Jump to content
HurricaneWrestling2

Hey Mr. Moderator - Question re: "Reactions"

Recommended Posts

Just now, pamela said:

It's a simple gesture of thanks, appreciation or agreement without having to clutter a thread like:

person1: makes a statement

person 2: yes, I agree

person 3: me too

person 4: me three

person 5: ha ha, that person 1 said something funny and I laughed

person 6: I also laughed

 

I'll drink...or like to that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, pamela said:

It's a simple gesture of thanks, appreciation or agreement without having to clutter a thread like:

person1: makes a statement

person 2: "yes, I agree"

person 3: "me too"

person 4: "me three"

person 5: "ha ha, person 1 said something funny and I laughed"

person 6: "I also laughed"

 

This is a better answer. 
 

Yet I still reply to clutter the board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Proposal

There are unlimited reactions available to all members.  However, members that have received more reactions than they have given are capped at receiving 7 reactions a month.  

 

Data speaks volumes

@VakAttack and @MadMardigain- Have you heard the news?  Science supports that you will feel better if you give more than you receive.  Bless @jon's heart.  He keeps giving and giving and giving.  

--------------------------------------------------------online member data pull----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

member Name qualified ?
> 100 reac
% given from all reactions given to reaction ratio given Totals received Totals given Likes given Thanks given Hahas given Confused given Sads received Likes received Thanks received Hahas received Confused received Sads
jon yes 90.40% 234:25 1403 149 875 302 215 10 1 121 8 19 1  
alwayswrestling yes 85.91% 482:79 963 158 950 1 4 7 1 148 4 5 1  
paul158 yes 81.19% 41:10 82 19 78 2 2     19        
pawrestler yes 77.11% 71:21 283 84 262 2 18 1   79 2 2 1  
jsmalls131313 yes 73.85% 48:17 96 34 89 1 6     27 1 6    
2td3nf yes 73.28% 654:239 1308 477 1130 121 55   2 462 12 1   2
gockes yes 70.78% 191:79 763 315 747 13 1 1 1 287 13 13 1 1
simple yes 66.47% 83:42 331 167 304 1 5 18 3 153 6 8    
madcat11 yes 65.74% 331:173 662 345 521 51 74 5 11 321 5 19    
houndedhawk yes 58.39% 40:29 80 57 71 2 7     48 2 7    
skikayaker yes 58.01% 53:38 105 76 100 1 2 1 1 67 2 6 1  
jackwebster yes 56.77% 22:17 88 67 71 10 6 1   58 5 3 1  
pamela yes 54.58% 698:581 1395 1161 1154 141 96 3 1 1053 22 84   2
ahamilton yes 54.18% 20:17 240 203 224 3 4 7 2 159 11 32 1  
yonz_g yes 53.51% 31:27 61 53 43 9 8   1 47 5 1    
show_me yes 53.27% 139:122 277 243 273 2     2 234 9      
jross yes 52.36% 56:51 111 101 82 19 7 1 2 74 15 12    
crotalus yes 47.38% 154:171 307 341 255 14 38     289 14 38    
ogalthorpe-haywood yes 46.79% 113:129 226 257 172 13 35 1 5 207 16 27 2 5
kschlosser yes 45.96% 37:44 74 87 68 4 1   1 77 5 4   1
potentiallydangerous yes 40.96% 20:29 120 173 80 5 33 1 1 146 5 20 1 1
russelscout yes 40.33% 459:679 918 1358 686 96 131 4 1 1153 50 142 5 8
hotkarl712 yes 40.30% 27:40 54 80 43 8 3     55 8 17    
aknipp yes 38.79% 32:51 64 101 58 2 4     95 2 4    
plasmodium yes 36.50% 119:207 714 1242 546 22 145 1   1118 32 91 1  
goheels1812 yes 35.62% 127:230 254 459 213 12 24 2 3 400 27 30 2  
pennsyrules yes 34.52% 9:17 107 203 92 7 8     197 2 4    
idaho yes 31.41% 60:131 240 524 205 5 28 1 1 461 6 55 1 1
setonhallpirate yes 27.40% 142:375 283 750 235 5 32 2 9 658 70 21 1  
jasonbryant yes 24.39% 241:746 481 1491 476 1 3 1   1404 50 36 1  
pa-in-taiwan yes 24.27% 1:3 25 78 13 8 1 1 2 64 8 3 1 2
sublime607 yes 21.64% 15:53 29 105 11 10 8     84 5 16    
mpchillin yes 17.05% 11:54 22 107 13 4 5     100 4 3    
wrestlingnerd yes 16.84% 128:631 511 2523 426 50 30 2 3 2434 47 37 2 3
gimpeltf yes 16.61% 1:5 207 1039 174 10 17 4 2 918 30 85 4 2
77again yes 14.29% 1:6 16 96 1 8 5 1 1 81 8 5 1 1
tripnsweep yes 13.72% 5:31 59 371 28 17 8 1 5 335 17 13 1 5
msu158 yes 11.94% 94:693 188 1386 181 1 5 1   1341 20 24 1  
vakattack yes 11.64% 151:1143 301 2286 273 1 21 3 3 2147 39 94 3 3
maligned yes 11.59% 14:107 56 427 44 11 1     405 11 11    
old-corps yes 9.56% 7:62 13 123 5 7 1     107 9 7    
mspart yes 7.30% 7:83 13 165 4 4 4   1 156 4 4   1
madmardigain yes 2.07% 11:521 22 1041 19 1 1 1   967 26 47 1  
surf2live no 100.00% 1:0 1 0 1                  
gostanford18 no 93.26% 14:1 83 6 42 1 39 1   5 1      
dondante88 no 71.01% 5:2 49 20 43 1 5     13 2 5    
schuteandscore no 68.75% 11:5 22 10 15   7     10        
flanders no 66.67% 2:1 28 14 26 2       12 2      
cementmixer103 no 57.95% 26:19 51 37 11 2 36   2 26 1 10    
hootie no 40.00% 1:2 2 3 2         3        
potdangerous no 37.84% 7:12 14 23 12 2       21 2      
iscored2onu no 29.79% 7:17 14 33 7 4 3     30 1 2    
jmachinder no 28.72% 7:17 27 67 18 5 4     58 5 4    
flyinlion no 26.09% 1:3 6 17 3 3       14 3      
shieldofpistis no 18.29% 4:17 15 67 2 2 9 1 1 50 7 9 1  
terry-pack no 0.00% 0:0 0 0                    
50lbsover no 0.00% 0:0 0 0                    
buckeyewrestlingcamps no 0.00% 0:0 0 0                    
eliteathleticclub no 0.00% 0:0 0 0                    
pfc no 0.00% 0:0 0 0                    
fort-lewis-colorado no 0.00% 0:0 0 0                    
animal197 no 0.00% 0:3 0 3           2 1      
redfan no 0.00% 0:9 0 9           7 2      
puwrestler no 0.00% 0:10 0 10           10        
cb no 0.00% 0:35 0 35           35        
steen-hooph no 0.00% 0:51 0 51 51         51        
Edited by jross
incorporated Pam's suggestions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jross said:

Proposal

There are unlimited reactions available to all members.  However, members that have received more reactions than they have given are capped at receiving 7 reactions a month.  

 

Data speaks volumes

@VakAttack and @MadMardigain- Have you heard the news?  Science supports that you will feel better if you give more than you receive.  Bless @jon's heart.  He keeps giving and giving and giving.  

-----

I agree I’m a pretty crappy expresser of emotion.   I think it’s part of my Daikini ancestry that is at fault.   Only the mystical “dust of broken heart” has alter this mentality...

F21B.gif

Edited by MadMardigain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry @MadMardigain, looks like a new feature was released during last evening's downtime.  I tried to show my thanks for your apology and this error message appeared.  I asked admin Willow to look into it and you know what he said?  "I guess you are going to die here.  Who cares?"

mad-Mardigan.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, jross said:

Data speaks volumes

@VakAttack and @MadMardigain- Have you heard the news?  Science supports that you will feel better if you give more than you receive.  Bless @jon's heart.  He keeps giving and giving and giving.  

jross - you are certainly in tune man. I've tried pointing that out to the "superstar" and got my head handed to me.  Thanks for backing that up with data.  All kidding aside the majority of people have no idea what you mean by "better to give than receive."  The few who experienced that feeling did so because they practiced it. I suspect you're once such individual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI - I am not on this list because the forum removed this emoji feature from me for a period of time. I lost other features too like the ability to quote someone, etc. I reached out several times and yet no one with the ability to help did so. I figured it was some sort of penalty for going against the grain of the "chosen ones."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Marcus Cisero  I wrote a bot yesterday that scrubbed the website for online members and then automatically parsed their reputation page.  You were not online during the scrub.  You may have lost the priv. to give reactions but you likely can still receive.  Your reputation profile can be opened by clicking on your avatar to open your profile, then clicking on reputation to load this page: http://board.themat.com/index.php?/profile/32810-marcus-cisero/reputation/.  You have given 242 reactions and recieved 291 reactions.  That is good for a 45% giver percentage.

Your prison sentence explains your number of thank you comments.  They clutter up the forum but what other choice do you have?  You add positive value to this forum IMO and yes you must have done something to get yourself reported to an admin.  Or an admin saw something he didn't like.  I normally read your Dr. Jekyll comments.  Do you have Mr. Hyde comments too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, MadMardigain said:

Peck... Peck... Peck...

Willow told you to stop calling him peck and I have his back.  What is wrong with you?  You were warned and didn't listen.  Too late.  Hey @everyone!  Did you hear that @MadMardigain dresses up like a woman?  

image.png

Oh and @MadMardigain worships Sorsha?  MM loves Sorsha.  MM loves Sorsha.   MM and Sorsha, sitting in a tree, K.I.S.S.I.N.G.  First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes a  traitor in a baby carriage.

e1a8de817ac8b1df3baf76024b436b4b.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@jross that’s pretty cool, maybe ppl will use the aggregated data and the board will enter a moneyball phase, lol

One tiny bit of feedback, the “giver ratio” can be a deceptive metric at first glance bc socially we are trained to strive for a 100% score on things. However that’s only possible if one gives but has never received reactions from anyone, and the latter is out of one’s control. I know you’re not looking at the data that way, based on your observations, but some others might.

IMO the actual first line of demarcation is at the 50% mark - those who give back as much as they receive (or don’t). Then tiers could be assigned within each half-set. The second point of emphasis might be a visualization or index score reflecting amplitude of board participation (or a citizenship score or whatever it should be called). A poster with a 1:1 give-receive ratio with 1 like given + 1 like received is a less of a participant than someone with 100 likes given + 100 likes received.

Yes, I am already going a little stir-crazy by being cooped up at home all day with my spouse, lol.

Edited by pamela

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jross said:

@Marcus Cisero  I wrote a bot yesterday that scrubbed the website for online members and then automatically parsed their reputation page.  You were not online during the scrub.  You may have lost the priv. to give reactions but you likely can still receive.  Your reputation profile can be opened by clicking on your avatar to open your profile, then clicking on reputation to load this page: http://board.themat.com/index.php?/profile/32810-marcus-cisero/reputation/.  You have given 242 reactions and recieved 291 reactions.  That is good for a 45% giver percentage.

Your prison sentence explains your number of thank you comments.  They clutter up the forum but what other choice do you have?  You add positive value to this forum IMO and yes you must have done something to get yourself reported to an admin.  Or an admin saw something he didn't like.  I normally read your Dr. Jekyll comments.  Do you have Mr. Hyde comments too?

There are some here who are really good at burning both ends against the middle. When it comes my way, I give it right back. That's when Dr Hyde comes out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, pamela said:

@jross that’s pretty cool, maybe ppl will use the aggregated data and the board will enter a moneyball phase, lol

One tiny bit of feedback, the “giver ratio” can be a deceptive metric at first glance bc socially we are trained to strive for a 100% score on things. However that’s only possible if one gives but has never received reactions from anyone, and the latter is out of one’s control. I know you’re not looking at the data that way, based on your observations, but some others might.

IMO the actual first line of demarcation is at the 50% mark - those who give back as much as they receive (or don’t). Then tiers could be assigned within each half-set. The second point of emphasis might be a visualization or index score reflecting amplitude of board participation (or a citizenship score or whatever it should be called). A poster with a 1:1 give-receive ratio with 1 like given + 1 like received is a less of a participant than someone with 100 likes given + 100 likes received.

Yes, I am already going a little stir-crazy by being cooped up at home all day with my spouse, lol.

With a limit of reactions to be given, doesn't it make it hard to reach a 50%? Lets just say I have a day where I recieve 30 likes. I would hit my limit of givable likes far before then. 

The proposal by @jross that those who have less than 50% given should receive less would only hurt those who provide the best post, even with unlimited reactions. If I or anyone were to have a day with a bunch of likes, would we have to unload a bunch of likes for no reason just so we don't get penalized?

Popular-Blogs-2017.png

Edited by russelscout

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, russelscout said:

With a limit of reactions to be given, doesn't it make it hard to reach a 50%? Lets just say I have a day where I recieve 30 likes. I would hit my limit of givable likes far before then. 

The proposal by @jross that those who have less than 50% given should receive less would only hurt those who provide the best post, even with unlimited reactions. If I or anyone were to have a day with a bunch of likes, would we have to unload a bunch of likes for no reason just so we don't get penalized?

If the government can lock down entire cities, then this forum is entitled to influence you to show more appreciation.  There are a couple of members whose content is good enough that it actually would be hard to give more than they receive.  I'd lump @MedicineMan in that group.  In most cases, I believe the member's ego prevents them from saying thanks.  Russell - when someone debates with you and makes a good point - do you show your thanks or do you ignore out of spite and keep churning with counterpoints? 

I don't think many members would unload a bunch of random likes for no reason.  If it became annoying, members would ignore them.  Now that's something I wish I could discover -- who is the most ignored active member on the site!  Interesting concept.

None of this stuff will happen but it is fun to chat about.  50% is a starting point for discussion.

Edited by jross

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, pamela said:

@jross that’s pretty cool, maybe ppl will use the aggregated data and the board will enter a moneyball phase, lol

One tiny bit of feedback, the “giver ratio” can be a deceptive metric at first glance bc socially we are trained to strive for a 100% score on things. However that’s only possible if one gives but has never received reactions from anyone, and the latter is out of one’s control. I know you’re not looking at the data that way, based on your observations, but some others might.

IMO the actual first line of demarcation is at the 50% mark - those who give back as much as they receive (or don’t). Then tiers could be assigned within each half-set. The second point of emphasis might be a visualization or index score reflecting amplitude of board participation (or a citizenship score or whatever it should be called). A poster with a 1:1 give-receive ratio with 1 like given + 1 like received is a less of a participant than someone with 100 likes given + 100 likes received.

Yes, I am already going a little stir-crazy by being cooped up at home all day with my spouse, lol.

Thank you for the feedback.  If you come up with a visualization where I can see the data and the chart, I'll look into making it happen across 1200 members.  Otherwise, this was a one-off data pull from curiosity and I don't plan on doing anything else with it.  I did update the earlier comment with the table to include more columns.  It includes a 100 reaction qualifier and adds a better ratio concept.  

FWIW - I come from a 110% household :). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jross said:

If the government can lock down entire cities, then this forum is entitled to influence you to show more appreciation.  There are a couple of members whose content is good enough that it actually would be hard to give more than they receive.  I'd lump @MedicineMan in that group.  In most cases, I believe the member's ego prevents them from saying thanks.  Russell - when someone debates with you and makes a good point - do you show your thanks or do you ignore out of spite and keep churning with counterpoints? 

I don't think many members would unload a bunch of random likes for no reason.  If it became annoying, members would ignore them.  Now that's something I wish I could discover -- who is the most ignored active member on the site!  Interesting concept.

None of this stuff will happen but it is fun to chat about.  50% is a starting point for discussion.

This doesn't address the problem with your proposal. Say I were debating someone, but 3 people liked one of my comments, thanking the person I was talking to wouldn't be enough. In order for me to stay around the 50% compliance I would need to spend 2 more likes of my own. Say  I say something really popular and get 7 likes. Same applies. Currently it could impossible for me to hand out 7 likes because of reaction limits, but even if we had unlimited, I would need to unload them on someone to stay in the 50% compliance. Lets say I do on all of your posts. Well you would need to do the same to other posts. The reactions are not earned by judgement anymore. They are earned because someone felt they had to use one.

If you have a bunch of reactions it means you have put out a lot of content that people like which should be the goal here. When someone hands out a reaction it is a metric to determine what is good. By forcing people to abide by some arbitrary standard, you are devaluing the use of the reactions because they are not earned and also devaluing good content because people would be forced to use reactions regardless of the quality of posts. Vak having low reaction use just may mean he is harder to please. I dont see what is wrong with that.

The system is completely meritocratic right now. What you are suggesting would end that. 

Edited by russelscout

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love Data; great job!   I believe Jon's largesse can be attributed to anything critical of Flo - Is that a double negative?  Double positive?  Do they cancel each other out?

Likes and Laughs to all - stay safe.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we did this personality test at work recently and my lowest score is 'helper.'  Forgive my type casting.  I predict our top givers are peacemakers and helpers.  The inverse could be true for those with higher standards for showing appreciation. 

The enneagram personality test is an alternative to DISC and Strengthsfinder.  It took 10 minutes to complete this free test to discover that I am primary the type 8 -challenger.  The test is accurate.  I provided my scores below and I am interested in anyone else that chooses to share.  Fascinating stuff really.  Note: Take the free test and then feel free to skip the $19 option to get more details.  Instead, take your results and navigate to the enneagram institute links provided below to get free details about the types.   

  • 83% | 1 THE REFORMER | The Rational, Idealistic Type: Principled, Purposeful, Self-Controlled, and Perfectionistic
  • 41% | 2 THE HELPER | The Caring, Interpersonal Type: Demonstrative, Generous, People-Pleasing, and Possessive
  • 89% | 3 THE ACHIEVER | The Success-Oriented, Pragmatic Type: Adaptive, Excelling, Driven, and Image-Conscious
  • 63% | 4 THE INDIVIDUALIST The Sensitive, Withdrawn Type: Expressive, Dramatic, Self-Absorbed, and Temperamental
  • 92% | 5 THE INVESTIGATOR | The Intense, Cerebral Type: Perceptive, Innovative, Secretive, and Isolated
  • 53% | 6 THE LOYALIST | The Committed, Security-Oriented Type: Engaging, Responsible, Anxious, and Suspicious
  • 73% | 7 THE ENTHUSIAST | The Busy, Fun-Loving Type: Spontaneous, Versatile, Distractible, and Scattered
  • 98% | 8 THE CHALLENGER | The Powerful, Dominating Type: Self-Confident, Decisive, Willful, and Confrontational
  • 63% | 9 THE PEACEMAKER | The Easygoing, Self-Effacing Type: Receptive, Reassuring, Agreeable, and Complacent

One can learn more about the different types and how they interact with each other in these links.

Edited by jross
added the comments that you can take the test for free on one site and then get the personality type details for free on the other site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, jross said:
  •  

I didn't pay the $19 but my scores were 8, 6, 5, 1 ,3, 7, 4, 2, 9 in descending order.   Generally accurate based on how the questions were written

  • 8 THE CHALLENGER - The Powerful, Dominating Type: Self-Confident, Decisive, Willful, and Confrontational
  • 6 THE LOYALIST - The Committed, Security-Oriented Type: Engaging, Responsible, Anxious, and Suspicious
  • 5 THE INVESTIGATOR - The Intense, Cerebral Type: Perceptive, Innovative, Secretive, and Isolated
  • 1 THE REFORMER - The Rational, Idealistic Type: Principled, Purposeful, Self-Controlled, and Perfectionistic
  • 3 THE ACHIEVER - The Success-Oriented, Pragmatic Type: Adaptive, Excelling, Driven, and Image-Conscious
  • 7 THE ENTHUSIAST - The Busy, Fun-Loving Type: Spontaneous, Versatile, Distractible, and Scattered
  • 4 THE INDIVIDUALIST - The Sensitive, Withdrawn Type: Expressive, Dramatic, Self-Absorbed, and Temperamental
  • 2 THE HELPER- The Caring, Interpersonal Type: Demonstrative, Generous, People-Pleasing, and Possessive
  • 9 THE PEACEMAKER - The Easygoing, Self-Effacing Type: Receptive, Reassuring, Agreeable, and Complacent
Edited by TFBJR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...