Consider instalocking clickbait titles / making them reportable

[Deleted]

A lot of people make clickbait titles purely to garner quick views or rile up the forum. All it does is push meaningful discussions down and encourage non-constructive arguments.

Stuff like "We're doomed -" or "We deserve -" or thread that trail off into elipses amounts to nothing more than sensationalist BS.

[breadisfunny]

yeah i agree let's stifle discussion on the forums by locking threads we don't agree with or like.

[prwraith]

Not really what he said at all, but good job at doing exactly what he was talking about tee hee.

That's actually exactly what he said.

He said lock anything that seems interesting but isn't to him. Thus he gets to choose what is "meaningful discussion"

[force18]

Does this topic count as a click bait topic, using the word "consider" in the title has the same meaning as we deserve we blah blah Conside we deserve

[Deleted]

"we're doomed" or "we deserve" is not clickbait

[Deleted]

yeah i agree let's stifle discussion on the forums by locking threads we don't agree with or like.

Nope. Learn to read.

He said lock anything that seems interesting but isn't to him. Thus he gets to choose what is "meaningful discussion"

Nope. Also learn to read.

Does this topic count as a click bait topic, using the word "consider" in the title has the same meaning as we deserve we blah blah Conside we deserve

Nope. Third time's a charm in learning to read.

If you seriously can't tell the difference between threads that deliberately use misleading titles just to get a flood of replies and threads that I dislike then that's worrying. There is a difference between discussion and a flood of people responding to a topic saying "No." "No." "No OP". "No, troll thread."

The people who oppose discouraging idiots to reign free with clearly clickbaity threads might overlap into said idiot crowd.

[breadisfunny]

Nope. Learn to read.



Nope. Also learn to read.



Nope. Third time's a charm in learning to read.

If you seriously can't tell the difference between threads that deliberately use misleading titles just to get a flood of replies and threads that I dislike then that's worrying. There is a difference between discussion and a flood of people responding to a topic saying "No." "No." "No OP". "No, troll thread."

The people who oppose discouraging idiots to reign free with clearly clickbaity threads might overlap into said idiot crowd.

my points stands maybe you should actually pick up some critical thinking skills on just how bad your idea is. it appears you have a issue with criticism and are just now lashing out at people who disagree with your idea.

- - - Updated - - -

I just can't imagine what kind of poster would be opposed to the locking of obvious troll threads. Hmmm...I wonder what kind of poster would be against that....

one can make the argument that this thread is just a troll thread designed to start a flame war. oh guess the op should have the thread locked and be infracted for that. in fact you can make that FOR ANY TOPIC ON GENERAL OFF TOPIC if you dug deep enough.
"this person thread about global warming is clearly just a troll thread designed to bait conservatives. mods lock it please"
this thread about the election is just a troll thread designed to enflame x party because of x reasons. mods lock it."
this thread about x team is just a thread designed to be clickbait against the opposing team mods lock it."
do you see now how bad this idea is?

[Kanadei]

A lot of people make clickbait titles purely to garner quick views or rile up the forum. All it does is push meaningful discussions down and encourage non-constructive arguments.

Stuff like "We're doomed -" or "We deserve -" or thread that trail off into elipses amounts to nothing more than sensationalist BS.

Can you cite the part of the existing forum code of conduct which is against creating a thread because you believe it will be clicked on a lot/viewed a lot/replied to a lot?

That would be a start.

If you are suggesting a change to the rules and code of conduct of the forums then that is something else entirely.

Also, you aren't responding in a very productive manner to people. Your attitude hardly adds credibility to your suggestion.

[Kanadei]

What should he reply to? Most of you are not even replying to his post to begin with, either due to lack of comprehension or being willfully disengenuous.

Huh? He should reply to my post asking if he what he is suggesting is in anyway against the current rules and regulations of the forums - that's what I was asking him.

There is a big difference between saying "hey guys you should insta lock all these bait threads because they take up space and I don't like looking at them" and saying "hey guys in the rules it says these kind of threads aren't allowed so you should be a bit more productive about closing them faster" or saying "hey guys can you change the rules of the forum so these threads aren't allowed? I believe they are ruining peoples experience through xyz".

There are suggestions and then there are suggestions. All I'm saying is to make your case clearly and coherently, with at least some level of understanding of the gap in the current moderation system.

[Xerra]

I don't get it... whats wrong with getting views? Its not like advertising or anything as far as I am aware of. And really sensationalism in 'advertising' is quite common, try reading a tabloid or magazine/newspaper article and tell me it isn't trying to energize the reader's interest. Not to mention if the topic is not worthy of note no one will reply and the thread will die out of listing do to no one caring about it. However if people are enticed by these so called 'non-constructive arguments' it just goes to show people have to much time on their hands and who are you to dictate what drivel and BS they waste their time on?

[Kanadei]

His intent seemed pretty clear to me. And I'm pretty sure we all know the types of threads he means.

It's not his intent that I'm trying to elucidate. I'm trying to see if there is any current basis for "the types of threads he means" to be more heavily moderated, like something which currently exists in the rules which could be adapted or similar.

I'm trying to understand if this is a suggestion to change the rules of the website or just to moderate something which is already breaching the rules more aggressively.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't get it... whats wrong with getting views?

if people are enticed by these so called 'non-constructive arguments' it just goes to show people have to much time on their hands and who are you to dictate what drivel and BS they waste their time on?

Basically this. I want to know if this is already against the rules or if the suggestion here is to change the rules so that it is, and if so then why.

[breadisfunny]

I don't get it... whats wrong with getting views? Its not like advertising or anything as far as I am aware of. And really sensationalism in 'advertising' is quite common, try reading a tabloid or magazine/newspaper article and tell me it isn't trying to energize the reader's interest. Not to mention if the topic is not worthy of note no one will reply and the thread will die out of listing do to no one caring about it. However if people are enticed by these so called 'non-constructive arguments' it just goes to show people have to much time on their hands and who are you to dictate what drivel and BS they waste their time on?

some people on these forums lack self control and feel they have to open/read every single thread. then they get mad when they find ones that they don't agree with.

[Sting]

You can already report threads if you think they have inappropriate titles. I've seen a thread's name change many times.

[Deleted]

my points stands maybe you should actually pick up some critical thinking skills on just how bad your idea is. it appears you have a issue with criticism and are just now lashing out at people who disagree with your idea.

How am I encouring the stifling of discussion if all I want is a swifter response to dealing with idiots who make threads clickbait titles? It makes room for actual meaningful discussion.

If you're seriously advocating that it's perfectly fine to make threads designed for quick, kneejerk responses that stay on the front page whilst other discussions get pushed away then well...

I don't get it... whats wrong with getting views?

Getting views for the sake of getting views means you're not interested in any discussion and would rather just flame people.


There is a difference between filtering people who make objectively idiotic threads and stifling discussion. If you're part of the crowd that can't see that then it might turn out you're more likely to do the former.

[Lochton]

You can already report threads if you think they have inappropriate titles. I've seen a thread's name change many times.

This is basically the right answer. If you find a problem with the name of a thread, you are welcome to report it. State that the title is either:
A.: Misleading title
B.: False title
C.: Inappropriate title
D.: Spoiling title

By reporting it, a moderator can take a look at it and judge if it is a functioning title of not.

[breadisfunny]

How am I encouring the stifling of discussion if all I want is a swifter response to dealing with idiots who make threads clickbait titles? It makes room for actual meaningful discussion.

If you're seriously advocating that it's perfectly fine to make threads designed for quick, kneejerk responses that stay on the front page whilst other discussions get pushed away then well...



Getting views for the sake of getting views means you're not interested in any discussion and would rather just flame people.


There is a difference between filtering people who make objectively idiotic threads and stifling discussion. If you're part of the crowd that can't see that then it might turn out you're more likely to do the former.

so now your generalizing and making assumptions when you have zero knowledge of the poster's history alongside launching petty personal insults at people you disagree with. doing what you want would just lead to the censorship of the forums since your criteria is so deliberately vague it can fit a lot of thread titles.

[Deleted]

so now your generalizing and making assumptions when you have zero knowledge of the poster's history alongside launching petty personal insults at people you disagree with.

Not generalising. It's a very specific kind of stupidity that makes someone create a clickbait thread with the sole purpose of trolling and generating kneejerk responses. As for petty personal insults it's not exactly my fault someone can be blind enough to not realise there's something wrong with that.

It's actually pretty baffling that some of the responses I've recieved are advocating people deliberately creating threads for kneejerk reactions under free speech. What does the word "moderation" mean to you?

doing what you want would just lead to the censorship of the forums since your criteria is so deliberately vague it can fit a lot of thread titles.

No there's a pretty clear cut definition of what "click bait" means. Go look it up.

- - - Updated - - -

This is basically the right answer. If you find a problem with the name of a thread, you are welcome to report it. State that the title is either:
A.: Misleading title
B.: False title
C.: Inappropriate title
D.: Spoiling title

By reporting it, a moderator can take a look at it and judge if it is a functioning title of not.

Maybe consider updating the forum rules with these specifically. I've looked at them and the information is vague. I also understand that the moderators arent omniscient and it depends on when they're on but depending on who's actually moderating what there's a pretty big disparity on when a thread is dealt with.

[Zeta333]

There is a difference between filtering people who make objectively idiotic threads and stifling discussion. If you're part of the crowd that can't see that then it might turn out you're more likely to do the former.

Lol iv seen mods constantly infract people for posting opinions they dont beleave in, while not against forum rules the mods state that its not allowed and just infract away.

[Lochton]

Lol iv seen mods constantly infract people for posting opinions they dont beleave in, while not against forum rules the mods state that its not allowed and just infract away.

This isn't about moderation actions though, was a general question towards click-bait.

If you find problems with the actions of a current moderator, you are allowed to take them up with a blue moderator such as Tziva or Dars.

[Tziva]

Maybe consider updating the forum rules with these specifically. I've looked at them and the information is vague.

The rules are not specific because things will always vary depending on context, circumstances and potentially other variables. We want to review these kinds of things on a case-by-case basis with taking these things into consideration. This is the reason we have human moderators instead of robots that just go by an inflexible black and white checklist.

You're welcome to report any thread title you feel is causing a problem and explain why you think it is causing a problem in the report box (misleading, inappropriate, whatever). We may agree with you and change the thread, or we may reserve the right to disagree with you about the severity of that problem and leave the thread alone.

And since we're already have derails about unrelated moderator issues, I'm going to lock this. As always, the appropriate channel to go through with specific moderation concerns is to send a private message to a super mod.