Timeline for Add the ability to ignore users
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
26 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 31 at 22:00 | comment | added | Nathan majicvr.com | Welcome to the complexity of reality. Your argument makes sense in a vacuum where people are perfect, context switch easily, and (ideally) where all users are equally active contributors. Those assumptions are all at least occasionally / partially incorrect | |
| Feb 5 at 8:58 | comment | added | sgfit | "People are not at the forefront of Stack Overflow" is an irrational take, given that this site is powered by unpaid human labor, not ChatGPT. | |
| Feb 4 at 17:11 | comment | added | Peter Moore | This is a naive view. No one can sincerely deny that there are personalities on SE (esp. SO), who don't break the rules but who are nonetheless unpleasant and unhelpful repeatedly and consistently. Other users can have a very real and very legitimate desire to ignore certain personalities because it will objectively improve their user experience. We shouldn't have to flag every annoying post; the moderators have much better things to do than deal with my personal irritation with an obnoxious user. Just let me ignore them. All parties will be better off. | |
| Sep 22, 2022 at 15:02 | comment | added | Vun-Hugh Vaw | The fact of the matter is that I do care about what is said. Even if what is said is repeatedly proven wrong or counterproductive, the user insists on fanning the flame to achieve some misguided sense of "victory". | |
| Jun 9, 2021 at 20:54 | comment | added | Steve Sether | I don't know what SE is "supposed" to be, but in actuality it IS a social network. What it intends, or purports to be is immaterial. | |
| May 24, 2017 at 18:23 | comment | added | Cerin |
You shouldn't really care who says something but rather, what is said. In general, I agree, but the two are not mutually exclusive. If what someone says is openly rude and hostile and highly suggests their further responses will be the same, it seems reasonable to want to minimize their interaction, at least within the scope of a single question. It's all too common for a user with a high reputation and a chip on their shoulder to call some question askers an idiot or insult them in a comment for perceived ignorance instead of actually answering their question.
|
|
| Sep 7, 2013 at 19:31 | comment | added | Synetech |
Stack Overflow is not meant to be a developer social networking Web site… Tell that to those who make comments purely to criticize and argue. Some people, upon seeing a q/a that has a error, instead of editing it to fix it or politely suggesting the fix in a comment, will instead make hostile, aggressive comments about the user being wrong and even down-vote the entire post. It’s difficult to ignore behavior like that because it is essentially an attack rather than a genuine attempt to be helpful. Worse, some people have OCD which makes simply ignoring and “moving on” painful.
|
|
| Jun 20, 2012 at 19:00 | comment | added | petFoo | Social networking is a natural result of a commenting system that fosters attribution, even when pseudononymous. | |
| Mar 13, 2012 at 9:21 | comment | added | degorolls | I have a limited amount of time I can dedicate to the community. I do occasionally identify Help Vampires and think it would be highly valuable to be able to not see contributions from such users. It means I will not waste my time on them and have more time to assist other members. | |
| Nov 20, 2011 at 1:44 | comment | added | Duncan Babbage | I disagree, because the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. | |
| Jun 23, 2011 at 21:13 | comment | added | mmx | @Xaada I'm not against banning a user by the system/community. I'm against individual blacklists. | |
| Jun 23, 2011 at 18:13 | comment | added | Lee Louviere | So you intend to disregard the fact that users can consistently commit unuseful information. At that point.... why moderate? Why ban accounts? | |
| Jul 13, 2010 at 18:15 | comment | added | meder omuraliev | I would like to ignore Jitendra's questions. | |
| May 23, 2010 at 3:18 | comment | added | Norman Ramsey | There is one user I really, really, really want to ignore. He's developed quite a reputation for himself on Usenet (over a span of years) and on the Caml mailing list. I would like to remove him from my SO experience. The person is the source of consistently offensive content. | |
| Apr 20, 2010 at 19:19 | comment | added | ベレアー アダム | Then why do we display badges? Why do we display accept rate? Why do we display user reputation next to every single one of their questions and answers? We do we even have reputation? Yes, the site is primarily about content, but we don't ignore the existence of the people behind the content. The core reputation system is a social system, like it or not. If we can reward good behavior, I don't see why we can't have tools to help us ignore bad behavior. | |
| Apr 20, 2010 at 15:43 | comment | added | MaxGuernseyIII | -1: Once the quality of the user has been identified, it can be used to guess the quality of their questions, answers, and comments. If user A has determined that the cost of reading user B's posts often exceeds the value, then this feature would be quite handy. | |
| Oct 21, 2009 at 21:41 | comment | added | beska | @Mehrdad: SO isn't supposed to influence my life in that way? I'm not supposed to find someone irritating if they act like a boor? In general, this isn't an issue...the people here are usually grand. But if I stepped away for a few hours every time this person irritated me, I'd spend a heck of a lot of time away. And exactly what would that accomplish? I'd come back, and that person would still be annoying, insulting, and unhelpful. | |
| Oct 21, 2009 at 17:36 | comment | added | mmx | beska: StackOverflow is not supposed to influence your life that way. If you find yourself in that situation, you should leave SO for a few hours IMO. | |
| Oct 21, 2009 at 17:26 | comment | added | beska | Ignoring the user and concentrating just on what they say sounds somewhat reasonable...until the 10th time in a day when you see someone doing something that is rude and annoying. Why should I subject myself to listening to someone on the vauge and unlikely hope that they'll eventually become tolerable? | |
| Sep 16, 2009 at 22:43 | comment | added | Super Long Names are Hilarious | (after heavy snipping) "Stack Overflow is not... a developer social networking Web site ... It's a Q&A site." Yeah, a community-driven Q&A site, which means it has to have some sort of community, which means it has to have certain features for this community. | |
| Jul 8, 2009 at 17:53 | history | edited | mmx | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 43 characters in body
|
| Jul 8, 2009 at 5:14 | comment | added | mmx | It might be human nature but humans should learn and practice not to give in to their emotions all the time. | |
| Jul 8, 2009 at 5:06 | comment | added | Kip | the problem is that many of us feel compelled to respond to ad hominem attacks directed at us, or misrepresentation of our own statements. it's human nature, and it is what the flame-baiting user counts on. the best solution, if the moderators don't agree that the user should be penalty boxed, is for us to ignore the user and go on with our life. and it is easier to ignore what you can't see. | |
| Jul 8, 2009 at 0:11 | comment | added | mmx | Anyhow, it's a place for discussion. You can either choose not to participate or if you do, listen to what everyone says and don't judge them by who they are. It's not a place for ad hominem arguments. | |
| Jul 7, 2009 at 23:33 | comment | added | Sampson | Technically, you're right. But the fact that we are having this discussion demonstrates that MetaSO is more social than many are ready to admit. | |
| Jul 7, 2009 at 22:55 | history | answered | mmx | CC BY-SA 2.5 |