Default Filter DW - Page 2

[JamesCherrill]

Thats just a straw man. I have never opposed filtering. Like all your moderators I have been tireless in deleting "blantant spam" so it has never been a problem for ordinary users. Over the years I have pleaded and argued with you to get a mandate for deleting low quaility posts and you have always refused it and insisted on strict interpretation of the Rules and nothing else.
Now it seems you have seen the value of supressing low quality posts, so we agree at last. What's left is to define "low quality" - off-topic, technically lacking, repetitive, badly written ...?
But before going down that rabbit hole answer this: what percentage of posts (after modertors have applied he Posting Rules) are of "low quality"? 5%, 10%, 2%? I don't think it's a lot. Personally I think allowing mods a bit of discretion is enough to get rid of the remaining problem.

But my specific problem was with the implementtion of filtering you have imposed, in which people don't see posts until people have seen them and up-voted them. Surely it's obvious that it's a nonsense? Your fix is to reverse a lifetime of insisting on moderation by the rules and expect mods to select posts for general viewing by giving them their first upvote based on... what?

So please trash-can this particular filtering and think through the whole filtering process before implementing a replacement.

[alan.davies]

Filter cut off 4 latest posts in webdev. Why have latest posts as a descriptor if you default a filter that hides the latest posts from you.

[rproffitt]

I've been hanging back on this one to give time to think.

My view is this should be in the member's control. It's that simple. Sure, setup the defaults, but let the members decide.

[Dani]

Over the years I have pleaded and argued with you to get a mandate for deleting low quaility posts and you have always refused it and insisted on strict interpretation of the Rules and nothing else.

This is something that always has, and always will remain, very important to me.

Now it seems you have seen the value of supressing low quality posts, so we agree at last. What's left is to define "low quality" - off-topic, technically lacking, repetitive, badly written ...?

Yes, to keep up with the times, and what other sites are doing, I can agree with community-based suppression of low quality posts, but I still am against them being completely removed or deleted. I also think it's important that it's community-based, and not based exclusively on the opinions of a small moderation team.

Now it seems you have seen the value of supressing low quality posts, so we agree at last. What's left is to define "low quality" - off-topic, technically lacking, repetitive, badly written ...?

I think this is subjective. I'd prefer to leave this up to the community to decide. What would be considered "low quality" I think depends on who the audience is. Millennials might have different standards than older folks, Internet marketers have different standards than developers, etc. That's whta I love about it being based on community-based voting.

Personally I think allowing mods a bit of discretion is enough to get rid of the remaining problem.

This is what I'm strongly against.

Your fix is to reverse a lifetime of insisting on moderation by the rules and expect mods to select posts for general viewing by giving them their first upvote based on... what?

Sorry, I'm not understanding what you're referring to. I'm expecting moderation to work exactly the same way?? I'm not expecting anything different from the moderation team?

[Dani]

Why have latest posts as a descriptor if you default a filter that hides the latest posts from you.

Latest posts button on the homepage does show all latest posts, without any filters.

[Dani]

The thing is also, keep in mind, that we've been struggling to find a revenue model outside of advertising for quite awhile now. Paying to have your questions show up in all the feeds seems to be working so far.

I am also noticing that we have had the highest conversion rate of new legit non-spammer members signing up we've had in years.

[rproffitt]

So a new post with no upvotes won't make it to the home page?

[Dani]

The homepage is a different story altogether. It's an algorithm completely customized for you, based on your behavior and what we believe your interests are, and who you interact with across DaniWeb. About a dozen different data points are used to decide what you see on the homepage.

[alan.davies]

Latest posts button on the homepage does show all latest posts, without any filters.

I'd never use the homepage. I check webdev and community. That's my filter. So why does latest posts on forums not act the same way as homepage? Anyhow
If the default filter is the way you're making money, fair enough, but I don't like it and it is ruining my experience of the site. I really feel like I can't be bothered with all the extra clicks to see what I want. You say millennials expect to have everything on a plate. So do oldies. Heh heh. I don't think I'm going to be using the site very often if I see nothing new from one week to the next because a mod or a filter-dodging user wouldn't up vote a thread.

[rproffitt]

So far the home page shows me an upvote and very little else. I was waiting till you settled in but the home page I see is a desert. To me the view looks like a missed opportunity with all that empty space and one lone upvote that just hangs there like the lone ornament on a Charlie Brown Christmas tree.

To me it seems that giving up control of what's on a page to user prefences would go a lot way to member satifaction and alan.davies.

Even hear the story of Windows Mobile's Home screen? Microsoft refused to let users custimize that screen only allowing cellular carriers to change it. Apple came along, then Android and it was game over.

This one is one I know of intimately because of apps we made in 2009. Microsoft was actually pretty close to having a good smart phone but this area of NOT allowing the user to change the home screen was a killer. Our apps ran fine, we do really well but the platform is now history. I have more story here such as being in the meetings with Microsoft reps and carriers and hearing first hand they were going to only allow carriers access to that screen.

So back to here. Why not give up control to the members?

[happygeek]

I'm currently awaiting a new pair of specs to arrive, so maybe that's why I'm having difficulty grasping the problem everyone else is having here. I'm not seeing what you are seeing (waits for chorus of 'that is the problem') homepage apart. The forum category pages I visit that apply default recommended filtering have an option to remove that filter, which then shows me everything - as far as I am aware anyway (certainly the posts served up to me change.) Given that Dani is already seeing a upturn in the analytics that matter if DaniWeb is to actually survive, surely we should give her (and the new system) a bit more time to see if this turns into a positive trend or is just actually a blip? If the new system is working for most people connecting with DaniWeb then it will be the former, if it is an obstacle to seeing content then the latter. No?

[Reverend Jim]

Agreed. But I still don't see that that has anything to do with giving the user the option to set a preferred default filter state. If the initial default filter is "don't show me crap posts" (what it is currently) then new users will get the current filter. What is the problem, then, with allowing me to select "no filter" as the default? How does this negatively impact anyone else?

[JamesCherrill]

I don't use the home page either - I just link direcctly to the programming forum.

Yes, I did see that there was a control that said "filter by" followed by a button that said "recommended".
But because I didn't want to filter by recommended, I never clicked it. That's a real UI blunder - a button is an action control and should be labelled with what hapens when you press it (eg "Exit"). It's not a place to display the current status.)
And because of that I didn't see any of the new posts, and didn't know that they even existed.
And I can't be the only one.

Underlying all this is a process problem that has existed for years - Dani hacks together changes that make sense to her and immediately rolls them out to the whole live community. Some work, some don't. She hs a faithful team of highly experienced members who have already commited lots of their time to DanWeb who would be happy to review and improve proposed changes before its too late, but she seems to think thats not necessary.

[happygeek]

But because I didn't want to filter by recommended, I never clicked it.

Have to admit when I saw it said 'Filter: Recommended' I just assumed it meant that was the filter type being applied rather than an option to apply it - so clicked and saw I could remove all filtering.

[happygeek]

What is the problem, then, with allowing me to select "no filter" as the default? How does this negatively impact anyone else?

Can't argue with that, to be fair :-)

[Reverend Jim]

That's a real UI blunder - a button is an action control and should be labelled ...

That could be clarified by changing the text from Filter by to Filtered by

[JamesCherrill]

JC: Your fix is to reverse a lifetime of insisting on moderation by the rules and expect mods to select posts for general viewing by giving them their first upvote based on... what?

D: Sorry, I'm not understanding what you're referring to. I'm expecting moderation to work exactly the same way?? I'm not expecting anything different from the moderation team?

D: DaniWeb relies on people like you to comb through the fluff, so that everyone doesn't have to.

As things stand you expect mods to override the default filter and comb throughall new posts and selectively upvote before ordinary users with default settings see them. Hiding from users isn't that much different from deleting in practice, but you have no Rules or even guidance for what constitutes "fluff".

I'll give this one last try:
A user posts a perfectly good question. Users on default setting don't get to see it. Some time later a mod decides to review recent posts and decides in his subjective opinion that this post is good enough to be shown to the mass user base. That's the same mod who cannot delete or edit the post unless it matches the objective criteria that are so fundamentally important to you. Can't you see the ways in which this process is broken? At the very least you should have new posts visible to the whole user base until/unless the community votes them down. Mods will still destroy anything against the Rules. ... and all this assumes that high volumes of low-quality content is the problem - for which I see little evidence.

I'm going to have a cup of cocoa and a little lie down now.

[Dani]

As things stand you expect mods to override the default filter and comb throughall new posts and selectively upvote before ordinary users with default settings see them.

No, no, no. I don't expect that.

Mods can comb through all the latest unfiltered articles from here => https://www.daniweb.com/articles/latest

I also don't expect mods to be the ones to selectively upvote before ordinary users see them. I expect the entire community, as a whole, to vote on posts they come across, and for the filtering to be based on the community's combined preferences. Should anyone want to skim through the latest posts and upvote them from the same page, they can do so from here => https://www.daniweb.com/posts/index/0

Hiding from users isn't that much different from deleting in practice, but you have no Rules or even guidance for what constitutes "fluff".

Hiding from the main feeds is INCREDIBLY different than deleting. Hiding simply makes them not easily noticeable without additional effort. However, they still rank in the search engines, they still get traffic, and they still have an opportunity to improve in quality with time, depending on how the thread discussion progresses. Deleting means they don't exist at all, there was a rule violation, and the member is on their way to a ban.

A user posts a perfectly good question.

OK ...

Users on default setting don't get to see it.

Not true. By default, when you are browsing a forum thread listing, you don't see it. But it may still appear on the homepage for members we believe it's a strong fit for. It may still end up in people's recommended articles feed, who we think it is a strong fit for. It may still appear as a Recommended Article in people's email notifications. And, of course, it appears in the Latest Topics feed for everyone, which there's a giant button to access from the hoempage. Plus, and here's the biggie, if a member pays a few bucks, it always appears in the pre-filtered forum listing pages AND relevant potential answerers get a PM about it. That's lots of ways for it to get attention right away, and all it takes is one single upvote from anyone to appear for everyone. And, once the poster has a minimum amount of reputation, everything they post appears in all the pre-filtered forum listing pages by default anyways.

Some time later a mod decides to review recent posts and decides in his subjective opinion that this post is good enough to be shown to the mass user base.

I'm not expecting quality content to wait for mod review. There are plenty of ways for new newbie content to gain attention that does not involve moderator intervention.

That's the same mod who cannot delete or edit the post unless it matches the objective criteria that are so fundamentally important to you.

When wearing the mod hat, and giving infractions, being objective is important. On the other hand, voting and giving reputation comments is subjective, and any members can do this. A member's reputation is not a sum of just how moderators think of them. They're a representation of what the community, as a whole, thinks of them.

Can't you see the ways in which this process is broken?

I'm sorry, I can't. I still strongly believe in it.

At the very least you should have new posts visible to the whole user base until/unless the community votes them down.

How will that lead to my primary motivating goal, which is having any member (from newbies to regulars), be able to browse community topics and not have to weed out low quality content on their own?

Mods will still destroy anything against the Rules. ... and all this assumes that high volumes of low-quality content is the problem - for which I see little evidence.

I have pretty strong evidence that the high volume of low-quality content has been our downfall over the past couple of years. I urge you to give me two months -- two months is all I'm asking -- for you to see a noticeable increase in activity as a result of my method.

That being said, I'll leave you with one last tidbit. The attached image shows how the number of pages being viewed per session for logged in members has DOUBLED since our launch date. Members are spending twice as long on the site, and visiting twice the number of pages, ever since the launch. To add to that, people coming into the forum listing pages (the pages you have a problem with) from Google searches, are TWICE as likely to stay on the site as they were when they were coming into the same landing pages but looking at unfiltered results.

[Dani]

Underlying all this is a process problem that has existed for years - Dani hacks together changes that make sense to her and immediately rolls them out to the whole live community. Some work, some don't. She hs a faithful team of highly experienced members who have already commited lots of their time to DanWeb who would be happy to review and improve proposed changes before its too late, but she seems to think thats not necessary.

I don't think that's a very fair statement. I roll out changes that make sense to me. But then, I spend the upcoming weeks reading every piece of feedback written, as well as very, very closely monitoring user activity and user behavior on the site. In the end, some things work, some things don't. And I adjust accordingly. I think what I don't get credit for is how incredibly data-driven I am, and all the A/B testing that's done behind-the-scenes, and how incredibly detail oriented I am when it comes to slight changes and how they affect user behavior on a mass scale.

[Dani]

But I still don't see that that has anything to do with giving the user the option to set a preferred default filter state. If the initial default filter is "don't show me crap posts" (what it is currently) then new users will get the current filter. What is the problem, then, with allowing me to select "no filter" as the default? How does this negatively impact anyone else?

Some of you guys have asked why the change doesn't stick and it reverts back to the default the next time you visit the page. The answer to that is because I can see people changing the filter, not even realizing they changed a setting, forgetting about it, and days later returning and seeing crap posts, and that negatively affecting their experience. The overall activity and conversion benefits have been nothing short of astounding since having the filter in place, and I don't want to do anything to jeopardize that.

[Dani]

So far the home page shows me an upvote and very little else. I was waiting till you settled in but the home page I see is a desert. To me the view looks like a missed opportunity with all that empty space and one lone upvote that just hangs there like the lone ornament on a Charlie Brown Christmas tree.

I agree the homepage still needs tweaks. However, in its current state, it shows you everything possible that it believes you have not yet seen, and would genuinely be interested in reading and responding to. If it's bare for you, it means that we don't have enough new content coming in, and there's not much of anything new since your last visit. This is more of a comment on our activity levels than on the homepage algorithm.

[Reverend Jim]

Some of you guys have asked why the change doesn't stick

I could ask that you make this an option for mods but since I just added a folder to my bookmark bar with direct links to my "stuff" it isn't really an issue for me. The links to the forums are for "no filters".

[Reverend Jim]

Having just said that, I'd like to toss out the idea that the "latest posts" page you linked to above NOT display deleted posts.

[Reverend Jim]

OK. Still confused (my new default state). I downvoted this thread but it still shows up when I enable the "recommended" filter. What exactly does this filter do? I thought the entire point of it was to NOT display low quality threads.

[Dani]

Having just said that, I'd like to toss out the idea that the "latest posts" page you linked to above NOT display deleted posts.

Noted.

OK. Still confused (my new default state). I downvoted this thread but it still shows up when I enable the "recommended" filter. What exactly does this filter do? I thought the entire point of it was to NOT display low quality threads.

It shows up specifically for you because you are currently watching that thread, so we assume you have a specific interest in keeping tabs on it. Probably because you have your preferences set to automatically watch articles you've posted in.

[Reverend Jim]

Probably because you have your preferences set to automatically watch articles you've posted in.

Actually, I don't.

[Dani]

Give me a moment to investigate then. I'm wondering if the algorithm looks to see if you've posted in the topic, regardless of if you're watching it or not.

[Dani]

It looks like it's set to show if you're either watching the topic or you've posted in it. Sorry, but I wrote this algorithm many months ago and forgot the specifics. The idea was merely for it to be "Recommended" without the nuances being of concern other than them being more likely than not to be of some value or interest to the viewer.

[Dani]

Thanks for the distinction of 'Filter' vs 'Filtered' ... I've changed this per your suggestion.

Also, I forgot to mention, all tag pages (e.g. C++, Java, etc.) do not filter by default. Only forum-level pages do.

[alan.davies]

Plugging a low quality post: https://www.daniweb.com/community-center/threads/518285/comment-voting-and-edit :)