wonder exactly what lead up to the scene....I'm thinking either their was a typo, and/or the horse misread the script and though it specified 'in the end, the actress's head is lowered as she takes a deep bowel'.

....but that is probably a horse of a different cholera.

Hilton apparently considers your comment to be offensive....and possibly even sees the whole thing as inappropriately sexual....

You are correct.....I do. While I am not a prude, but I do have some morals and principles. There is a deviance/ perversion related to a horse taking a dump on a nude woman, who appears to be 'having fun in the sun'. I don't see that gif coming from a normal healthy website.

I stand by my comments.

You really do see something sexual about that that gif! I really thought you were just using 'perverse' in the 'distorted, inappropriate, unacceptable' sense of the word. It just seemed over the top that you might see that as sexual!

.

You are definitely reading aspects into that gif, that are very much your own contribution.

You see a "nude woman, who appears to be 'having fun in the sun'".

.

I'm going to guess that 'having fun in the sun', has some sexual connotation in your use. I don't know exactly what it means, but crawling between a horse's legs is not sexual for most people. Ask a ferrier.

.

The reason it is obvious you are reading in content that is not in the gif, is because your rendition does not agree with what is displayed. You are reacting to what you imagine is there, and not what is actually there. The woman is fully clothed. Check again, I promise this is not a base trick to get you to view what you find offensive a second time, and in fact you won't be, since it isn't what you describe as having offended you.

.

Now that you can see the woman is clothed, nothing else really suggests anything sexual, does it?

All of the perversity lies in your head. The woman is wearing a red blouse. If you had your way, you might remove the Manneken Pis in Brussels.

Shame on you.

OMG! It sure makes a difference with my specs on!

My apologies to Kris and anyone else to whom I may have given offence. I am not normally given to outburst, 'cept I thought I had reason this time.

Redfred, I am definitely not a prude, or a pervert, but I have been introduced to some heavy stuff (by others) in my time, causing me to make a rash and hasty judgement.

The only bit funny was the pun (Giffed horse). The fault is mine for terrible humour. I've never been good at knowing when I should post OT . Please accept my apologies - I really should know better.

If it's any help, this computer is about to fall over (sound has gone, and ther keyboard is a duffer - that might give respite to all over the weekend).

Just write this off as one of a kris stupid comment. Apologise if you wish (not needed), but I feel pretty stupid, and rightly so.

No apology necessary. My bad after all...."giffed" is funny!

Didn't Del make you do it?

Well said!

Run quiet quite well by Admin.

Got to this before Editor Crankshaft did.

I saw it, though. But other issues of the moment are so much more important.

You were lucky.

This time.

It might be cumbersome to say who gives which votes, but that would be great. I have owned up separately to various votes from time to time, and am more than happy to give and defend my reasons.

Some dumb hypocrite has already spoken/voted anonymously...

And then has been neutralized.

They never told us that "kemo sabe" translates to "paleface dumbass".

Is that fact or an urban legend?

What I got out of Google translate is still amusing. Google says 'kemo sabe' is Javanese for 'go warships'....yet it won't translate 'go warships' in English back to 'kemo sabe' in Javanese.

Ultimately derived from giimoozaabi, an Ojibwe and Potawatomi word that probably meant "scout", it is sometimes translated as "trusty scout" or "faithful friend"...

That makes a lot of sense even though the Potawatomi tribe is not indigenous to the U.S. southwest where the TV story takes place.

The show's producer, btw, was from Michigan - the same neck of the woods (Great Lakes region) as the Potawatomi.

Just a joke.

Javanese is definitely not Japanese. Try the word with a 'v' instead of the 'p', or look up the language of the Javanese people, of Java.

Kemo sabe" sounds very much like a slurred version of the Spanish - "(el) que más sabe" which, in English means "(the) most knowledgeable (one)."

That sounds much more appropriate given Jay Silverheels' character as the Lone Ranger's loyal, stalwart friend Tonto. In light of his character's relationship with the Lone Ranger, it is highly incongruous that the name would actually be a grave insult had the Lone Ranger only known.

A similar Spanish variant is "que no sabe" which, in English means, "who knows." As a name, this makes little sense.

I suspect the urban legend of 'paleface dumbass' is just that: urban legend.

The Spanish word 'Tonto,' btw, in English means 'silly.' According to original TV show's producer, the name was chosen because he liked the way it sounded. 'Tonto' - as a name, was inspired by name Tonto Basin, a real place in Arizona.

Maybe "who knows?" as a reference to masked anonymity..

That sounds pretty darn close to 'kemo sabe' except that, in the story, Jay Silverheels played the part of a Potawatomi indian. Mightn't it make more sense, then, that in the story his name for his friend would be a Potawatomi name and not a Spanish one?

For my part I tend toward Solar Eagle's explanation in Post #23 as being the more likely candidate. Not only, but actor Jay Silverheels' Canadian tribe in real-life speak an Algonquin dialect, as do the Potawatomi. It is conceivable that Silverheels himself suggested the name, a Potawatomi name meaning 'trusted friend.'

Get a freakin' life.

It's good to see you! Welcome back.

.

I was beginning to second guess my original suggestion, but seeing as how the suggestion played at least some small part in bringing you back into the commenting fold, if i had it to do over, I wouldn't change a thing.

I'm not avoiding you.

Although I'm doing nothing wrong, (aside from the occasional rant), I'm not feeling as though the internet is my friend.

You may have guessed...but I just don't trust our government right now. I really don't.

As a vocal libertarian conservative, I know for a fact that my president has ordered people to shut me up.

I'll attempt to fight the fight, and keep our constitution alive....but I've got a bad feeling about the days ahead.

It's pointless to argue at this point; what will be, will be.

Obama doesn't scare me. It's the people that are pulling his strings.

All kidding aside, that perspective doesn't strike me as outlandish. I'm not quite as negative on our prospects, but I don't think you are crazy.

Take care of yourself and your family, and don't be provoked into confrontation.

Someone has gone around in the last hour to my various GA'd posts, marking them OT. Six so far.

Whomever you are, by all means, please, indulge yourself. Whatever your motive, it is clear that you haven't suddenly found my posts Off-Topic, nor did they suddenly become so in the last hour at your whim.

Really, what you are doing is underscoring the fact that the GA/OT ranking system is broken insofar as there are those who, like yourself, are willing to abuse it. In so doing you are rendering both GAs and OTs as meaningless, and since, thanks to you and others of your ilk, they ARE meaningless, knock yourself out. For my part I couldn't care less, but let me also point out that your behavior serves only to diminish everyone's enjoyment of this forum because, as everyone knows, they could be your next target.

Way to go, whomever you are. You're a real credit to this forum.

The intention of this post was not to kick off some weird OT-GA tally battle. I've gone through your posts to find some 'almost good' posts that I was able to kick up to GA with a vote to try to offset the pettiness. In the end, all the GA rating were for comments that were indeed good answers, so I don't think the offsets are artificial.

By the way those pics displaying the diamagnetic effects of water are great.

Thanks.

My posts with those pix are *all* Off-Topic, btw, and where my reply was to an Off-Topic post, it was automatically pre-marked Off-Topic by the software. As I am notified by email of new posts, I click on the link that takes me directly to the new post, by itself. Andy Germany's post on that sub-thread was *not* marked Off-Topic even though the others were, and I didn't notice this until it was too late. By then of course I no longer had the choice to mark my reply entirely Off-Topic myself, but it IS Off-Topic in that it does not address the OP's question.

They may have been off-topic, but they were still good answers.

Thanks. The topic really warrants a thread of its own - experiments with water and other diamagnetic materials, notably pyrolytic graphite which, short of full-blown superconductors, is the most diamagnetic substance known.

It does deserve its own thread. I've seen the shift in reflection of light on the surface of water in a shallow glass pan as a large neodymium magnet is passed beneath, but the photos that you and DKWarner posted are much better.

.

I guess if a permanent magnet works, effects could also be produced with an electromagnet.

Is this sub-thread Off-Topic? Lol

welcome to the club but you're only feeding them when you speak out

Yes, but in this instance they or someone else went back and reversed most of their OTs, and so bringing the matter up was not a cut-and-dried case of 'feeding them.' It needed to be mentioned and it did seem to have a positive effect, no?

No good deed goes unpunished, eh?

Well, it's certainly a boon to all the masochists Out There!

"There's a silver lining in every cloud."

...and vice versa.

Why the long face? Okay, so you *haven't* had a good flogging in *months,* but that's no reason to get all maudlin. Look at the Bright Side: the nail-biting suspense of not knowing when you'll next get your Fair Share of Abuse.

Here's my advice: try harder.

Getting your GAs canceled by some troll is just the price of fame.

I must admit, I did find their lavished attentions exhilarating.

Only celebrities know this....congrats!

Agreed. Only those who giveth should be allowed to taketh away.

But, our wants all translate into someone's time to fix what we think is wrong.

I can live with what we have.................................................

Let's just be perfectly clear here... Are you specifically saying that someone, besides ''Admin'', has the means by which to change our replies, without even leaving their own reply?...''

If so, then why does ''Admin'' allow it?...

No, that is not what I am saying. Nowhere in my post do I mention replies.

OK, are you then saying that the giving of a ''GA'' does not qualify as a ''reply'' ?...

And that, as such, unknown, non-admin, persons therefore have the right to alter some one else's ''GA reply'' ? ...

Yes!

#83

I know you didn't ask me, but.......................................

So, are you actually saying that it is ''OK'' for ''Admin'' to overlook the non-poster who, in effect, ''hacks'' someone else's GA replay?...

This issue is that anyone can cancel a GA by simply voting that reply OT. They do not have to have voted the reply a GA to cancel out someone else's GA vote.

The number of GAs and OTs are tallied in the rate window, but the voter is not identified, in either case.

There has to be a provision for "bad answer" for it to make any sense. I have seen many GA's that were for posts far from good.

You are entitled to your opinion, even if you are wrong!

If you knew how the GA/OT system really worked, you'd know your opinion is incorrect.

A good observation indeed...I don't know why it didn't spark some extra zing into the discussion.

It is not zing worthy, nor correct in its assumption.

.

I wish we had a way to limit these, "Let's change the GA/OT system threads to say, not more than two per year.

I was incensed at first at the way answers that were funny and OT, got GAs. I was especially annoyed when someone took down a couple of my first GAs.

Now, I don't bother with them, I'll just say an answer is good in a response.

The easiest way to 'limit these ... threads' (and any other thread) is to simply not read them.

Perhaps 'Good' should be changed to 'Like'.

With the option to vote as 'Public' or 'Anonymous', but hidden from view in the text and only revealed on request to those interested.

But I guess this would be a bit of a problem to CR4 programmers because they have stiil not been able to fix the 'time out' problem yet.

It looks somewhat like: "I voted for your answer... so you should vote for my answer too..."

Anyway, if someone wants to publish his vote then he is free to do it by telling "GA from me". But some people don't want to, so we should respect their choice. I (personaly) don't like this.

Use a real name rather than some shield then.