Difference between revisions of "Talk:810: Constructive"
Enervation (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
Wouldn't work. People could rate anything they disagree with as'nonconstructive'. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.158|141.101.98.158]] 13:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC) | Wouldn't work. People could rate anything they disagree with as'nonconstructive'. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.158|141.101.98.158]] 13:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | This sounds exactly like Civil Comments: https://medium.com/@aja_15265/saying-goodbye-to-civil-comments-41859d3a2b1d [[User:Enervation|Enervation]] ([[User talk:Enervation|talk]]) 10:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 10:56, 20 February 2019
I know just the guy to create this system. I'm going to PM him now :D 184.11.73.88 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
No guys, if spammers invent a bot which can give constructive comments, that will be an ***AI***, i.e. a major breakthrough in itself. 173.245.53.200 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
Mission. A-Fucking. Complished. 108.162.238.7 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
One problem: trolls who rate everything as non-constructive. 108.162.218.11 01:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- But Trolls like that are also unable to make constructive comments, so they won't get counted anyway (at least, if the system is designed with any sense) Anonymous 15:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Guys, isn't this how Slashdot works? 173.245.49.64 19:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I came here to get a better explanation of how the system would actually work. Assuming it operates at sign-up, the bots would go through and rate comments, which would have no effect if the system didn't already know whether they were good or not, then it makes it own comments that need time to be rated; so you would have to give it time to start 'contributing' to the community while waiting for others to rate it, or else users would basically be on a community-approval waiting list. So in short, I feel like the system is flawed; presumably because I'm understanding it wrong. (Bonus: Captcha while posting this) - Zergling_man 162.158.2.231 12:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Wouldn't work. People could rate anything they disagree with as'nonconstructive'. 141.101.98.158 13:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
This sounds exactly like Civil Comments: https://medium.com/@aja_15265/saying-goodbye-to-civil-comments-41859d3a2b1d Enervation (talk) 10:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
