Skip to main content
Meta Stack Exchange

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

13
  • 5
    Great analysis, +1 Commented Apr 21, 2010 at 11:39
  • there are ways around some of the problems you raise. first, ignoring a user could automatically flag that comment. if a user is ignored by several people, moderators can investigate and the user might be warned or put in the penalty box. second, the ignores could expire after, say, 2 months. mostly you would ignore in the heat of the moment when someone is provoking you. and lastly, i don't think we'd see a site full of jerks that all the regulars ignore. ignoring would probably be done by a few users in a few cases. if someone gets ignored by everyone then they should probably be banned. Commented Apr 21, 2010 at 14:49
  • 2
    "Ignoring a user could automatically flag that comment." This makes assumptions about implementation details. Also, if the comment is worth flagging then flag it. If a users comments are repeatedly flagged, they will be removed or penalty boxed. On the other hand, if the users comments aren't flaggable, then reporting them wouldn't be appropriate. Commented Apr 21, 2010 at 14:58
  • 1
    Second, having expiration date on the ignore is extremely counter-intuitive and harms usability. If you're ignoring someone, you are saying they aren't worth your time. This suggestion actually dilutes your own argument because you're saying "well, I only want to ignore them for as long as they are annoying me" which would be a great feature, but it is impossible. Commented Apr 21, 2010 at 14:59
  • 5
    Third your "Ignoring would probably done by a few users in a few cases" is (strawman ahead) a great argument for legalizing murder. That's a bad example (I know). But you are saying that you want this feature even though you wouldn't want it to actually be used by everyone. Features are created to be used. If that use is harmful, then they should not be created at all. Commented Apr 21, 2010 at 15:01
  • i'm not saying that i wouldn't want it to actually be used by everyone. i'm saying that it simply wouldn't actually be used by everyone. features are created to be used where appropriate. i don't see the situation where someone ignores someone happening all that often, unless the site starts attracting the kind of people who leave comments on YouTube. and if it turns out that the feature is being overused, then it could be reevaluated. it's not like any of the rules are set in stone here (i.e. the global rep recalc). Commented Apr 21, 2010 at 17:57
  • 2
    @Kip means the feature wouldn't shouldn't be arbitrarily used. Likewise neither should moderation. The fact of the matter is there are two users that if I didn't have to see, I would participate more. Sure I could be a little more mature and ignore them in my head. However, you can't make a horse drink. This is a content site, and not giving users control over what content they can see will result in them doing it themselves (Greasemonkey), which means the control of that feature is out of the hands of the community. Commented Jun 23, 2011 at 18:20
  • Let my abrasive personality wholeheartedly applaud this answer! There is one important question missing near the end, "Consider the possibility you are possibly being abrasive yourself?" Commented Mar 7, 2012 at 17:14
  • "Just move on." Can't we write a program to do it for me? Commented Apr 14, 2012 at 20:52
  • 1
    for such a long-winded rant, it sure is naive. What one person considers a problem, another might not. You end up with massive power discrepancies and disagreements on what is appropriate which can only make one side happy. If you're in the "have" group, you're good. if you're in the "have not" group, you're SOL. Sounds like you're in the former. Commented Mar 21, 2016 at 4:19
  • 1
    For bystanders, the net result will be bad. You're assuming that forcing the "Ignorers" to not ignore people will mean they'll continue helping "Problem users". That's simply not the case. If a user is so annoying that they make another user want to purge them from their view, it's unlikely that they're going to help them. It's just the opposite. Allowing them to ignore annoying users will keep them on the site helping other users. Forcing them to see annoying users will worsen their site experience, making them likely to leave or help other users. Commented May 24, 2017 at 18:29
  • I've never heard anyone say, "Boy, I can't wait to login to Youtube and read all those wonderful comments!" The conventional wisdom is, "Don't read Youtube comments because they cause cancer." Stackexchange is a long way from Youtube, but it should still be trying to avoid these common problems. Commented May 24, 2017 at 18:34
  • This is a great analysis but I'm sorry to say ultimately it's naive to think that the "problem users" will improve. And regardless it shouldn't be our job to help them improve. I just want a pleasant experience. If my experience can be improved by not seeing the same irritating people's names show up repeatedly in my inbox or on the posts I like to read, realistically no one else loses out because of that. But if you're really afraid it'll be abused, limit the ignore list to maybe 5 people. Then it won't just get used every time someone merely disagrees with you. Commented Feb 4, 2024 at 17:27