![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 130 to 154 of 308. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 20, 2010, at 10:42:21
In reply to Re: Point system might be coming..., posted by nadezda on July 18, 2010, at 17:22:12
> I think having a rating system is cruel I guess.
>
> sigismund> Absoutely terrible, I might even say, execrable, and unhumane idea.
>
> NadezdaCould we have a discussion and not just throw around adjectives?
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 20, 2010, at 10:42:51
In reply to Re: Point system might be coming... » Deneb, posted by jade k on July 17, 2010, at 18:28:30
> Why did you redirect my thread, and change my title?
Because my post was about the point system, and so was this thread.
> Hey Dr. Bob??? My double double quotes didn't work.
What did you try to double double quote?
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 20, 2010, at 10:43:15
In reply to Re: researchers like numbers more than emotions, posted by ron1953 on July 19, 2010, at 12:45:45
Hi, everyone,
I appreciate the thought you all are giving this and the feedback you all are offering. I think that improves the idea:
Posters could decline to accept rewards from others.
Posters could decline to have their point totals displayed.
Posters could decline to reward others.
Posters who did reward others could reward whoever they found helpful. It could be for informative posts, supportive posts, funny posts, whatever. I could make it explicit that the rewards were for subjectively being helpful and not for objectively being "high quality" or "right".
Posters could reward multiple other posters instead of having to choose just one.
It was never my idea to force posters to reward others, to force posters to use predetermined criteria, or to force posters to be motivated by points.
Neither do I see "reinforcement" as a dirty word. Life is full of reinforcements. When someone in the US donates to a charity, they're eligible for a tax deduction. That doesn't force them to be charitable or make them one of Pavlov's dogs.
I'm more concerned with effect than motivation. If someone posts something uncivil, but is trying to help, I still consider that uncivil. If they posted something helpful, but wanted to earn points, I'd still see that as helpful. Some people are therapists in part because they want to earn a living. I don't see them as lacking in humanity.
It would seem to be "truth in advertising" if people were drawn to a community by real posts rather than by advertisements.
I agree, someone doesn't have to be overly negative not to like a low point total. But if someone expects a low point total -- or to be weeded out, blocked, and gone -- that might be different. It's also possible that a poster might be OK with a low point total. If they're not competitive, they might not care much about their point total. In any case, competition can be healthy.
Was Bay's hypothetical post an example of how the point system could be used to bypass the civility rules? I'd consider it uncivil to put others down for not getting (or not accepting) points -- or for getting (or accepting) them.
I think she did ask an important question: how this could help posters learn and grow. Could you see a poster writing:
> Bay I award you 10 points because:
>
> a) you demonstrated tremendous empathy
> b) you made it clear that you understood my issue
> c) you made a ton of sense
> d) on top of all that, you made me laughLearning and growth could be based on "pragmatic experience". The idea would be positive reinforcement, not punishment. And I decide what's considered uncivil, while posters would decide what was considered helpful. Do posters expect other posters to be punishing? If so, that might not be the Lake Wobeher Effect, that might be the Faceful of Cat Effect.
It's true, what I and posters think may be helpful for this site don't always match up. I'm open to other new ideas about how to make this site better. Thanks for acknowledging other improvements and recognizing the potential here. You all are part of that potential. :-)
Bob
--
> Posting because I want to help someone when I can is positive reinforcement enough.
>
> I would never think of rating a persons post.
>
> Most threads offer not one best answer, but many different answers, from different perspectives. I enjoy, also, the occasional spontanious post thats just funny. It might be the funniest thing I hear all day.
>
> You'll certainly weed out the posters who are less knowledgeable.
>
> I think I offer enough posts that are helpful to feel like a valuable member. Not the most knowledgeable, by far, but I'm okay with that.
>
> ~Jade
>
> btw-"positive reinforcement"??? What are we now to you, Pavlov's dogs?> I remember many times in the past when I posted I was deep despair and had nowhere else to go with my distress. Fortunately at the time there were (and still are today) people here, and on the Samaritans, who were prepared to listen and respond as one human being to another. I can't even begin to imagine how awful it would have been to discover that they were doing it out of some competitive need for 'points' or e-bucks or other power trip. And what a loss for them in their humanity if they were.
>
> vwoolf> I think it was nice of Deneb to think of ways to improve the site, and it was a creative idea.
>
> You can 'attract' more people here by incentives and marketing such as Facebook and Twitter ... but it's kinda like sales-where the customer is incentivized to buy the product-then later ... regrets their decision when things turn out to be not so desirable...
>
> I noticed that recently you did try to make some (more subtle) improvements...there's still much room for growth, however. So good luck with the forum...there's alot of potential here. :)
>
> violette> I vote we use the block formula for a low score. Cause that's whats next in line for us.
>
> ~Jade> I don't think someone has to be overly negative to not like having a low rating
>
> Dinah> It is forcing an alternative motivation to post outside the purview of altruism.
>
> What would be your criteria for assigning a reward?
>
> - Scott> the rating system could be a tool to bypass the civility rules.
>
> I would like to know if you are going to allow us the choice of opting out, or will it be automatic?
>
> Justherself54> Gone will be many of the unique, smart, flawed, experienced, crazy, funny, supportive, compassionate, helpful, irritable, obsessive, insomniac ridden human type of posters...that make Babble the community that it is.
>
> Or..."one", or some, could brainstorm some new ideas and breathe some life back into Babble and make it as great as it once was, instead of turning it into a human reference guide.
>
> ~Jade> And how does getting a lot of low scores help? Will poorly scoring posters leave? Or learn to be better posters?? How?
>
> So do you see the poster writing:
>
> Bay your post rates a 1 because:
>
> a) you did not demonstrate sufficient amount of empathy
> b) you did not understand my issue
> c) you did not make any damn sense
> c) you did not make me laugh
> d) some combination of the above
>
> This way we can learn and grow as posters??
>
> BayLeaf> academics like book knowledge more than pragmatic experience
>
> ron1953
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 20, 2010, at 11:30:18
In reply to Re: Point system, posted by Toph on July 20, 2010, at 10:30:20
> I would find it really ironic if posts that gained the most points as supportive were also found uncivil by the administration.
I hadn't thought of that, but I could see that happening: poster A starts a thread, poster B disagrees with poster A, poster C tries to support poster A by being uncivil to poster B, and poster A rewards poster C with points.
> Babblers could express their discontent messing with the point system.
That's possible, too: poster A starts a thread, poster B is uncivil to them, I block poster B, and poster A is more upset by my block than by poster B's incivility and expresses that by awarding points to poster B.
> It sort of reminds me of the Sanjaya Effect where websites encouraged voters to vote for the worst contestant.
I haven't heard of that, what happened?
Bob
Posted by fayeroe on July 20, 2010, at 11:43:34
In reply to Re: pragmatic experience, posted by Dr. Bob on July 20, 2010, at 10:43:15
>
> It would seem to be "truth in advertising" if people were drawn to a community by real posts rather than by advertisements.
>
>
Posted by Dinah on July 20, 2010, at 12:39:15
In reply to Re: pragmatic experience, posted by Dr. Bob on July 20, 2010, at 10:43:15
Bah. Why even bother?
If you're going to do this... "thing", could you please confine it to the Neurotransmitter and Health Boards. Or at most Medications. My personal values would lead me to find it extremely offensive on Social and Psychology.
Others of course may feel differently. I think on this thread, there has been precisely one person who has felt differently. You.
When you're discussing pragmatic experience, might I ask you how it's worked in the past for you when you went ahead with something that was so negatively received? How did Twitter and Facebook work for you? Did you get what you wanted? My pragmatic soul revolts at the thought of using pragmatism to support this when pragmatism would demand that you recall past actions and the results. Could you please use some other school of philosophy?
Posted by Dinah on July 20, 2010, at 12:44:15
In reply to Re: Point system, posted by Toph on July 20, 2010, at 10:30:20
I would totally support subversive action to undermine the point system.
If there is a collusion, might I please join?
Posted by Dinah on July 20, 2010, at 12:53:19
In reply to Re: Point system » Toph, posted by Dinah on July 20, 2010, at 12:44:15
Hmmm... Dr. Bob might consider it uncivil to suggest collusion on board. My apologies Dr. Bob.
Please ignore my post, Toph.
Posted by Dinah on July 20, 2010, at 12:58:36
In reply to Re: not so pragmatic experience » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on July 20, 2010, at 12:39:15
If we're discussing pragmatism, past experience tells me that no matter how angry I get and how much I object, I'm just bashing my head against an immovable object.
It would be foolish of me to do it again.
Whatever.
Posted by nadezda on July 20, 2010, at 13:08:13
In reply to Re: discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on July 20, 2010, at 10:42:21
wasn't useful for developing any response.
I would agree that too many extreme adjectives don't help with the discussion..
Willful
Posted by Dinah on July 20, 2010, at 13:10:34
In reply to Re: Point system, posted by Dr. Bob on July 20, 2010, at 11:30:18
Dr. Bob, please.
If you're going to do this, could you create another board? The rated board where people who want to be able to rate replies could use?
Or a nonrated board for those who don't wish to be in a ratings environment? I would abandon Psychology in a minute to go to an unrated board.
Posted by Dinah on July 20, 2010, at 13:23:39
In reply to Re: pragmatic experience, posted by Dr. Bob on July 20, 2010, at 10:43:15
I can only think that Dr. Bob thinks of the Babble community in a totally different way than I do. Or not as a community at all, but as a resource.
After all, raises and reviews aren't made public either. Workers have to live with one another. And while I suppose there are donor lists, I never particularly wanted to be on one. Why would anyone want to be on one? I had somehow thought it generally considered in poor taste to publicly rate the performance of others outside places like American Idol or Miss Universe. I don't see Babble as the same as American Idol. The Miss Universe candidates leave at the end of the day. There is no community.
Posted by fayeroe on July 20, 2010, at 13:31:20
In reply to Re: pragmatic experience, posted by Dr. Bob on July 20, 2010, at 10:43:15
Posted by Willful on July 20, 2010, at 13:39:39
In reply to Re: sorry if my post » Dr. Bob, posted by nadezda on July 20, 2010, at 13:08:13
from Willful, not nadezda.
Sorry for mixup
Posted by fayeroe on July 20, 2010, at 13:39:51
In reply to Re: discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on July 20, 2010, at 10:42:21
Posted by Toph on July 20, 2010, at 14:25:55
In reply to Re: Point system, posted by Dr. Bob on July 20, 2010, at 11:30:18
> > It sort of reminds me of the Sanjaya Effect where websites encouraged voters to vote for the worst contestant.
>
> I haven't heard of that, what happened?
>
> BobI was referring to a phenomenon where people who presumably have contempt for reality television vote for the singer they think the producers would least like to win. Websites like "Vote for the Worst" would be an example. If enough people were upset with the point system here, they might vote for posts that they think you would find most unsupportive and withhold votes for post they actually viewed as supportive.
I have to admit that I'd be curious about how people would vote posts on this topic. Regarding your suggestion of a point system, would a post critical of this plan be viewed as supportive of the community or unsupportive?
Posted by jade k on July 20, 2010, at 15:33:57
In reply to Re: discussion? Let's start an 'OPT OUT LIST' (nm) » Dr. Bob, posted by fayeroe on July 20, 2010, at 13:39:51
You can block me now Bob.
I'm feeling tired anyway.
JadeBtw-Nice trick posting my upcoming block on the thread, where not even I would have noticed. Another poster emailed me. Not that it matters. Except I know how you love to block me quietly, so I find out when I try to post someone the next day. Cool trick.
Posted by sigismund on July 20, 2010, at 15:38:01
In reply to Re: 'OPTING OUT' Bob's doin for me!, posted by jade k on July 20, 2010, at 15:33:57
I know you didn't jump to that conclusion.
Posted by jade k on July 20, 2010, at 15:40:52
In reply to Re: 'OPTING OUT' Bob's doin for me! » jade k, posted by sigismund on July 20, 2010, at 15:38:01
No. He really is blocking me. He just chose not to post it here. Don't know for how long though.
~Jade
Posted by sigismund on July 20, 2010, at 15:47:06
In reply to Re: 'OPTING OUT' Bob's doin for me!, posted by jade k on July 20, 2010, at 15:40:52
Yes, I wondered how I might help you formulate an apology but that was as far as it got.
FWIW I wasn't bothered by the pesky kids thing nor by what you said. I wondered if you were a little annoyed to see Bulldog blocked.
Posted by jade k on July 20, 2010, at 16:15:05
In reply to Re: 'OPTING OUT' Bob's doin for me! » jade k, posted by sigismund on July 20, 2010, at 15:47:06
Both.
I have a friend who went through agony with the ritalin decision. Her son was in private school and he was going to have to leave if she didn't do something. It was hard on her whole family.
And I think blocking Bulldog for 9 weeks was serious overkill. The blocks are too long in my opinion.
I post regularly when I'm here, most to people who are asking for help. I do the best I can with the exception of a goofy post here and there.
I geuss I'm growing tired of feeling like thats not what this is really about. Helping people in need. Bob posted 2 of my posts on twitter (both I suspect he new would embarress me). This was after I requested upon my return to be "opted out" of fb or twitter links.
Now I find out, once a post goes to another site, the thread goes too, with our posts, even if we have opted out. If you see my "redirected" thread with Deneb, both she and Bob said the only way my posts are being moved is by cut and paste. Not true.
Sorry so long!
Take care,Jade
Posted by 10derHeart on July 20, 2010, at 17:06:21
In reply to Re: Point system » Toph, posted by Dinah on July 20, 2010, at 12:44:15
Posted by 10derHeart on July 20, 2010, at 17:08:39
In reply to Re: Point system, posted by Dinah on July 20, 2010, at 12:53:19
guess I'll wait and see.
don't feel an apology is in order at this point.
you are far more gracious than I, Dinah.
Posted by 10derHeart on July 20, 2010, at 17:33:54
In reply to Re: 'OPTING OUT' FYI thread goes too » sigismund, posted by jade k on July 20, 2010, at 16:15:05
Hi jade, it was great to see you back around here...I read these days but never post. Ok, *hardly* ever.
>Bob posted 2 of my posts on twitter (both I suspect he new would embarress me). This was after I requested upon my return to be "opted out" of fb or twitter links.
Are you sure? You're saying he actually Tweeted them? I have never known him to do anything like that, not on purpose anyway. I think this could be a misunderstanding of internet/social networking terminology. It happened before when he first did the Twitter thing..
>Now I find out, once a post goes to another site, the thread goes too, with our posts, even if we have opted out.
Well....not really. The thread does not go anywhere. It's just that if someone clicks on the link with the Tweet of the post Dr. Bob used (of a poster who did not opt out) it brings them to the "source", which is here = Babble. Which is, of course, his wish, so if they are that interested in one post they read at Twitter, they can find the community/website easily.
Anyone could do that, any time, anywhere with a link to the URL of any of your posts, or mine. In an email, on a website, etc. Fact of life on the internet.
>If you see my "redirected" thread with Deneb, both she and Bob said the only way my posts are being moved is by cut and paste. Not true.
I think what they both wrote was accurate. Maybe they didn't additionally think to mention that others can post links to anything on the Web, but that doesn't make what they did say untrue. Again, I see it as a confusion of terminology. I don't think there is any malicious or sneaky intent. Certainly not by Deneb, but not by Dr. Bob, either.
As I have said before, Dr. Bob is many things, and I strenuously disagree with him on many things, but in all the years I have been here, including several as a deputy, I never saw meanness, as in intentional embarrassment, or deliberate lies. His ways may be...idiosyncratic, though. For sure.
Posted by fayeroe on July 20, 2010, at 17:43:56
In reply to Re: 'OPTING OUT' FYI thread goes too » jade k, posted by 10derHeart on July 20, 2010, at 17:33:54
Speaking of messages going to FB and Twr., I'm curious as what you believe about a post, dated January, 2010 that "Paco" wrote, that showed up on my FB page when I had not been on FB in about 1 year?
Contrary to some of the "babble/internet" savvy people here, I did not mess with my FB settings because I wasn't using FB then. My page was set for friends only anyway. I didn't do it, so who did it?
Just so you'll know what I think, I believe someone here did it. Of course we didn't get to discuss it or check any settings, etc. because Bob blocked me immediately. That effectively shut people up and shut down finding an answer.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.