the sun is still

In an attempt to keep you all up-to-date with the inner workings of YTMND, I'm going to try and update a little more often. Rather than trying to convince you that I'm working, I'll just publish my results, regardless of how boring they may be to you.

I want to thank everyone who provided feedback on the TODO. I really enjoy reading constructive criticisms and ideas, even if I'm not directly responding to all of it. I want to open a discussion on a couple of topics with this news post, so read more if you are inclined.


So first off:

<technical junk/what I've been up to>



I've migrated all of the database servers over to the latest version of MySQL, which seems to have not only gone pretty smoothly, but also removed a lot of the headaches. Hopefully they should have less hiccups, which means you should see "vote lag" issues less often. While I was at it, I did a good deal of database cleanup, but there are some more major structural changes that require large modifications to the site that I'm doing on a test setup first.

I've also spent the last week migrating the hundreds of files that compose YTMND into SVN (from 3 old CVS repositories). This was a lot of work, because it involved figuring out how I renamed and moved files around for the last 4 years. I found some gems from the past in there too!

Now that everything is in SVN I am beginning the large refactoring that I've wanted to do for a long time. This is a pretty lengthy list of things I need to do in order to get the site's structure and codebase the way I want it. One of the major benefits of this is it will make the site much easier to work on, meaning adding little features and fixes will happen much more often. It also means I can start thinking about opening up the code base to developers that want to add patches or really work on YTMND.

The refactoring is extensive and effects almost every page on the site, as such, I'm going to take the time to split out theme specific stuff to external templates where I haven't in the past. Since I'm doing this, I've sent out a request for new YTMND designs/layouts to a bunch of designers, I've given them 2 weeks at which point I'm going to post them here and let you guys decide which you like best. I haven't figured out how much work the templating will be, but it's possible that the refactoring will include choosable "themes", it might even be possible to get the old design in if someone is willing to do the grunt work. If any of you are serious designers and want to take a shot at it, send me a private message. It is (poorly) paid work.

It is likely while I'm in there I'll make a lot of little fixes and feature enhancements, as well as introducing a plethora of new bugs. Hopefully a few of you will step up and be willing to test everything when it needs it. Anyway, you know how much I like pretty graphs so here is one for you:


You'll notice that I very rarely committed code in the past (and there was a ton of code that wasn't even in the repository until now). With SVN, it means I can update much more frequently without messing up the site, so I am pleased to finally stop "shitting where I eat" as it were. That all being said, due to the significant back end changes required, the site is currently on a semi-lockdown for new features/fixes until I move the production servers over to be mirrors of the SVN repositories. So don't expect much to change in that department for a couple weeks.

<end of technical junk/what I've been up to>




Stuff you should care about but won't: (i.e. feedback needed)



The hall of fame


As most of you know the hall of fame (even pre-neomatrix additions) was filled with a lot of undeserving sites and didn't really make much sense. I've been mulling over how to actually repopulate it with proper sites that really deserve attention, but I keep coming back to the community nature of this site. On one hand, most of the site is governed by "majority vote", top rated, top viewed, top etc etc. On the other hand, the site is more than just "mine", so picking the hall of fame entries should be a task for more than just myself.

I've thought about various schemes where you could get one Hall of Fame vote for each 3 month period you've been a member or something like that, but I wanted to hear from you guys how you think the Hall of Fame should be populated. I want it to be filled with not only the best sites, but the most significant, historical, and most importantly, the most creative sites out there. This is the page that most newcomers will look at, so it is really important that we show them not only the best and the brightest, but a summary of what YTMND is.

So how do you think we should do this? Should I just sit down for a few days and go through as much as I can and pick them and then write a little blurb about each? Should I let the super moderators pick as well? Featured users? Everybody? Possibly allow everyone to vote as a suggestion mechanism only, just so I don't miss anything? Your feedback would be greatly appreciated!

Rules and Moderation


As I mentioned in the last news post, a moderation system is built on rules, and without clearly defined rules the moderation system is bound to fail. I know the whole TODO is a lot for most of you to process, and some of you focused on that bit, but this is necessary to discuss before I proceed. We, as a community, have to come up with a concise and clear list of rules that the community as a whole have to abide by. So:

    Reading material:
  • Rules / Moderation Guidelines / Global Policy

  • Global Permissions (a foundation for possible punishments)


  • What you can do to help:
  • Add to the list of behaviors that should be considered as "bad"
  • Discuss the "pros" and "cons" of certain behaviors and if they should be considered "bad"
  • Discuss possible punishments for each behavior
  • Discuss what the overall focus of user moderation should be, or which areas should be the most important
  • Discuss what to do about repeat offenders/trolls, at what point do we delete people?

  • What you can do to help if you (are an over-achiever/love the site/are trying to brown-nose):
  • Come up with a full list of behaviors and consequential punishments for each.
  • Write a community guidelines document that can be shown to new users.
  • Fucking participate for once



This is something that must have community backing and support and it requires serious discussion. As I said before, I can't (and refuse) to do this alone, so I will keep posting it until I either get the feedback I'm looking for or get sick of the site and go get a real job.


Dec 15, 2007
Dec 25, 2007
Jan 09, 2008
Feb 03, 2008
Feb 19, 2008

Add a comment

Please login or register to comment.
<< 1 2 3 >>
January 9th, 2008
1st
(7)
also, I'm looking for an album. It was released as a fake pre-release of "The Campfire Headphase" by BoC, but it was actually mostly Freescha tracks. If anyone can provide me with the album or a real track-list, hit me up, it was magical.
January 9th, 2008
3rd
(24)
DELETED USELESS AND UNHELPFUL COMMENTS.
January 9th, 2008
6th
(-2)
[ comment is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(-2)
well the only thing that bugs me is that there are certain users that downvote sites for "not having ear rape" and good sites they downvote. the fpa is a group that should be put to the side, such as FatherMcKenzie/DarthWang. They make a lot of users frustrated which tend to retalliate and act the same way they do.
January 9th, 2008
7th
(2)
I didn't think my PLETHORA comment was useless.
January 9th, 2008
18th
(1)
on the other hand fourest, i hate when people spam my mailbox with "Why didnt you vote 5 on my site." and/or "I fived all your sites, now 5 mine." i dont think you should be able to change votes to begin with and that the altering of sites should be allowed 36 hours at most.
January 9th, 2008
21st
(3)
Agreed, but that's behind me now and I think the troll users are more important atm.
January 9th, 2008
26th
(1)
ear rape is fine, just nsfw. downvoting is fine, gives a balance to ytmnd. however, constantly talking trash in comments needs to be controlled, due to the fact that it does piss users off and makes everyone sound like little children. so, something better than just a +/-, which does very little, that can eliminate this type of flaming.
January 9th, 2008
34th
(0)
[ comment is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(0)
Usually the ones that like ear rape are the ones who end up with hearing problems at an old age. Oh hurts to be them...
January 9th, 2008
35th
(-2)
[ comment is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(-2)
Yeah, if an informative comment gets downvoted then users think it's out of the question. Like, for instance, if the FPA hated on a certain user like myself or fearcondom and if we said something that mattered they would downvote our comments and users wouldn't be able to see it or would think it wouldn't matter.
January 9th, 2008
38th
(-1)
[ comment is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(-1)
I wouldn't say downvoting gives a balance to ytmnd, I would say we need to vote with more accuracy and actually give the site the vote it deserves with an actual comment explaining why you gave the site the vote you did. Unlike some users like DarthWang who comment "1", yeah that explains a lot.
January 9th, 2008
39th
(-3)
Why does the word "podcast" keep popping up in my head. Ouch, I think I got hit on the head... again.
January 9th, 2008
42nd
(0)
there no real way that would happen fourest. however, do we all consider constantly downvoting bad? should we punish users for just voting 1?
January 9th, 2008
45th
(4)
users who regularly participate as opposed to trolls who do nothing but downvote should have the real weight behind their vote
January 9th, 2008
46th
(-2)
No, but they should at least give an explanation of why they did on good material and try and defend their comment.
January 9th, 2008
53rd
(2)
Regarding the Hall of Fame, giving every user one vote once a month to vote for their favorite YTMND sounds like a good system. At the end of the month, the YTMND with the most votes gets Inducted into the Hall of Fame.
January 9th, 2008
54th
(2)
As for the "acceptable behavior" and moderation system. The votes should be the only decider on what is and isn't acceptable, and I think it's crucial that moderation is as automated and user driven as possible. It should only be a build up of enough system red flags and user show of hands before a moderator has the ability to make a decision.
January 9th, 2008
62nd
(0)
This might be questionable but maybe a user can only have a certain percentage of 1s for their total votes? Any 1s past that mark just don't register? That might piss some people off...
January 9th, 2008
63rd
(-5)
[ comment is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(-5)
FAO fourest: DarthWang and FatherMcKenzie are among the funniest site makers here. Plus, if you criticise the FPA for downvoting sites for not having ear-rape, then surely the people that downvote sites purely because they have ear-rape ought to be criticised too. Most of the comments I see with a 1 star next to them are always NEDM = 1 or MARIO = 1 and stuff like that. Much of the FPA hates the mainstream sites that are just pop-culture references rather than anything creative or original.
January 9th, 2008
75th
(0)
The hall of fame shouldn't be voted on by the regular users. The limbo system seems okay but it would kind of will exclude a lot of the old classics. Basically, every new site that becomes decently popular is going to be nominated for the hall of fame. I'd say the limbo system would work, but only if the featured users are the only ones able to vote. They [as a whole] have my trust.
January 9th, 2008
78th
(2)
Also, a possible way to stop trolling is if someone amasses a certain net number of -'s in a day they lose the priveledge to comment for a week, or something. What I mean is their net minus score for the day is like -2000. So if you had 100+'s and 100-'s in a day, you'd break even at 0. So if you comment a lot you're not in any danger unless you just generally being an *ssh*le to everyone, in which case a week without commenting is pretty justified. Maybe even a reward for + comments...
January 9th, 2008
81st
(-1)
Ok, How about a list of recently created sites is all their is. People sign in and view these. if the site sucks f*cking *ss and gets bombed then the files and the site will be deleted. The sites that people vote high, comment on, or view the most get to stay and move on to the next section. Like a viewed/Commented/Rating section. Then from there they can be voted out of these sections. When people are tired of them but could still be favorited for later. Also have a cycling section of sites above 4 and
January 9th, 2008
82nd
(0)
... such as a "SITES BY POSITIVE PEOPLE" section which randomly displays sites from people who met a certain number of net +'s the previous day. These are my ideas, I am an ignorant fool who knows nothing about coding and how difficult this would be, but the ideas themselves makes sense to me.
January 9th, 2008
85th
(0)
highly viewed sites where users can give "hall of fame" votes. Then at the end of a month period the 5 or so sites with the highest amount of votes get inducted. Also maybe have some sites suggested by yourself or other veteran members you appoint. And as far as trolling, downvoting etc.. Use IP restrictions like You get one account that has the ability to vote per ip. Other accounts can be made but can only be used for comments or making sites (themed users).
January 9th, 2008
86th
(0)
On post number 78 ... I meant to use -200 as an example and proper grammer
January 9th, 2008
88th
(2)
Only flaw would be ear rape f*gs would dominate the recently created and blow my speakers. Damnt...
January 9th, 2008
95th
(0)
don't worry max, i care about the stuff i should care about
January 9th, 2008
96th
(2)
Max's BMI before YTMND: 20. After(now):40
January 9th, 2008
101st
(-1)
[ comment is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(-1)
Sorry I am an idea man. They flow like a river....lol Something to encourage more Lulz and more donations is needed to. Possibly a private section of ytmnd where you have to donate a certain amount of money or meet guidlines that state if you have actually done anyhting positive for ytmnd. And int he private have forums on audio and design to help people. Have theme nights every other night or so for the private users. Also there could be contests or "battles" per say in certain categories. Orginal Music,
January 9th, 2008
103rd
(2)
Original Art, Original Shops, ytmnds made from a certain movie, song, or video. Also you could have donation levels for voting on sites. If you donate so and so only people whos account is a year or older can vote on you. Then so and so more only people who have created at least 5 sites. Then only people who have created a site that is rated above a 4 with more than 300 views. This isn't a really good place for a discussion because I am not really discussing this with anyone. I am just babbling out ideas :)
January 9th, 2008
104th
(-1)
Maybe If I wasn't to your first post I would get to discuss. IDIOT F*CKING IDIOT F*CKING idiot...
January 9th, 2008
107th
(0)
"Much of the FPA hates the mainstream sites that are just pop-culture references rather than anything creative or original." So "KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN, FORGOT POLEND %%%VOAT6%%%%!142 TEH SITE HAXXORS EEEEEEEEEEEEEE" over and over again is "creative and original"?
January 9th, 2008
117th
(2)
fourest is just mad because he's a wigger with no balls
January 9th, 2008
118th
(0)
Oh f*ck a graph!
January 9th, 2008
125th
(0)
Max id love to help, but all it seems like I (not literally but getting the message) am getting nothing more than a "your stupid, why donate $300?" Kinda thing. That was the only thing I could do without attempting to ask you for other ways of help and getting a reply saying "Go and die."
January 9th, 2008
134th
(10)
all of fourest's bullsh*t that I read here is a bunch of self-serving egoism and bullsh*t that adds nothing to ytmnd, but merely serves to protect his imaginary legacy in his mind from valid criticisms of its worthlessness
January 9th, 2008
164th
(3)
Its called an opinion. I vote 5 on darthwang and fathermckenzies sites, but i 5 non noise sites I like too. Don't ban someone or try to ban people because you have a different taste in sites than them. (that was directed to fourest)
January 9th, 2008
167th
(-1)
Locke5 it isn't just that. Its just the comments that some of us leave that makes it a problem. Saying "VOAT5 4 JON KERY" can work both ways. 1. Thats a retarded reason to 5 it :: 2. You liked it because it had John Kerry in it.
January 9th, 2008
169th
(0)
HTPAT for Hall of Fame! (no not really)
January 9th, 2008
171st
(3)
I think people invest too much emotion into this site. If everyone voted based on the site rather than the creator, we would see a slight change in things. For instance, lots of people associate mattdh12 with ear rape, and don't watch his site but rather vote 1 as soon as the preloader begins and that's bullsh*t because most of what matt makes is hilarious.
January 9th, 2008
199th
(0)
Shoover, this is first and foremost a humor site, right? Do all are comments have to be completely serious? Can't we leave what we and maybe others believe to be humorous comments too?
January 9th, 2008
220th
(0)
As for the nasty comments part, just make a certain limit to the amount of negative votes a comment can have (probably -10) and once it hits that mark the comment is hidden or just deleted altogether. As for bad sites, any site 2.9 (below average basically) and waorse is deleted after 12 (maybe 10?) hours to prevent lots of crap site flooding the site. As for a hall of fame entry process, make it a 3 tier system where the popular vote is 1 vote (legislative) the mods/super mods (judiciary) is 1...
January 9th, 2008
225th
(0)
...vote, and finally Max or maybe even a VERY highly respected member of the community is chosen as the final (executive) vote. Note, that people might think well if Max and the super mods like it, the majority is screwed, but the super mods are super mods for a reason becuase they know exactly what is good material and what is not. That's just the most fair and simple system in my opinion.
January 9th, 2008
232nd
(-1)
KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN for Hall of Fame. VOAT%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%. 3500HZ squarewav 4 lyf. DarthWang is King of all internets. Fourget and HE WHO SHALL NOT BE NAMED (BTAPE) are Jon Carries who forgot Polend and don't know good YTMND if it bit them in the ass. Terninate Mcfly BYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH
January 9th, 2008
239th
(0)
Well do you want a "true republic" version of YTMND or "authoritative democracy" which I like to call it right now?
January 9th, 2008
240th
(0)
The more I think about it the more I think weighted voting is a horrible idea. Especially if people like Fourest get it. I mean, doesn't he already get enough weight with all his alts?
January 9th, 2008
245th
(0)
I think there should be a list of hall of fame canidates every month by number of votes the two highest voted sites become the top two contenders and then we use the 3 vote rule where its the people, mods/super mods, Max all get one vote system. If one site has 3,000 more votes it gets the popular vote if 6 more mods like the other site more that gets one vote, and if Max liked the first site more that gets two votes now and is put in the hall of fame. Questions or ideas to make it better?
January 9th, 2008
248th
(0)
I like your HoF idea of trusted users allowed to pick or vote on one per week or month. Users who at least try to vote fair most of the time. The equation could be Users with 5,000 (or 10,000) Votes or more with a Mode NOT equal to 1 or 5. On another matter, I think allowing auto Sigs for comments is a bad idea. It will look cluttered even when filled with positive info. For example: ------------------ Make money the non-Nigerian way @ www.panaceamedia.org/MoneyBiatches.rtf
January 9th, 2008
250th
(0)
Every week is too much in my opinion, then we have 52 new HoF sites every year instead of a more reasonable 12 if we did it every month.
January 9th, 2008
257th
(0)
Agreed. Every month whatver Top 10-15 sites the "trusted" users nominate for HoF status gets the position. And when a new month rolls around a new bunch will appear. And any site who gets this position gets a permanent star inside the "banner" corner logo area (whatever it's called).
January 9th, 2008
261st
(0)
Thanks, but what are your opinions on the 3 tier voting system I have come up with after we narrow the choices down to two? So far no one has commented on thier opinions about it. I really think its fair that for the final two, the popular vote of av. users counts as 1 the moderators choice is 1 and Max's choice is 1. Someone please give input on this!!!!
January 9th, 2008
270th
(0)
Forget my 3 tier system and check out the system me and atari2600a are forming at the bottom of the page.
January 9th, 2008
288th
(0)
"Every month whatver Top 10-15 sites the "trusted" users nominate for HoF status gets the position." The problem with that is that it continues to empower all of the little "good ole boys" clubs that dominate YTMND right now, such as the whole Father Mckenzie and Darth Wang thing in which they make awful sites on purpose and yell "f*ggot!!" at everyone, and all of their friends upvote it.
January 9th, 2008
289th
(-2)
[ comment is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(-2)
blah blah blah technical mumbo jumbo no one knows about....thats great. WHERE'S THE T-SHIRTS???!!!???
January 9th, 2008
322nd
(0)
And the stupid "alt" posts. Alot of the big users don't use alts because they have been cracked down on. But who have they been cracked down upon???????? The big users who were using the alts to counteract the no name pieces of sh*t who never contributed anyhting to this site and have 20 alts downvoting anyone who actually cares about what they contribute here. Run on sentence FTW. But yopu get the point. So bascially "People who care about YTMND -1 and Idiots +1" Tell me I am wro
January 9th, 2008
325th
(0)
And just so I can beat the people who will argue with me to the punch. Why did you intially come here> Because you saw something that made you lol from people who took time to make something that made you lol. Then you got here and you realized" Wow I am f*cking dull and everything I make noone likes" and then u make 20 alts and downvote people who are quote stars unquote it's pretty much life in a nutshell.
January 9th, 2008
326th
(0)
[ comment is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(0)
Amd father mckenzie and darthwang are the kings of those people because they figured out how to become popular without contributing anything or being funny. The david koresh's of ytmnd.
January 10th, 2008
329th
(-2)
FIRST! ...doh!
January 10th, 2008
332nd
(0)
[ comment is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(0)
has made total votes with an average rating of 0 THIS IS GETTING ON MY NERVES
January 10th, 2008
346th
(-3)
[ comment is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(-3)
POS, you have completely the wrong end of the stick. It isn't the new people or the mainstream of YTMND that like FatherMcKenzie and DarthWang, it's the people who actually know the reason why DarthWang and FatherMcKenzie make those sites. Most people look at a DarthWang site and think 'This is sh*t 1'd' whereas the enlightened among us find it funny because we actually get the joke.
January 10th, 2008
347th
(0)
[ comment is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(0)
Ok fanboy :)
January 10th, 2008
349th
(-3)
also, Graphs = Massive Win ;D
January 10th, 2008
357th
(-2)
everyone's being such a secret nazi stapler phone here.
January 10th, 2008
366th
(-2)
superbe
January 10th, 2008
370th
(-1)
tl;dr : lots of ideas, but few good ones, if at all useful
January 10th, 2008
371st
(-1)
http://punishers.ytmnd.com/
January 10th, 2008
377th
(-1)
[ comment is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(-1)
Honestly Herald, you can sit there and repeat what you've heard other people say or do as much as you want, but when it comes down to it, noise site require no effort, and 99% of ytmnd doesn't want it here. If max took a vote to ban noise sites, you can bet they would be gone. Would you guys be happy if max set up ytmnd.com/noise/ and it was an entirely different ytmnd, filled only with ear rape and khan and macheenz and the big enemy lobster and what have you?
January 10th, 2008
382nd
(1)
What I've heard other people say? Are you some kind of moron? This is my opinion, pay attention. I'd agree 99% of YTMND wants Noise gone, but then again, 99% of YTMND is retarded. You idiots constantly upvote unfunny sites because they have Nintendo or Transformers or any other kind of nostalgia in them, or you take a kid's show and add adult themes. It just isn't funny. LazyTown sites were never funny. Muppets/Grover sites were never funny.
January 10th, 2008
383rd
(-1)
Also, if everyone hates Noise so much, how come a noise site is at the top of the U&C at the time of writing? Also, most noise sites to take little effort, but the good ones are to behold, and do take some effort (certainly more effort than thinking up an unfunny joke involving Alice in Wonderland, a Martin Scorsese film and a straight rip), for example Kassius' awesome noise remixes and much of DarthWang's sites, especially the greatness that is KHANTMND.
January 10th, 2008
401st
(0)
Is this an issue I should feel obligated to comment on?
January 11th, 2008
422nd
(-1)
I must second POS's proposition of one voting account per IP. Also, if all sites under a rating of 2 could be deleted, imagine how much space would be free.
January 11th, 2008
423rd
(-1)
Easy there Kass, I got this covered.
January 11th, 2008
425th
(0)
Ok Herald, you're right. I'm a moron for my observation. Nobody has ever tried to say noise sites are satire. Do you know what satire is? Satire tends to expose faults in things. For instance, when bush says something like "Listen to me closely terrorists" and then you dub in a famous idiotic Bushism at 900% volume <~THATS SATIRE! Inverting the colors on a picture then turning the entire sound bite up by 900%, that's spam, and the sh*t I'm sick of.
January 11th, 2008
426th
(2)
I'm not gonna sit here and lie to you and say I hate every noise site I've ever seen. I've seen plenty that I saw as very funny, and a standing model for what all noise sites should be (in moderation.) I remember at one point laughing extremely hard at a noise site, long before I created my account here. In other words, I can remember a time when I found it hilarious. People like you have ruined that. Its like telling the same joke over and over and then bitching at everyone when they've grown tired of
January 11th, 2008
427th
(0)
it.
January 11th, 2008
428th
(-1)
People like me? I hardly make any of the traditional 'noise-sites', that is, f*ck up (and by that I mean improve) the image and sound, remix, turn up volume and beg for fives, at least I don't spam them. I constantly get chided for not noising enough. I leave noise to the pros. As for satire, I have no idea what angle you're going for there. I just like noise because it's stupid funny fun. I'm just defending it because I don't want it banned. If noise was banned, YTMND would just become a sh*tstorm of
January 11th, 2008
429th
(0)
[ comment is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(0)
fad-comps and stupid edits of DVD rips or last night's episode of "Angsty Drama 101". Some people hate noise; hell, I'll even admit sh*tty noise sites are sh*tty. Sh*tty YTMNDs are sh*tty, noise or not. I just hate it when people orgasm over awesome noise sites (hard to come by nowadays) and then want noise banned completely. Also, your recent Brady site rocks. Those are the kinds of sites I want to see on the front page, not f*cking Lazytown.
January 11th, 2008
440th
(1)
Also make it to where you have to voat ont he ten recently created sites to get into the site. That way alot of the bullsh*t that gets to slide by with 0 voats will be deleted. Unless you have no accounts of course then you would go straight to the top rated, top viewed, top whatever of the day page.
January 11th, 2008
441st
(0)
P.S. Something needs to happen really fast though. I come to the site every day and am done looking at it after viewing probably 4 new sites. Then when I come back 4 hours later everything is greyed out because I have already seen it/voted on it. Besides the recently created because 9 times out of 10 that is just some idiot contributing nothing but a huge can of fail.
January 11th, 2008
450th
(0)
POS, you can thank unfair downvoters for that one. I was checking sites that were made back in 05 that had scores of around 3.9 - 3.95, and honestly, if they were posted today they would get hit by a ton of 1's and assholish sarcastic comments that make no sense. Looking back at old sites is like looking back at layers of the earth and finding a cleaner climate I wish I experienced. YTMND has become a meeting place for the unhappy angry teenager who wants to spread his sadness through senseless hate. lol
January 11th, 2008
453rd
(0)
chronster, there were a lot of well-known mass downvoters back in '05, too. Has everyone forgotten about Adverb, inkdrinker, and tehpwner?
January 11th, 2008
461st
(3)
I feel insanely bothered by people's sites such as troll sites. There should be a feature that lets you block specific user's sites off the front page so you don't see "I'm going to keep posting this everyday until you like it" everyday.
January 11th, 2008
465th
(1)
The ctrl+c and ctrl+v answer to downvoting idiots Wow this site is amazing. Your contributions to ytmnd amaze me. That's the best you have? Paste that into thier top voted site. I guarantee its worthy.
January 11th, 2008
466th
(1)
Something I respoded to one of the idiots bringing ytmnd down "Ok... that being said. Until you come up with a better way for this site to stay alive... that is what is keeping it alive. Not you're stupid f*cking random bullsh*t "Oh I think it is the funnay0z" site that 10 people will understand. What are you gonna do when ytmnd falls? When max decides he is tired of pieces of sh*t (like you pun intended) who contribute nothing to the site, besides their hate and envy of users who earned thier spot? You gon
January 11th, 2008
467th
(1)
retreat back to 4chan where you came from? Please do... Good point to end it on. Please forget you ever came to ytmnd because you are a virus. The virus that is killing ytmnd.
January 11th, 2008
468th
(1)
seeing fourest of all people saying that we should vote with accuracy and explain why we gave it that vote makes me laugh. i wonder how many times ive seen a 5 from fourest with a blank comment. murdarmachene said what else i want to say perfectly.
January 11th, 2008
469th
(-1)
Do you idiots actaully think that fourest is the only ytmnd'r who has used alts? Are you really that f*cking stupid? This is just like any other social community in the world (shiity of a world as it is) but if you know this person who knows this person you can use 10000000 alts if u want to to become what you want to become. Seriously use you're f*cking head. Does "In the loop" and "out of the loop" mean anyhting to you? This is a method of competition.....
January 11th, 2008
470th
(0)
uh, what?
January 11th, 2008
472nd
(0)
SHAQ ZONE HAR HAR! I knew this one time when this one guy I knew probably would have llol'd at shaq zone when he wasn't affiliated with ytmnd har har funnitez
January 11th, 2008
473rd
(0)
POS is hopped up on goof balls.
January 11th, 2008
474th
(0)
I call f*cking idiots goof balls in real life. And I call thier "gansgter crews" "Goof troops" in real life. So "yes" I do take major offense to your quotes "quotes" is "quotes"
January 11th, 2008
475th
(0)
Once my stupid site posts I am going to "stupid sleep" Even though I keep having to change the sound file because it doesn't cooberate with "this and that"
January 11th, 2008
476th
(0)
The YTMND Super computer is processing your request. Please wait!
January 11th, 2008
477th
(0)
Im sorry but when you pst a faulty sound file monty python seems like a slow pin prick to the eyeball.
January 11th, 2008
482nd
(2)
i think you are the one who needs to use you are f*cking head.
January 12th, 2008
497th
(1)
POS, every new post of yours is more disparate and inane than the last. Take a breathe and revise your comments before posting them, I have trouble simply reading them.
January 14th, 2008
523rd
(-1)
Funny comment thread. "NOISE SITES AREN'T SATIRE!" Did you see that? I put what you said in all caps. Most noise sites are spoofs (much like Meet The Spartans), some are farces, and some are actual quality parody. Many are certainly satirical, and many are certainly awful and unimaginative. As for '05 sites being poorly rated if submitted today... that's because they've already been done. Originality keeps people from getting bored, keeps people from making Meet The Spartans, try it out sometime.
January 14th, 2008
525th
(0)
Sorry dudes. Mental breakdown I guess. : )
January 14th, 2008
527th
(0)
It does make for an interesting read though. Almost like stepping outside of one's self.. lol
January 14th, 2008
532nd
(0)
LEAVES, you're putting words in my mouth. I never said resubmit the sites, I said if those sites had been released today (meaning brand new.) It would get 1'd by the kids who get angry at their sh*tty lives and come here to spread their angst. What's most frustrating is they are absolutely convinced of their righteousness in their actions. These morons are like open books for a psych major. Poor little depressed timmy going through puberty, hates everything that brings happiness to anyone else.
January 15th, 2008
536th
(0)
I sense a healthy amount of skepticism in your previous comment. I said "if submitted today" which is essentially the same as "if those sites had been released today", yet you said that I said "re-submitted", and I'm putting words in YOUR mouth? Then you go on a tirade about self-righteous angst-ridden kids who downvote sites and are easy reads for a psych major, but they still teach superiority complexes and paranoid delusions, not to mention false generalizations and unsubstantiated inferences, right?
January 17th, 2008
566th
(0)
January 17th, 2008
567th
(0)
btw "" apparently is a smiley face in ms word.... so ermm. I was being lighthearted with that statement. that is all
January 19th, 2008
583rd
(0)
I remember a time... A glorious time... When I could play ytmnds to poeple that were unfamiliar with ytmnd and they would seriously lol. Oh what a day it was
January 19th, 2008
584th
(0)
it seems as though if you vote less than 5 on somebody's site, no matter how crappy it is, they will always downvote yours, so maybe make it that you need to give a reason to downvote, and not just a vendetta, otherwise people will continue to downvote for the sole reason that they didnt like the fact you voted 3 on one of theirs.
January 19th, 2008
585th
(0)
"so maybe make it that you need to give a reason to downvote" How exactly would that be moderated? People would just write whatever they like.
January 21st, 2008
594th
(0)
1 because I saw a spider run accross the floor just now
January 28th, 2008
639th
(0)
Noise sites don't take effort? I spent 3 whole days on http://thepolesons.ytmnd.com
January 30th, 2008
651st
(1)
max, most of NeoMatrixClt's site suck, i don't know what you're doing, but ytmnd has been going downhill since 2006, a hall of fame is supposed to be the best of the best, instead you just pick one person with two good sites.
January 9th, 2008
2nd
(-2)
[ comment (and 4 replies) is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(-2)
I think this is what you are referring to http://www.discogs.com/release/68390
January 9th, 2008
4th
(-1)
Bag of Crap?
January 9th, 2008
5th
(-2)
[ comment is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(-2)
pay more attention to the RECENTLY CREATED .It is where new material is showcased and i watch my own and others 3+ sites get buried under a pile of one star nonsense LOUDtmnds and other garbage wastes of bandwidth before a fresh set of eyes can even get to it.
January 9th, 2008
8th
(1)
It seems that we have discussed and discussed and discussed this until we are blue in the face. There still isn't a set of guidelines to deal with trolls and morons? I guess not if you are asking for more feedback.
January 9th, 2008
16th
(5)
No we haven't discussed it over and over, 15 users have provided feedback interspersed with hundreds of dipsh*ts and counterproductive turds who are only posting to draw attention to themselves.
January 9th, 2008
23rd
(3)
But doesn't that pretty much sum up all of the problems on this site?
January 9th, 2008
32nd
(-8)
[ comment is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(-8)
Yes, so if it turns out no one cares enough, I'll just turn it off.
January 9th, 2008
52nd
(5)
One day, max is going to have one too many drinks and YTMND will cease to exist.
January 9th, 2008
215th
(3)
Why don't we make it so only Neo can vote on Hall of Fame sites?
January 9th, 2008
244th
(0)
Grey Goose II: Revenge of the Goose
January 13th, 2008
510th
(0)
I vote for all sites with CP to be on Hall of Fame
January 15th, 2008
547th
(1)
Captain Planet? ALL RIGHT
January 9th, 2008
9th
(4)
I think if you could come up with a way where the users could regulate how often other users post sites that would clean out a lot of garbage. The coding of it is very straight forward and be fairly easy to implement. However it of course would no doubt be able to get enough users to actively participate in such a system and it would mostly be used as a way for people to abuse fourest and vice versa. Bad behaviors: personal sites, I don't give a sh*t of John 15 year old Doe loves Jane 14 year old puts out
January 9th, 2008
10th
(-1)
[ comment is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(-1)
Jane (14 year old) puts out? Uh...do you have her number?
January 9th, 2008
17th
(5)
I think you just suggested communism
January 9th, 2008
22nd
(4)
That's an interesting idea. some flexible system that limits other users based on the community's reaction to their behavior. The problem in designing the technical side of a system like that is making it hard/impossible to "game". A self-moderating system like that would be great, if it weren't constantly abused.
January 9th, 2008
44th
(-1)
How about a full on class system for YTMND. Now you have your bourgeois (featured users)and proletariat (everyone else.) Maybe create several levels of use... starting with the top, like some of the current featured users, on down to the JoshCubes and those sort of f*ggots. Each level gets certain privileges. Lower levels can maybe post up to one site per day. Everyone starts at that lower level and earns rank. Write a code that automatically deletes a users redundant comments as they are posted.
January 9th, 2008
47th
(0)
Also, I'm suggesting more of a democracy than a communism. However, as recent history has showed us even those who should be fully capable of making mature responsible decisions will reelect a mentally challenged person. Now just imagine if you put that power into the hands of the average aged YTMND user who has a lot of spite towards other users. Yes I think it's a good idea, but it certainly needs more thought to actually work around here.
January 9th, 2008
60th
(0)
A lot of suggestions that people are making would be automated... user implemented or whatever. The obvious problem with this is alt abuse, etc.. By having a multi-tier user system, it can be designed so the lower tiers have no effect on these systems
January 9th, 2008
126th
(3)
I've seen forums where users are unable to post without a certain amount of "rep" points. You earn rep over time, but users can also give other users rep. This could probably translate over to YTMND. (I haven't read all the comments, so I apologize if this is a repeat idea)
January 9th, 2008
135th
(2)
Say you earn 1 pt every hour, and it takes 24 pts to post a site. Maybe a 5star adds .5 pts, a 4star will add .25, a 2 star will take away .25 pts, and a 1 will take away .5 pts. Perhaps each subsequent post within 24hrs will require more pts. And you can always adjust the values or put a cap on the total.
January 9th, 2008
208th
(0)
i like the google way... take all the humans out of the equation. or you could lean to the wikipedia way... only humans. but i dont really like that because there is always going to be someone with power that can be an *ss (im still banned from the ytmndwiki) . i think we should keep our focus on thinking of ways to get the computer to do the work for us. BUT for the hall of fame i think that needs a purely human touch. i think it would be interesting the have a supreme court type deal that deliberates it.
January 10th, 2008
355th
(0)
yeah whats dangerous about this is the massive amount of f*gs who would gang up on people just because they didn't 5 their site...
January 10th, 2008
356th
(0)
I like victz's idea, but whatever you decide, I do think that there should be some sort of new user class system, and some way for users higher in whatever kind of rank to do more. I feel if they've gotten that high on the food chain, they'd care about the quality of the site.
January 28th, 2008
640th
(0)
This would lead to a Tyranny of the Majority
January 9th, 2008
11th
(0)
[ comment (and 15 replies) is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(0)
there is so many users you should crush like vermin though, the site needs professional and not amateur security and i will be willing to help.
January 9th, 2008
12th
(0)
10th? Also, looking over the rules thing, most of it seems pretty solid. I'm in favor of weighted voting (despite the fact I'm relatively new and am more of a fan/viewer than a creator).
January 9th, 2008
14th
(1)
Oh, and most definitely block hall of fame sites from being edited. The retarded batman -> removed due to AIDS travesty is tragic.
January 9th, 2008
92nd
(1)
Personally, the "some users are more equal than other users" ideas make my skin crawl, for the most part. Reining in the alt accounts would go a long way toward obviating the need for such systems, though I'll grant you that's easier said than done.
January 10th, 2008
395th
(0)
I dislike weighted voting personally. I'd much prefer to see the community grow (NOT like myspace). But giving those of us who have been here longer, made more sites, or gotten higher ratings an edge over "newbies" just discourages people from getting into YTMND.
January 9th, 2008
13th
(0)
YTMND needs a mission statement... sort of an expansion of the "technical definition" of YTMND. Anyone not using YTMND in the spirit of this mission statement (ie deliberately posting redundant, worthless crap or trolling other users) will have certain privileges taken away.
January 9th, 2008
20th
(1)
Really, the list you already have under Rules / Moderation Guidelines / Global Policy is very thorough, what else is needed?
January 9th, 2008
24th
(2)
the list isn't meant to be a list of straightforward rules, it's meant as the foundation of a discussion on which behaviors need moderation and which can be ignored unless in extreme cases.
January 9th, 2008
25th
(3)
free pizza fridays
January 9th, 2008
31st
(0)
a self mod system would be abused worse than the star system.need more mods.
January 9th, 2008
178th
(2)
free pizza fridays should be a priority
January 9th, 2008
181st
(-2)
alright, your comment was totally useless. i dont see how "we should instate rules, and those who dont follow them should be punished" adds anything. but hey, thanks captain obvious.
January 9th, 2008
19th
(0)
Also for the Hall of Fame sites idea. I propose that you include a Hall of Fame vote button or checkbox in the site profile of high rated/most viewed/most fav'd/most commented sites, and create a Hall of Fame staging area section that includes a number of sites that have aforementioned criteria and then people can vote on them.
January 9th, 2008
29th
(9)
Hmm, like an area for sites that are in "hall of fame limbo". Maybe we could do something like that where users can get them into "limbo" and I have to "okay" them into the actual HoF, or vice versa.
January 9th, 2008
30th
(-3)
[ comment is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(-3)
I think there is too many vote buttons on the site already.
January 9th, 2008
43rd
(0)
Or maybe even changing Hall of Fame to something like YTMND of the Month. You've stated before HoF was pretty much created to keep stale sites of the frontpage. Maybe have users vote on the topviewed/voted site of 4 weeks of that month and place that site in the YTMND of the Month. Actually use it as a positive reward as opposed to saying "we got tired of this site a long time ago." Another way to encourage users to try to raise the bar and better themselves and the content they produce.
January 9th, 2008
49th
(0)
Here's how I think the HoF voting system should go. Except I have to post it in parts since the box won't let me do a wall of text- -Once you first put in the new HoF system, everyone gets X votes to use. The number each person gets is based on how long they've been around, for example you said one vote for every three months.
January 9th, 2008
50th
(0)
-Users should have to earn more votes. When I say earn I mean they should only get additional votes if they've "behaved" themselves. For instance, a user should get a vote at the end of every month if they haven't made any infractions based on the moderation rules (which you haven't made). Are you a troll? Annoying spammer? Part of your punishment could be for you to lose your monthly vote.
January 9th, 2008
51st
(1)
You could do the limbo thing, but have a hall of fame ceremony one month out of the year. Then when that month rolls around the sites in limbo are put on a poll list. Then say a user gets so many votes based on how long they have been registered with the site. Say, 1 vote for every 6 months past. Then when the poll is done, the sites with the greater majority of the % of votes gets inducted into the HOF.
January 9th, 2008
55th
(1)
-Each site's profile (not the actual site) should have a HoF Vote box/button. Once a site hits a certain number of HoF votes (which you choose), it goes into that HoF "limbo" someone mentioned. Once there, you (Max) choose some random users to make a voting committee to decide if it gets in. These random users shouldn't be just any old goons, so it's up to you if you want to draft moderators, featured users, people with clean mod records, whoever for the matter.
January 9th, 2008
57th
(0)
-If the site makes it, hooray. Maybe only do inductions once a month like a few people have mentioned. If the site DOESN'T make it, then all (or some part) of those votes get thrown out and the site has to build them back up. In my view this discourages people from voting on whatever site strikes their fancy at the moment, since their vote could be meaningless if it's not approved.
January 9th, 2008
58th
(0)
I think that's everything I was thinking. But this is coming from a guy whose knowledge of computer/website coding could fit in a sperm cell, so I don't know how much of my idea is possible. Maybe it'll help you think of something that is though.
January 9th, 2008
106th
(0)
Read my comments I posted under max's first. Since I failed and all.
January 10th, 2008
353rd
(0)
I vote yes on the limbo idea
January 20th, 2008
592nd
(0)
how about adding a checkbox in every sites profile used to "nominate" the site for the Hall of Fame. User's only get X number of nominations per month and then at the end of every month the top 20 or so sites with the most nominations are listed on a voting page. Users get one vote and whichever site gets the most votes gets put into the Hall of Fame. All the site nominations get reset the next month and the process starts over again.
January 9th, 2008
27th
(6)
Get rid of the featured users box and let us populate it with our own favorite users list.
January 9th, 2008
36th
(0)
id rather eliminate the featured user box from the front page and extend the recently created, give more time to weed crap out.
January 9th, 2008
40th
(0)
I miss the Worthwhile Sites box. I think a lot of good sites will hit a rating around 4, are on the front page for a couple days, then if they don't get more votes they're never seen again. You miss out on some funny stuff this way, and I think these sites deserve more attention.
January 9th, 2008
56th
(0)
Vote for user at end of month?
January 9th, 2008
110th
(0)
I'd say the featured user box is fundamentally flawed, in the way that 90% of users with featured status don't make sites anymore. I say replace it either with Worthwhile or a "favorite user" box (perhaps have both "recent sites from favorite users" and "random sites from favorite users" options, in case someone's favorite users aren't active anymore).
January 9th, 2008
140th
(1)
I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH THIS. I could do without the featured users' sites. Most of the sites that show up on this list are crap. If you could somehow subscribe to users of your choice though, that'd be awesome.
January 9th, 2008
209th
(0)
That is actually a really good idea.
January 9th, 2008
214th
(6)
Get rid of the featured users box and replace it with EPIC USERS. LOL!
January 9th, 2008
309th
(0)
favorite users, you say? http://btape.nfshost.com/UserPage.html?user_name=Kassius
January 10th, 2008
337th
(0)
Yes BTape I know you've been working on that site, though I would love to see it implemented into ytmnd itself.
January 10th, 2008
397th
(0)
Tape's system is GREAT. And featured users is fun (some good stuff shows up in there that gets downvoted), you can always change your default template for the front page and replace it with worthwhile sites . (unsure WTF i mean? Look at the bottom of the YTMND main page chum)
January 12th, 2008
495th
(0)
I don't believe there is a wiki article about the front page template. I've been thinking about writing one for a while, but haven't had the time to do it. I have time this weekend.
January 13th, 2008
503rd
(0)
schweet. If you don't get around to it I'll try to remember to haberdash one together (worked great for the sync article *facepalm* sigh)
January 13th, 2008
509th
(0)
http://wiki.ytmnd.com/Customize_your_front_page
January 9th, 2008
33rd
(-1)
ill make some notes on the guidelines at work today and get back to you.
January 9th, 2008
37th
(3)
repeat offenders/trolls should lose voting rights
January 9th, 2008
41st
(-4)
[ comment is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(-4)
account rights you mean.
January 9th, 2008
76th
(0)
no let them keep their accounts and suffer by watching and not being able to participate
January 9th, 2008
172nd
(1)
haha... like having to sit in the corner while an orgy's going on
January 12th, 2008
499th
(0)
Maybe a system that shuts off comments and votes if the same comment is made a certain number of times, it would diminish the chic of creating your own "All hand and no hole makes Jack a dull boy" gimmick.
January 9th, 2008
48th
(4)
Make MurdarMachene a featured user. This should be top priority
January 9th, 2008
198th
(1)
because he's not pink
January 12th, 2008
492nd
(-1)
+'d
January 9th, 2008
59th
(-4)
[ comment (and 2 replies) is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(-4)
Max, maybe you need a system that helps support you financially. I mean...none of us really want you to "sh*t where you eat"...except Fourest. Like maybe have something like...like...uhm...hmm...ok, how about a system where the hall of fame is setup for the top 100 sites that bring in the most ad revenue? This way users are more encouraged to make sites to say "hey You! Yeah you! Click on that ad! And buy something! So Max can support his hoes!"...or something. You get the idea!
January 9th, 2008
61st
(-3)
thatsa lotta code
January 9th, 2008
161st
(1)
haha... very productive comment :)
January 9th, 2008
66th
(1)
I think every user should have max on how many times they can vote per day.
January 9th, 2008
70th
(0)
Not only that have a system that automatically reports to an admin or mod if a user receives several negatives on their comments per day. Example: Max number of negatives a user can reach before being reported = X, user reaches that total, system automatically reports to an admin or mod so they can determine if action should be taken on that user. Punishments might include, muting, account suspension, and maybe banning.
January 9th, 2008
113th
(0)
I don't know about a maximum. What if there was someone that had absolutely no life and spent all of their time on YTMND. If I happened to be that person, which I'm not, I would be pissed if I ran out of votes for the day. Sometimes I actually refresh random.ytmnd.com over and over for an hour just to put more votes out there. But this idea could be a good one if it was based on votes per minute. If someone made 20 votes in one minute, obviously they were just blind upvoting or downvoting a site.
January 9th, 2008
114th
(0)
Maybe then their votes could be automatically suspended for a certain amount of time. This was a good point though. But your second proposal on +'s and -'s...YTMND has more important things to improve on. Who gives a sh*t about a comment's rating!
January 9th, 2008
115th
(0)
And you really can't go by -'s. A lot of times, there are certain users that have their comments -'d just because everyone hates them, not because of what they commented. People shouldn't be punished for comments unless they are always posting massive spam (remember genstar and the whole deedeedeer.ytmnd.com over and over again).
January 9th, 2008
122nd
(2)
one vote per site per ip per day
January 9th, 2008
260th
(1)
That's why an admin or mod would determine if the negatives were warranted. Obviously they'll know or should know weather or not the comments deserved the negative score.
January 10th, 2008
396th
(0)
But if it comes down to what the mod that is looking thinks, why even have a public +/- system? And as for votes per day, YTMND runs on votes. Destroy gimmick voters (down AND up) but don't cut off the lifeblood of YTMND.
January 9th, 2008
67th
(0)
why not delete USERS who post useless and unhelpful comments? but beyond that, as regards the hall of fame, there should be some method of nominating potentially worthy sites, but the ultimate decision should come down to max or super-mods. maybe featured users or those with hall of fame sites could have a say as well.
January 9th, 2008
68th
(0)
The voting system is flawed, but it is too late to turn back on it because if you change the system, all the currently cast votes will be either deleted or weighed out of proportion with what the voter intended. At the moment, for your site to be on the front page due to vote alone (i.e. U&C or Top Rated) you need a score of at least 4.1. This means that 5 is the only vote that matters. A 4 vote is a good vote but it still damages a YTMND's chances of staying on the front page. So basically there are only
January 9th, 2008
69th
(0)
two votes: 5 or lesser degrees of downvote, from 4 to 1. When a person sees a site, they usually either like it and want to keep it on the FP or hate it and want it off. 5 is the best way of keeping it on. 1 is the best way of kicking it off. The people who vote 2-4 who think they're being critical or use 2-4 of a way of saying 'This site is ok, I don't like or dislike it so I'll sit on the middle of the fence' are lying to themselves. 2-4 stars are effectively downvotes, they just carry less weight in
January 9th, 2008
71st
(0)
terms of balancing the average out. Furthermore, the Featured Users has to go. It basically creates an aristocracy and as soon as someone hits the Featured Users list, 9 out of 10 of those users suddenly cease to put any effort into their sites because they know they don't need to. I ignore most sites on the Featured Users list unless they're already on the U&C or Top Rated. Even if they are reputed for making good sites, make them work to be on the top page. I know I do.
January 9th, 2008
72nd
(0)
not always true,ive 3'd,4'rd sites that i think were funny but not worthy of a month of praise on the top viewed/up and coming
January 9th, 2008
74th
(0)
http://wiki.ytmnd.com/Weighted_Voting
January 9th, 2008
77th
(1)
Maybe when they're already on the front page and have a strong score i.e. above 4.25 after 100 votes, in which case your individual vote doesn't really mean anything, but face it, when a site hits the Recently Created, 4 of its first 5 votes need to be 5 to stand a chance on the U&C, and then say out of the next 15 votes it gets, 10 of those need to be a 5 to stand a chance. A 4 just brings its average down and you really need to get higher than 4.1 to survive.
January 9th, 2008
84th
(1)
I am against Weighted Voting as a whole. I've always thought YTMND is as much a site for site creators as it is for site viewers, so making it so those who make higher-rated sites have more weight is counter-intuitive to that. Weighting votes so that upvoters or downvoters have less weight is also pointless - it will just lead to them upvoting or downvoting sites that they wouldn't normally vote on just to balance their score average out, and they most likely won't be honest with their voting either
January 9th, 2008
87th
(0)
e.g. an upvoter will downvote random sites just to get his weight back and vice versa. I also dislike giving older members more weight - I dislike creating aristocracies on websites and there are many idiotic long-term voters and just as many right-minded newcomers and to discriminate just because one signed up first is pretty stupid. As is the idea that people who donate ought to get more weighted votes. The system we have isn't perfect, but it is better than weighted voting.
January 9th, 2008
89th
(0)
I know many people hate the idea of a Yay or Nay system, but at the moment, it is more or less 5 = Yay, and 4-1 equalling differing degrees of 'Nay'. Instead, to promote younger, decent sites that might have been killed by a few early downvotes, we should take inspiration from Newgrounds' Portal. Whereas most of YTMND's FP is dedicated to sites that are days or weeks old, with only 20 slots for recent sites (10 on Recently, 10 on U&C), Newgrounds dedicates nearly 100 slots to recent sites, and highlights
January 9th, 2008
91st
(0)
the good ones and...well I probably don't have to tell you, since it is one of the more visited sites on the internet, go look at it yourself. Basically, downvoters would have much less power if their votes didn't mean as much in getting a site off the FP in the early stages. Basically, Recently Created should be at least 25 slots and U&C should be around 20-25 too. Likewise, I think moderators ought to be able to pick daily favourites to underdog sites to give them extra exposure.
January 9th, 2008
94th
(0)
Likewise, to keep the Recently Created fresh, anything that garners a score of less than 2 or say 10 one-votes before it gets 15 votes ought to be deleted and removed from the front page.
January 9th, 2008
98th
(0)
Newgrounds also helps highlight why a weighted voting system would not work at YTMND. Newgrounds assumes there is such as thing as a good flash, and most people can agree whether a flash is good or not. However, YTMND is different. There is no general consensus on what constitutes a good YTMND e.g. some people prefer fad comps, others prefer pop culture references and DVD rips with slight edits, some prefer noise, some prefer original content. Since there is no consensus on what a good YTMND is, a weighted
January 9th, 2008
99th
(0)
system would not work and only serve to damage the integrity of voters.
January 9th, 2008
100th
(0)
Funny you should mention a binary voting system. I had actually been thinking recently that maybe YTMND would be better served by a a trinary system (bad - ok - good), since voting at the present is at least that granular, basically.
January 9th, 2008
150th
(0)
I like the idea of weighted voting on Ytmnd. People who make good sites, or have been around longer should have a louder voice on YTMND, and therefore more responsibility with how they vote.
January 9th, 2008
152nd
(0)
The only way to help "even-out" the voting system on YTMND I've always thought would be to actually add more stars, and even it out in the middle. So basically same amount, but it gives more options in between.
January 9th, 2008
226th
(1)
Weighted voting is a bad idea, I think. There are certain groups of scum on ytmnd that like to throw their weight around. Giving them more power to do this is not a good idea. If the alt problem can be solved then weighted voting isn't needed. Veteren accounts can be given other benefits somehow.
January 9th, 2008
229th
(3)
Weighted voting is a bad, bad idea. Just refer to all the anger that's stirred up over certain featured users. There are obviously people who DO NOT need any more power. Everyone should have the same voting power.
January 9th, 2008
246th
(0)
I do NOT like the idea of weighted voting. Some users would gain more and more power, and one person's opinion could make or break a great site. Voting is fine just the way it is.
January 10th, 2008
398th
(0)
I don't feel that the current system is "broken" at all. It just so happens that a 5 is required to make the front page, but I also feel that its intended. Of the hundreds of sites that are made per day, (lately) only a few hug the front page. BECAUSE they are of abnormally good quality. No one lawls then votes a 4. 5 means "I fully endorse this product". At least that is how I view the stars
January 11th, 2008
420th
(-1)
After giving this much thought, I developed an idea of a ytmnd with two forms of voting. (1) Calculated weighted voting. At first, I liked the idea of rep points that would affect the strength of ones vote. I then realized we represent ourselves by the many aspects of our behavior and accomplishments as users. We should therefore have the weight of our votes determined by the community through their votes/favs on our top rated sites, the mathematical fairness of our voting record and the contributions we have made to the community (i.e. the wiki). For example, we all start with a weight of 4 out of 7 and it can improve or regress on that based on our actions and how the community views our sites.
January 11th, 2008
421st
(0)
The second form of voting would be designed to weed out the nuisance users. For example, I would see to it that spamming users such as farkle are punished. The inherent formulae alluded to in my previous post would determine a users vote weight and would also bring them to the attention of the community. A user whose site quality, site number and vote history are indicative of being that of a troll/spammer etc would render their vote weight to be far lower than the starting mean. It would also grant them a place in a section (like featured users) where they could be analyzed and rated by the community for a period just as sites are rated. Are they misunderstood or are they just a burden on the community worthy of removal? Such users may see their sites or even account deleted depending on the voice of the community.
January 11th, 2008
424th
(-2)
Of course, your 'theory' doesn't take into account that farkle is hilarious and a genius.
January 9th, 2008
73rd
(0)
max: I think a 'bad behaivor' is the account used strictly for downvoting/upvoting. We've seen hundreds come and go over the years, but I can't help but think you could leverage the new prediction model to categorize these outliers (i.e. 100's of votes all 1 or all 5) to be non-votes, in other words, a vote made from this type of account would not change the overall rating of a site.
January 9th, 2008
79th
(-2)
RAWR!
January 9th, 2008
90th
(0)
and why should we belive you, eh?
January 9th, 2008
93rd
(1)
get rid of fad compilations in hall of fame. i was going to say let every user have a vote to decide the sites that should enter in their place, but groups of users would no doubt hijack that system and waste it. maybe more experienced or successful users could come up with a list of deserving sites and let everyone have a vote on that, perhaps?
January 9th, 2008
102nd
(0)
101, Canines on the run
January 9th, 2008
108th
(0)
I posted this on top and I think it was one of my better ideas... a possible way to stop trolling is if someone amasses a certain number of -'s in a day they lose the privilege to comment for a week, or something. What I mean is their NET minus score for the day. So if you had 100+'s and 100-'s in a day, you'd break even at 0. So if you comment a lot you're not in any danger unless you just generally being an *ssh*le to everyone, in which case a week without commenting is pretty justified
January 9th, 2008
109th
(-1)
oh yeah Max...what about merch?
January 9th, 2008
111th
(-1)
ugly luke and nedm tees please
January 9th, 2008
231st
(-1)
whats wrong with merch? id rather buy a T than have to watch a pointless site that someone with a little extra cash thinks is funny to sponsor
January 12th, 2008
486th
(0)
confuse...perfect
January 9th, 2008
116th
(1)
strip BTape from his rank
January 9th, 2008
119th
(0)
[ comment is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(0)
State reasons. Oh yeah, he forgot Poland, right? Then by all means, he doesn't deserve to be a Mod. Dumbass.
January 9th, 2008
127th
(3)
delete mariostar06
January 9th, 2008
129th
(-2)
[ comment is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(-2)
not because he forgot poland, hes a poland forgettorgot, get it right
<< 1 2 3 >>