I really do, but it's sucking wind at the moment.

Short of simply leaving altogether, I'm trying out the topic filters, only—big fucking surprise—they're not working as described.

If I select "only show topics with a net '0' rating", I don't get all the topics with net '0'. There are many with +1/-1 and +2/-2 rated topics that don't make it through this filter. Still, even with this glitch, this filter seems to be the best option for viewing the new Ballot Box version of BOTF.

So help me out, wouldja? Rate 'em up, rate 'em down, and let the almost-working filter sort them out.

Thx.

That looks better already.

I used to think uprating one's own posts was bad form. No longer. Anything that helps me use the filters is good, in my book.

so you only read stuff that a majority of poster agree are 0 or better?

i gravitate towads extremes - stuff that's rated extremely high or extremely low.

it doesn't mean i agree with either direction. and you don't know what you're going to get. everyone could be rating a conservative piece a big minus, but it still makes some valid points.

in any case, i try to interpret from the subject line (or posters name) whether the piece is going to be intelligent or not.

if it starts out with curse words, or some mindless political rant, i bypass it on general principles.

"only show topics with a net '0' rating"

In our experience, there is no such filter. There are 3 settings on the topic filter, allowing the reader to see only those topposts with a net rating greater than either -5, 0, or +5. On our computer, these filters work as advertised. Personally, we think the critical values should be -2, -1, and 0, so that a single up or down rating would have an effect.

but the amount of spam these days makes me want to just stay away.

Which is sad, because this place was once replete with complex, thought-provoking analysis of newsy issues, obscure topics, and social hijinks.

As of now, I'm rating posts up or down as I judge them to increase the quality of the discourse or lower it. My bar is set pretty low: I'll uprate stuff I don't agree with and which I am not likely to post to, but which contributes even a little to the overall quality of the board.

I'll downrate spam, top post replies, c & p's, and links posted without content (as per Urquhart).

note to Dawn:your post sucks wind.

Sigh. My innumeracy is showing.

But how stupid is that? The net 0 rating should be an option, to allow for posts that don't get any rating.

I don't need a single up or down rating to have an effect. I need to make the crap disappear.

I used to smash a brick through my monitor every time some shithead from Ballot Box or Today's Papers oozed under the door and threw up one of their oh-so-clever submissions.

Going through 43 monitors a day got pricey.

I like your filter idea better.

if you leave that would be a start in crap leaving.

to see the unrated posts, you have to use either no filter or the >-5 filter. If there were a >-1 filter, you would see both the unrated and the positively rated posts, but none of the negatively rated posts.

I tried the filters once, back when the new Fray was new and the average frayniac was energized with the spirit of hope, fresh beginnings, and untapped potential... (yeah... maybe I'm misremembering that...).

But frankly I haven't tried them since. Don't think I ever will. I mean, c'mon, we know why we're here, what keeps bringing us back despite our very best Toto-instincts. It's not the scintillating conversation.

It's the Ripley's "Believe It Or Not" effect, the fascination with the carnival midway, the World's Smallest Man, the Bearded Lady, the Siamese Twins. I've no illusion about where that puts me in P.T. Barnum's equation (hmm, I'm sensing some post fodder here).

Besides, you can't rely on a population of loons accurately rating themselves in a manner conducive to a coherent, reasonable result. Just keep craning your neck to see the Turtle Girl... You know you wanna...

people who want to use it will need to catch the posts with no ratings and downratings and uprate them if they want them to stay visible.

It should be an interesting exercise, and one that will require some persistence if it's going to be successful.

Also, the editors is right. There should be a > -1 rating.

and you're almost never here. I should be never here, too. I've got several things that require my attention, and BOTF isn't one of them.

But if I'm going to be here, I'd rather come and see a front page of posts by people I want to read. The baseline level of intelligence on the internets is slightly above glow worm. I can find idiots anywhere, but I'd rather avoid them.

baltimore aureole:

so you only read stuff that a majority of poster agree are 0 or better?

i gravitate towads extremes - stuff that's rated extremely high or extremely low.

it doesn't mean i agree with either direction. and you don't know what you're going to get. everyone could be rating a conservative piece a big minus, but it still makes some valid points.

in any case, i try to interpret from the subject line (or posters name) whether the piece is going to be intelligent or not.

if it starts out with curse words, or some mindless political rant, i bypass it on general principles.

I agree with you,ba. I like to see all posts..it gives a much better view of what the current vibe on the fray is. I am not one into censoring or filtering only information I think I want to see.Can't make the best informed choices if you filter only what you think you need to see.

As to the sock puppets who go around down rating the posts of those they have obessive issues with, I notified Moira about mine, awhile ago. I know she is aware of it. Seems it continues ..some just have a need to like to play silly high school games.

there's only one poster here who constantly refers to 'number of views', 'uprates' and 'downrates" as if her life depended on it.

Do you actually think we don't know this is you?