Hey webmaster
Have you revoked the like/dislike privileges of some members. I can like or dislike a post and then when I return to a thread my like/dislike is gone? Is this happening to anyone else?

Just checked, dislike seems to work for me.

David Schott wrote:

Just checked, dislike seems to work for me.

I wouldn't expect anything less from you David

Just proves my point. Only the guys on the right (left) side get all of the privileges. Lmao

, I swear I don't have access to the code. Maybe you've exceeded your lifetime limit, but I've disliked Oddjob at least a couple hundred times and it still works.

I just tried it and it works.

Like works fine, dislike hasn't worked for a week. Assumed I had my privilege revoked for using it so much.

Dislike hasn't worked for a week or so, wondered if webmaster wasn't taking lessons from Hillary's campaign.

Dislike works

David Schott wrote:

, I swear I don't have access to the code. Maybe you've exceeded your lifetime limit, but I've disliked Oddjob at least a couple hundred times and it still works.

I had to "like" this post.

Collecting "dislikes" warms my heart and I know I can always count on Dave!

A few weeks ago I added code to the site to detect abuses of the voting system. When found, it revokes the privilege. If your voting is not working, then that's why - it determined you abused it.

Wondering...how can you abuse it. If you like something you like it, if you dislike something you dislike it. A person should be allowed to express their feelings about a post. How many likes/dislikes qualify a person to be CENSORED? Don't think this is a good idea.

Tom Masa wrote:

Wondering...how can you abuse it. If you like something you like it, if you dislike something you dislike it. A person should be allowed to express their feelings about a post. How many likes/dislikes qualify a person to be CENSORED? Don't think this is a good idea.

It's not that simple. In the simplest of examples, let's say someone comes to the site and dislikes 1,000 posts in a row. While that is entirely hypothetical - would you not then agree they have abused the dislike function? If so, then there is a measure for abuse.

That's not what the site does though. However, if you all want to explore the intricacies of computer stuff, we can start a new thread where I explain some of the finer aspects of algorithms and computer science in general.

I think that this is really cool.I have often wondered why posts that all would agree with, get a dislike. Now we know that it is just dip sheeps who contribute nothing, just dislike a poster.

Nice work, Larry

Still think it is CENSORING. This has always been a free wheeling open forum for people to express their views on almost any subject. Either by posting or using liking/disliking button. Now you are arbitrarily removing one of the tools of expressing views for some people. Sure there are some who have abused the site but you have in the past fairly dealt with them. If a person was to go to a forum and not agree with the whole discussion and disliked a 100 posts, would that qualify that person to be CENSORED? It is your site but don't control it too much. It is one of the good things on internet. Maybe if someone is overdoing (like a 1000) dislikes or likes in a row) email them and warn them. Who is being hurt by the dislike/like button? If it continues kick them off for a period of time. My thoughts on CENSORING

[Edited by Tom Masa (12/21/2016 7:57:35 PM)]

Tom
I am confused as well. I like just as many if not more posts than I dislike yet my privileges have been revoked. Lol

Well, there are other options. A few that come to mind are:

A) Completely get rid of the "dislike"

B) Publicly display all people who like or dislike a post (this is what Facebook does -- although they don't offer a dislike -- and now I know why)

C) Leave as is. Those who have had their "dislike" vote revoked, are the few who have abused it. IMO, it's not becoming of a site that is the public face of a town like MC to have dislikes thrown all about on posters (no matter what side of the aisle).

D) Or ???

If you have a better suggestion for how the feature should work, let it be known.

There will always be stuff behind the scenes on the site however that throttle all sorts of activity, such as attempting to repeatedly login incorrectly, or having notifications sent, or posting information (whether it be posts, or likes, or dislikes, or uploading images), or to prevent spam, or whatever - however those are not the specific issues at hand.

As is, I thought everything was working fairly okay. If not, let me know, and I'll change it.

If it is not "becoming " to have dislikes thrown about..is that just an appearance thing. Or is someone judging a site by the number of dislikes? Who is hurt by dislikes? Has someone complained to you that they were being disliked too much or is it just your feeling that there are an inappropriate number of dislikes. When a person posts something not everyone is going to agree. That's the idea for different points of view. I think you should just leave it as it is and if it gets out of hand. Email the person with a warning and if it continues, kick them off for a time period.
When you censor too much it drives people away from a site. I remember that from the old chat rooms. It would be a great chat room then the moderator would get po'd at somebody and ban them.
I like this site as it is a connection to my old hometown and would like to see it continue and prosper.
Its your site but try to keep it open and free wheelin' as possible.

Tom Masa wrote:

If it is not "becoming " to have dislikes thrown about..is that just an appearance thing. Or is someone judging a site by the number of dislikes? Who is hurt by dislikes? Has someone complained to you that they were being disliked too much or is it just your feeling that there are an inappropriate number of dislikes. When a person posts something not everyone is going to agree. That's the idea for different points of view. I think you should just leave it as it is and if it gets out of hand. Email the person with a warning and if it continues, kick them off for a time period.
When you censor too much it drives people away from a site. I remember that from the old chat rooms. It would be a great chat room then the moderator would get po'd at somebody and ban them.
I like this site as it is a connection to my old hometown and would like to see it continue and prosper.
Its your site but try to keep it open and free wheelin' as possible.

Tom, I appreciate you visiting the site and I do appreciate your posts. That said, I hope you listen to what I have to say ...

I have been contacted and told by a number of people, including prospective advertisers, that they do not like the negativity on this site. I have been specifically told by advertisers that they will NOT advertise on the site because of the negativity. I have had advertisers request I remove free advertising given to them, for the same reason. I have been told by people that they are afraid to post, for having the crowd pile on them - disliking whatever they may say.

I understand that this is a PUBLIC discussion forum. Which is very much different than Facebook, or another similar echo chamber. However, this site is in very shaky territory as it does not break even each month, and I pay out of my pocket to keep it running. When people tell me they have negative views of MilesCity.com, and then you go to the site and see posts with each side (left or right) downvoting the other, with immunity and anonymity - it leaves a bad taste in peoples mouths. Especially, when you run stats on the votes, and then see only a handful of people are doing wholesale downvoting. It gives a bad impression of MilesCity.com. And it gives a bad impression of Miles City, Montana in general. It does not help keep the site alive. Especially, when the same visitors can go off to the "happyland" of Facebook, and not see hardy a whisp of negativity in their self-created echo chambers - whatever those may be.

The wild west dislike voting can't continue. If the current system isn't good enough, there are other options. I pointed some out. Perhaps someone else will come up with something better. I'm open to suggestions.

So in your mind it is ok to ban a person for trolling (disagreeing with your opinion) and then turn around and start a forum making fun of him where he can't defend himself? Not real good etiquette IMO. I think it's hilarious that we can have a double standard. Lmao

Also, if someone's ability to downvote has been removed by the site, I hardly think that is "censoring" them. The person can still post whatever they like. They can still "like" whatever they like.

If you disagree, and think anyone should be able to do anything they want on the site - then what does that mean? Does that mean, someone from China or Russia or wherever should be able to create an account and pump their spam into the forums? And if those posts are then removed - is that "censoring"?

"Sam Colt", the primary latest example of someone that was "censored", which in his case a lot of stuff had been pilling up - he was trolling to an extreme degree, offering nothing of value to the discussions on the site - and then posted to me "You're on a thread I started and off subject dip$hit". Calling the operator of the site a dipshit is not exactly the best way to keep your account.

AFAB wrote:

So in your mind it is ok to ban a person for trolling (disagreeing with your opinion) and then turn around and start a forum making fun of him where he can't defend himself? Not real good etiquette IMO. I think it's hilarious that we can have a double standard. Lmao

See my post above.

AFAB wrote:

So in your mind it is ok to ban a person for trolling (disagreeing with your opinion) and then turn around and start a forum making fun of him where he can't defend himself? Not real good etiquette IMO. I think it's hilarious that we can have a double standard. Lmao

A) Trolling is not disagreeing with someone's opinion. I think you need to look up the definition again.

B) If you ran a site, and someone came in trolling, refused to reply to what they posted, and then said you were a dipshit for questioning it ... I would bet my left nut you would ban their ass too.

Personally, I would just get rid of the like /dislike function. As you just described it, it serves no useful function.

MilesCity.com Webmaster wrote:

AFAB wrote:

So in your mind it is ok to ban a person for trolling (disagreeing with your opinion) and then turn around and start a forum making fun of him where he can't defend himself? Not real good etiquette IMO. I think it's hilarious that we can have a double standard. Lmao

A) Trolling is not disagreeing with someone's opinion. I think you need to look up the definition again.

B) If you ran a site, and someone came in trolling, refused to reply to what they posted, and then said you were a dipshit for questioning it ... I would bet my left nut you would ban their ass too.

I don't disagree with you banning him for calling you that I just thought you would have a little more class as the webmaster to not start a thread bragging about it.

AFAB wrote:

I don't disagree with you banning him for calling you that I just thought you would have a little more class as the webmaster to not start a thread bragging about it.

Well, I agree with you. I probably should not have done that.

This isn't intended to set a precedence, but I agree with Gunnar. We experimented with the like/dislike feature and to me it doesn't seem to add anything to the mc.com experience. Let's ditch it.

I agree with Tom, it's a form of censoring.

I'm in favor of getting rid of the like/dislike feature.

I'm also in favor of people having to use their real names on this site. I think it displays a lack of courage to speak your truth without using your real name.

Sorry to hear about the advertisers throwing their economic weight around because they disagree with, in their view, the "negative" opinions expressed on this site. That in itself is a form of economic censorship. One person's negative opinion is another's positive opinion. It would be interesting to hear who or what the advertisers think is negative. I'm thinking it may have something to do with any so-called "liberal" opinion. Go figure!

Mary Catherine Dunphy wrote:

I'm in favor of getting rid of the like/dislike feature.

I'm also in favor of people having to use their real names on this site. I think it displays a lack of courage to speak your truth without using your real name.

Sorry to hear about the advertisers throwing their economic weight around because they disagree with, in their view, the "negative" opinions expressed on this site. That in itself is a form of economic censorship. One person's negative opinion is another's positive opinion. It would be interesting to hear who or what the advertisers think is negative. I'm thinking it may have something to do with any so-called "liberal" opinion. Go figure!

I really want to reply to this but I thought better of it. Lmao. Merry Christmas is all I can politely say.

How about making the identity of the like/dislike voters public? Like on FB, you could click on to the likes or dislikes and see who voted. If it's the usual haters of one side or the other, people can take it for what it's worth.

I think K.Duffy's idea is good. On FB you can like the Like button to see who likes your post. WMaster can that be done with the "Like" & "Dislike" button on MC.COM?
The thing about FB is that you can't "dislike" a post except with the little icons. that so sad etc. I would like to see the "dislike" button stay but you can touch it and it shows who disliked it.

Then we can all pile on the dislikers.

[Edited by Tom Masa (12/26/2016 3:26:26 PM)]

Tom Masa wrote:

I think K.Duffy's idea is good. On FB you can like the Like button to see who likes your post. WMaster can that be done with the "Like" & "Dislike" button on MC.COM?

Yes, anything is possible. At this point, I'm considering either:

(A) removing the Dislike feature entirely, or

(B) as you suggested, adding a little clickable link that pops up to publicly show who liked and disliked a post

I'm leaning towards (B). If I add (B), then I'll remove the code that attempts to evaluate/restrict Dislike abuse, and also make it so it only shows that info on posts made after I make the new system live.

Regards, Larry

I vote for B

I'll jump-in on this one...

First, I think it's appropriate at this time to give Larry the webmaster a well-deserved pat on the back. Not that he's never gotten those before, but THANK YOU LARRY for your continued work on this website. I don't get on here or post on here as much as I once did, but I do appreciate all your work and the fact that at times you have to dip into your own pocket to keep this going. With that in mind, I will let you know that I do plan on making a small donation in the near future. Happy Holidays.

Secondly, regarding the like/dislike feature. I think the feature is okay as long as it is not abused...and I sadly admit that I am guilty of having done so a little. More on that in a minute.

I think the measure of using code to determine whether one is over-disliking is fair, and I also think adding the link which shows who liked/disliked a post is good. If you dislike a post when nobody else (or few others) did, then you should be able to explain why, rather than just dislike it because you want to be a jerk/troll to them and pick on them out of spite...and NO, I do not agree that limiting a person's ability to "dislike" is censorship. Censorship would be if Larry actually went-in and edited a person's post. Aside from a small number of instances where he's deleted spam posts or troll posts where the poster went a bit too far, he doesn't censor as far as I know.

On that note, AMORETTE ALLISON, I now offer this apology to you:

There was an instance earlier this year where you expressed your opinion on either religion or the Presidential race - you said something I found quite objectionable - and I went on a bit of a tear at that moment and thumbed-down several of your posts without even reading them because of what you said in the one. That was childish on my part and I am sorry.

That sort of abuse of the "dislike" privilege is specifically what Larry is trying to prevent and I was guilty of abusing it in that instance. Because of your anti-religious and political leanings you have opinions that I often disagree with, but I cannot overlook the many contributions you have made to the Miles City community in may ways, including as the "town historian" and writer for the Star newspaper among others. You do back your posts with a lot of facts. Also, your brother Bart is a good friend of mine/former co-worker in the radio business and the principal of my alma mater. The fact that you're his sister also crossed my mind when I paused to think about what I was doing.

In the words of Evelyn Beatrice Hall (coincidentally, my youngest daughter's name is Evelyn Beatrice Pius, but I digress): "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", or at the very least, I should just agree to disagree and let it be.

I have an idea. On Amorette's post delete the "dislike" button. That should solve the problem

Leave it as is or abandon it completely. If it is spooking potential advertisers by all means dump that feature.

As for me I pay little attention if it is red nor green nor do I use it. Believe if your ego is so fragile, and is easily bruised by folks that don't agree with you, or need an "Attaboy" or stick it your ear button, "Man" up that's life. It's usually the same old trite posters that automatically use green or red depending on the topic or name of the poster often with out reading or understanding the post. In the old days medals were awarded to winners, there were no participant medals.

For many Don Quixote's "Tilling at Windmills" may apply..

It is your site do as you deem fit on how it is applied. Disagree or not. We all should remember we are guests here, if you don't like how it is run start your own. As for me thanks for all you do.

My Like / Dislike no longer works and I probably liked or disliked a Total of maybe 12 to 15 posts in the past 6 months...but I guess that was too much ?

Ed who fishes wrote:

My Like / Dislike no longer works and I probably liked or disliked a Total of maybe 12 to 15 posts in the past 6 months...but I guess that was too much ?

Ed
You must be on the wrong (right) side of the law. Haha

I'd like to suggest option (C) remove the like/dislike system all together, for the following reasons:

-it adds no value to the forums. The fact this discussion about its value exists, implicitly says, it diminishes the value.

-this isn't Facebook, it's WAY cooler, Like Barbra Mandrell "I was country when country wasn't cool" cooler. No reason to have it simply because Facebook does.

-It promotes laziness. If you like something someone states you should say so. If you don't like something you should say why. People grow in their ability to process ideas when they are challenged.

-Anybody who says they don't care whether they get likes or dislikes is a liar. At some level everyone has some sensitivity to the opinions of others. It's frustrating to know someone dislikes what you've said but not understand why.

-Nobody in there right mind should dislike the Serious Burns faghoot. Whoever disliked that needs to seek immediate medical attention for a broken funny bone.

-The voting system is costing you monetary support. Your support will increase if you remove the like/dislike system.

Webmaster, I appreciate all that you've done here with MilesCity.com to make Miles City a great place. THANKS!

I'm going to agree with Richard

I did not lie when I posted that I paid little attention to weather the like was red or green. Realize the truth, this is not a popularity contest and the winner gets a prize or such.

Here are some truths that I found on the internet that I thought might be interesting to all, may be of more interest to some.

Idiots are of 2 kinds, Those who try to be smart and those who think they are smart

There are 2 kinds of fools, those who can't change their opinion and those who won't

Arguing with a fool proves there are two.

Happy New Year to all, Hope it brings Happiness, wealth, health, and unity.

I enjoy the like/dislike. Its an easy way to just say "This is good/bad" without a post. I like the idea of peoples' names associated with said vote.

I do, however, want to say that I don't come here often anymore. Mostly because I don't have a job where I sit in front of a computer all day and try to waste some time. But... I gotta say, the negativity is rather horrible. There are some posters that can't say a nice thing to their own dying grandmother. I have often thought about what people not from MC think about what gets said. It is not a very flattering view of an otherwise amazing and lovely little town. I don't blame the advertisers, but it makes me sad.

Please be nicer to each other... we can have a point, disagreed with by many, without getting all rude about it.