VC&G Community Poll Request (mod-sponsored)

[bryanW1995]

2 things.

1.)Is this for every thread posted or just "rumor sites".
2.)Is this in response to people who complained about a Fudzilla article, who don't generally complain about "semi-accurate" articles?

I don't care (pun intended) either way. I just find the timing amusing. Seems like more work for the mods, not such a big deal for the rest of us. :\

clearly this is in response to happy's blatant refusal to put a "fudzilla" disclaimer in his thread about 69x0. however, he's by no means the only offender, many of us have done this sort of thing in the past. I think that it's reasonable to have the rule in place, as long as it is enforced "loosely". by that I mean that if you post something that seems like a reasonable source (say bfg10k at abt or something) then there is no need to put the source in the title UNLESS SOMEBODY ASKS YOU TO DO IT. ie, if you generally think that fudzilla is disreputable (as the vast majority of us do) but the particular article you are quoting seems to be spot on, you could try to slide it by in the title and not originally list fudzilla as the source. however, as soon as somebody in the thread asked you to change it you would have to change the title to reflect the source.

 

[WelshBloke]

... I think that it's reasonable to have the rule in place, as long as it is enforced "loosely". by that I mean that if you post something that seems like a reasonable source (say bfg10k at abt or something) then there is no need to put the source in the title UNLESS SOMEBODY ASKS YOU TO DO IT. ie, if you generally think that fudzilla is disreputable (as the vast majority of us do) but the particular article you are quoting seems to be spot on, you could try to slide it by in the title and not originally list fudzilla as the source. however, as soon as somebody in the thread asked you to change it you would have to change the title to reflect the source.

This sounds good, I'd be happy to go with this.

Seems a nice compromise between workable and keeping everyone happy.

 

[bryanW1995]

...n/m

 

[bryanW1995]

Yes.. Ohhh yes. I'm sorry dude but you can't argue with human curiousity. One of the strongest charectaristics of us. Ever curious, even if only for a moment to discover that it doesn't really hold any interest.

I only click on threads that I think are interesting. Personally, I would still click on all the SA/fudz/BSN threads because I find them typically very interesting, but that doesn't mean that everybody else feels that same way. You're not one of the offenders in this issue and neither am I. In fact, there is only one person who has done this recently and then refused to change his title when repeatedly asked to do so. If we implement the proposal that I just posted it would solve the problem and still give everybody a warm/fuzzy that the mod police weren't breathing down their throats for no reason.

Besides, don't people WANT to quote a reputable source? If I'm quoting an AT article to back up why I think that gtx 580 has significantly better noise/heat/thermals than 480 don't I want it in my title? and if I'm quoting BSN to claim that 6970 is going to be 22% faster than gtx 580 don't I want that to NOT be in my title b/c it's clearly rumormongering? The only people who could potentially be hurt by this is those with an agenda and the rumor sites. the rest of us win.

 

[Kenmitch]

I see no problem with stating the source in the thread title.

 

[Keysplayr]

I see no problem with stating the source in the thread title.

This is a big problem for members like Silverforce11 who when asked to provide links to countless threads by him, he refuses to do so. He may not be able to post here anymore. IMHO it sux for him.

 

[Idontcare]

clearly this is in response to happy's blatant refusal to put a "fudzilla" disclaimer in his thread about 69x0.

For the record this is simply not true.

however, he's by no means the only offender, many of us have done this sort of thing in the past.

The motivation for the poll is/was the fact that it appears to be a reoccuring concern within the community.

If this perception is legitimate then we moderators would be failing to discharge our fiducial responsibilities to the community by ignoring the situation and failing to take action.

This poll accomplishes all of the above. It will determine whether or not the perception of a community-wide issue of source-citation is real or imagined on behalf of the mods as well as establish the specific method of a guideline implementation as well as its enforcement thereof.

I think that it's reasonable to have the rule in place, as long as it is enforced "loosely". by that I mean that if you post something that seems like a reasonable source (say bfg10k at abt or something) then there is no need to put the source in the title UNLESS SOMEBODY ASKS YOU TO DO IT. ie, if you generally think that fudzilla is disreputable (as the vast majority of us do) but the particular article you are quoting seems to be spot on, you could try to slide it by in the title and not originally list fudzilla as the source. however, as soon as somebody in the thread asked you to change it you would have to change the title to reflect the source.

The spirit of your statement is captured in the proposed enforcement section IMO, which means we are already seeing eye-to-eye on the topic in this area.

If the community votes to adopt the guideline provision then I personally don't see myself attempting to enforce the provision to any greater extent than what you outlined in your quoted statement above.

Moderator Idontcare

 

[WelshBloke]

This is a big problem for members like Silverforce11 who when asked to provide links to countless threads by him, he refuses to do so. He may not be able to post here anymore. IMHO it sux for him.

I see no problem there. If he's posting his own opinion thats fine and he can state it in his OP, he shouldn't be posting opinion as fact anyway.

If he's unable to provide a source then he can just put a rumour disclaimer in the title.

I thought that's what you wanted him to do anyway so I would have thought you'd be all for this. It doesn't stop anyone from posting anything, they just have to clarify whether their info is a rumour or has a reputable source.

 

[happy medium]

Moderator Idontcare

Don't you mean SUPER moderator? Congrats. and well deserved.





I told you to stay out. Three different times.

I don't like that you keep testing the mods. See you in a few days.


esquared
Anandtech Forum Director

 

[Kenmitch]

This is a big problem for members like Silverforce11 who when asked to provide links to countless threads by him, he refuses to do so. He may not be able to post here anymore. IMHO it sux for him.

So be it....If inacted it should be enforced for all members of the community. No pun intended but that includes mods also

 

[Wreckage]

Well if this rule goes into affect, have a sticky at the top that says all posts from Fudzilla, Chiphell, Semiaccurate, etc. must contain the source in the title. Rumor or not, because these sites are pretty loose with "facts". That way there can be zero contention.

 

[Aristotelian]

Well if this rule goes into affect, have a sticky at the top that says all posts from Fudzilla, Chiphell, Semiaccurate, etc. must contain the source in the title. Rumor or not, because these sites are pretty loose with "facts". That way there can be zero contention.

They aren't making a distinction in this rule as far as I can tell, so what you're saying here is exactly what has been suggested. I think all threads should have the source in the title, say "AMD Blog says: X - let's talk about it" or "Nvidia Rep says: Y - let's talk about it" and so on. Regardless of whether or not it's Fudzilla or Yahoo news.

 

[Skurge]

Yes.. Ohhh yes. I'm sorry dude but you can't argue with human curiousity. One of the strongest charectaristics of us. Ever curious, even if only for a moment to discover that it doesn't really hold any interest.

No, just no. I don't click on most of the threads on the front page and I never get to the 2nd page. So that is not true.

 

[Lonyo]

This is a big problem for members like Silverforce11 who when asked to provide links to countless threads by him, he refuses to do so. He may not be able to post here anymore. IMHO it sux for him.

A guy who's made 3 threads, one of which was about 3D Mark 11 with download link, and 2 of which were on AMD graphics cards and included links to his sources, is going to have a problem? Clearly you are just personally attacking a member and his posts.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2121973&highlight= (first line = source)
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2100974&highlight= (first line = source)
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2125717&highlight= (first line = source)

Most of his claims are made within threads created by other people. He'd have no problem with this rule, since it wouldn't impact his posting within threads.
Also, making claims without backing them up with links is something which a number of users do, not just Silverforce11.

I think the issue at hand is misrepresenting stuff as "fact" when it may come from a disreputable site. Silverforce11 in his created threads has not done that.

 

[busydude]

This is a big problem for members like Silverforce11 who when asked to provide links to countless threads by him, he refuses to do so.

He has changed his style of posting.. its surprising(actually not) that you did not oppose to Happy's style of posting since one week.. silverforce used to do that before Barts release, and now he has stopped posting rumors as facts.

Very convenient of you to attack silverforce and not care about Happy's posts.

 

[Wreckage]

He has changed his style of posting.. its surprising(actually not) that you did not oppose to Happy's style of posting since one week.. silverforce used to do that before Barts release, and now he has stopped posting rumors as facts.

Very convenient of you to attack silverforce and not care about Happy's posts.

He has? I still see him posting "information" on unreleased products with zero links to back him up.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=30907384&postcount=255

If I post that it's a nice day outside certain people will hound me for a link to the weather, pictures and at least 5 other people also saying it's nice out.

 

[WelshBloke]

Not to have a go at anyone but can we get off the personal issues and back to the subject.

This thread isn't about Happy, or Silverforce or Keys.

I cant see any reason to be against this, as I said earlier its not going to stop anyone from saying what they want, it just adds a bit of clarity to the situation.

 

[BoomerD]

IMO, as long as a link is posted by the original poster in his/her first post, that should be sufficient. Having it in the title won't stop unsubstantiated rumor posting. The only benefit would be that folks could see where the information came from and choose whether to click on the link or not...

 

[Keysplayr]

A guy who's made 3 threads, one of which was about 3D Mark 11 with download link, and 2 of which were on AMD graphics cards and included links to his sources, is going to have a problem? Clearly you are just personally attacking a member and his posts.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2121973&highlight= (first line = source)
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2100974&highlight= (first line = source)
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2125717&highlight= (first line = source)

Most of his claims are made within threads created by other people. He'd have no problem with this rule, since it wouldn't impact his posting within threads.
Also, making claims without backing them up with links is something which a number of users do, not just Silverforce11.

I think the issue at hand is misrepresenting stuff as "fact" when it may come from a disreputable site. Silverforce11 in his created threads has not done that.

So, this rule is ONLY applicable to thread titles then? It's just fine for someone to post a non sourced information as fact all over the place then? If so, I sure would like to know why you think so.

 

[Keysplayr]

He has changed his style of posting.. its surprising(actually not) that you did not oppose to Happy's style of posting since one week.. silverforce used to do that before Barts release, and now he has stopped posting rumors as facts.

Very convenient of you to attack silverforce and not care about Happy's posts.

Oh, it's not that at all. It's the coordinated offensive in Happy's thread and the total absense of complaint from the same people when Silverforce11 did it.

My point?

Selective complaining. All those who pounced on Happy Mediums thread, said NADA when Silverforce11 started, and KEPT ON posting what seemed to be factual information with NO links to back it up. The same people that gnashed their teeth at Happys thread, should have felt the same way about SF11's threads. But...... did..... not......

I don't suppose that speaks to you in any way?

 

[WelshBloke]

So, this rule is ONLY applicable to thread titles then? It's just fine for someone to post a non sourced information as fact all over the place then? If so, I sure would like to know why you think so.

Just because this rule doesn't cover all occasions doesn't mean its not going to help.

By all means call for another one to cover your scenarios, I'd support you there as well.

 

[Lonyo]

So, this rule is ONLY applicable to thread titles then? It's just fine for someone to post a non sourced information as fact all over the place then? If so, I sure would like to know why you think so.

Yes, because you're perfect about backing up statements with links, right?
Don't call out others because they don't supply sources when you don't always yourself.

This topic is about thread titles, not about sourcing information.
If you want to complain about people not providing links, you should state that rather than complaining about a specific users posts, IMO, especially when your complain isn't directly linked to the topic of the thread.

The topic of noting the source of information in a thread's title is very much a reoccurring theme in this forum

Pretty specific it seems. The words "thread" and "title" together appear at least 7 times in the original post.

As a long term member of the forum, you should be aware of these things, and try and stick to the thread topic rather than going off topic.

Personally I think it would make it easier when looking at the forum if source links were included in topics because people would have a quick reference to that information.

 

[tincart]

So, this rule is ONLY applicable to thread titles then? It's just fine for someone to post a non sourced information as fact all over the place then? If so, I sure would like to know why you think so.

Yes, the rule is only applicable to thread titles because it is a rule about thread titles. I'm fairly sure that is the explicit wording for what we're voting on.

If you think the rule needs to be broadened, I look forward to hearing your suggestions about how that be done.

 

[tincart]

Oh, it's not that at all. It's the coordinated offensive in Happy's thread and the total absense of complaint from the same people when Silverforce11 did it.

This is totally unsubstantiated. Various people called out Silverforce and asked for sources when he was making positive claims with no sources. Further, Silverforce was claiming he had direct access to information, he was not posting rumors from other sites and presenting them as facts. It is hard to make a rule against such things, but the fact that forum members here seem skeptical about such claims leads me to think we don't need rules about those kinds of claims anyways.

 

[Skurge]

Oh, it's not that at all. It's the coordinated offensive in Happy's thread and the total absense of complaint from the same people when Silverforce11 did it.

My point?

Selective complaining. All those who pounced on Happy Mediums thread, said NADA when Silverforce11 started, and KEPT ON posting what seemed to be factual information with NO links to back it up. The same people that gnashed their teeth at Happys thread, should have felt the same way about SF11's threads. But...... did..... not......

I don't suppose that speaks to you in any way?

Busydude, Brian, Lonyo and a few others including myself had a problem with what he was posting, but your selective memory doesn't remember that does it.