The ability to ignore user posts

[mistschaufel]

The ability to have an ignore list, as on the Yahoo stock message boards, would be a wonderful thing to have here, and would empower all to censor as each sees fit without affecting other users. This would perhaps clear up many of the spats here that seem to grow out of control, as well as having to wade through a bunch of crap just to find relevant, well thought-out posts.

Just a suggestion.

[sarnoga]

The ability to have an ignore list, as on the Yahoo stock message boards, would be a wonderful thing to have here, and would empower all to censor as each sees fit without affecting other users. This would perhaps clear up many of the spats here that seem to grow out of control, as well as having to wade through a bunch of crap just to find relevant, well thought-out posts.

Just a suggestion.

Hello mistschaufel, While the concept does have its appeal I guess I don't understand how it would work in the context of a forum like this. If you put someone on your ignore list how would that work. What would happen. Would it ignore threads they started? Would if just not show any of their posts, regardless of what thread it was posted in?

Just wondering.

Sarnoga

[mistschaufel]

Hi Sarnoga,

The ignore feature would be fully controllable in the sense that users can be added, removed, re-added to the list, and the list itself could be turned on and off by a "quick click of the button" (changed in 'Your Account' settings.) Enable the "ignore" feature", add the user to the ignore list, and that user posts would not appear. Disable the feature, then all posts from all ignored users will appear again, as if the feature did not exist. Need a break for a while from a user or several users...add the users to the ignore list (if not already on list) and enable the feature (if not already enabled.) Want to see if the reason for ignoring a user is no longer valid...remove that user from the ignore list. Et Cetera.

The concept as implemented at Yahoo contains the problem of ignoring thread started by the ignored user. Perhaps an exception could be coded that excludes "thread-starter" posts from being hidden.

Hope that is an understandable explanation.

[sleepyjosh]

I think an ignore feature is a wonderful idea, and have wondered why one is not implemented already.

I believe the idea first occurred to me shortly after the 20th time reading another irrelevant, rambling, incoherent post from an unfortunately prolific member who shall remain nameless (but who's handle falls especially close to the beginning of the alphabet), and it dawned on me how these boards would instantly be rendered substantially cleaner and more readable by redacting that one person's verbal diarrhea alone.

[mistschaufel]

LOL...that unnamed, oh-so-well-known user is the reason I brought it up. Kind of like a gnat...no matter how much you shoo it away, it keeps coming back to bother you. My idea was to apply environmentally-friendly gnat repellant to the infestation.

[EMG]

It is definitely a worthy idea, but I'm not sure how soon I'll be able to get to it. So many ideas, so little time :)

[demigraff]

The main problem I can see is that you'd be seeing part of a conversation. If someone you've ignored replies to a topic, then somebody gets annoyed and responds "That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard", then you might think they're commenting on the OP ... could be quite confusing.

I guess you could just have a one-line "(Ignored post by whoever)", to at least let you know that later posts in the thread might be responding to one that you can't see.

I suppose you could also have a more advanced ignore feature, that also ignores posts quoting the person you've ignored ... but people sometimes respond to more than one person in the same message, so you might end up missing something that way.

[sleepyjosh]

The main problem I can see is that you'd be seeing part of a conversation. If someone you've ignored replies to a topic, then somebody gets annoyed and responds "That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard", then you might think they're commenting on the OP ... could be quite confusing.

What you say would make a lot of sense if applied to a normal mind. The thing is, in the case of the unnamed user I have mentioned above, the whole reason I want to block their posts is because, in most cases, they contribute NOTHING on point to the thread. It's hard to describe, but I'll try: Imagine you are reading a forum thread on binaurals. User X writes a post that summarizes as "I would like to know the best frequency for binaurals." User Y responds "I wish I could tell you, but binaurals always give me a headache." Then user A comes along and writes "I think mens fashins is are fashins many times."

See my point? Removing that isn't going to make you lose track of what was being said in the thread (whereas reading it might).

I guess you could just have a one-line "(Ignored post by whoever)", to at least let you know that later posts in the thread might be responding to one that you can't see.

I think a line like that makes perfect sense, and would resolve most potential confusion of the sort you mention above.

[Liann]

I think an ignore feature is a wonderful idea, and have wondered why one is not implemented already.

I believe the idea first occurred to me shortly after the 20th time reading another irrelevant, rambling, incoherent post from an unfortunately prolific member who shall remain nameless (but who's handle falls especially close to the beginning of the alphabet), and it dawned on me how these boards would instantly be rendered substantially cleaner and more readable by redacting that one person's verbal diarrhea alone.

Personally I find the moderator's neglect and sloth in ejecting said person needs to be fixed. It is no secret that the person does a picture perfect emulation of a schizophenic with paranoid tendancies. Any person doing so cannot, by definition, be trusted with hypnosis files, and the website owner and moderators are legally liable $$$$ MONITARILY $$$$ for any damages said person does to others and/or property while partially unbalanced by mental manipulations of the type offered at WMM for the use of COMPETENT ADULTS ONLY. The very fact that this thread exists is evidence which can be used in lawsuit because the problem is WELL KNOWN to the point of reprogramming the website to moderate it.

Certainly on MY WEBSITE the banning button would have been used long ago. Persons who hint at malice and physical threats cannot expect longevity on my site.

[DKaiser]

It is no secret that the person does a picture perfect emulation of a schizophenic with paranoid tendancies. Any person doing so cannot, by definition, be trusted with hypnosis files, and the website owner and moderators are legally liable $$$$ MONITARILY $$$$ for any damages said person does to others and/or property while partially unbalanced by mental manipulations of the type offered at WMM for the use of COMPETENT ADULTS ONLY. The very fact that this thread exists is evidence which can be used in lawsuit because the problem is WELL KNOWN to the point of reprogramming the website to moderate it.

Coulda sworn there was a liability statement on the site. Oh well. In regards to legal stuff, your argument points up another fact: because the community accepts there is a problem, and discusses reprogramming the site to moderate it, removes any claims of gross negligence("steps are taken to address the problem", if I recall the textbook correctly).

Still, this is the sort of reason people have come up with the [Ban] feature of forums. I know the mods are very anti-censorship, but this is the sort of case where it's quite justified. No need to go reprogramming the forums when people who are clearly ignoring the civility policy kinda don't need to be here in the first place.