[Phil]

I have a weird idea.

Would it be possible if the original poster had the option of having all responses hidden from view for the first 6/12/24 hours? It seems that there is real tendency here for someone that is a great player to post, and then have ten sheep-like posts follow. Not all of these are "me too", but many are. This creates an illusion that there is unanimity on a subject when in real life at the table this would be far from the case.

After the waiting period, the posts would be revealed, and rebuttal would then take place.

[hrothgar]

Phil, on Feb 26 2009, 08:04 PM, said:

I have a weird idea.

Would it be possible if the original poster had the option of having all responses hidden from view for the first 6/12/24 hours? It seems that there is real tendency here for someone that is a great player to post, and then have ten sheep-like posts follow. Not all of these are "me too", but many are. This creates an illusion that there is unanimity on a subject when in real life at the table this would be far from the case.

After the waiting period, the posts would be revealed, and rebuttal would then take place.

REALLY like this suggestion

[Hanoi5]

Me too.

[brianshark]

Very interesting solution to a real problem. I'd love to see this given a trial run.

[TylerE]

Me...4th or whatever at this point.

[Phil]

Now Hanoi, Brian and Tyler, would you REALLY think this if Richard hadn't jumped on board?

JK

[Echognome]

I think it's a reasonable idea. However, it may depend on the forum software as to how feasible it is to make such a change.

[Elianna]

I think that it would be a great idea for polls especially. There are several other forums I participate in (though lurk might be more accurate these days) that basically have several options for polls:

1) you vote, see results, see posts exactly like here.

2) you vote, see results, can post immediately but the posts are hidden (sometimes they are unhidden later, sometimes not).

3) you vote, see results, but no one can post for a few days.

4) you vote, but can't see the results. no one can post for a few days.

I think that option 2 or 3 is good for polls. It keeps initial respondees from being swayed by posts.

I don't really like the idea so much for a normal thread. You might then get a lot of posts saying the same thing, and repeating the same arguments, which is rather tedious. Or else people have different opinions, but can't address what others have to say for a few days. And so they post their opinion, but may have lost interest in rebutting what someone else says a few days later. I agree with you and Adam that the me tooers are annoying. Most annoying are the people who say something like "agree with [blank]" before that person even posted! I'm sure that they would STILL do that in your proposal, because they seem to think that it's funny for some reason.

[TimG]

I like to be able to see replies as soon as they are made. Though I wouldn't mind such an option for polls, I would not want to see it the default.

[jdonn]

Elianna, on Feb 26 2009, 09:03 PM, said:

I don't really like the idea so much for a normal thread. You might then get a lot of posts saying the same thing, and repeating the same arguments, which is rather tedious. Or else people have different opinions, but can't address what others have to say for a few days. And so they post their opinion, but may have lost interest in rebutting what someone else says a few days later. I agree with you and Adam that the me tooers are annoying. Most annoying are the people who say something like "agree with [blank]" before that person even posted! I'm sure that they would STILL do that in your proposal, because they seem to think that it's funny for some reason.

I don't agree with all of that, but I would add that lots of people would just wait a day and agree with whoever they want to agree with anyway, so it wouldn't do anything but stall the undesired behavior.

By the way, are there really people who agree with someone who hasn't even posted yet?? I don't recall seeing that one, but I guess some people think they are funny. Not me of course.

[the hog]

"By the way, are there really people who agree with someone who hasn't even posted yet?"

Agree with Nuno!
Seriously though, I think it is a good suggestion too.

[peachy]

Phil, on Feb 26 2009, 12:04 PM, said:

I have a weird idea.

Would it be possible if the original poster had the option of having all responses hidden from view for the first 6/12/24 hours? It seems that there is real tendency here for someone that is a great player to post, and then have ten sheep-like posts follow. Not all of these are "me too", but many are. This creates an illusion that there is unanimity on a subject when in real life at the table this would be far from the case.

After the waiting period, the posts would be revealed, and rebuttal would then take place.

Very good idea!

[matmat]

jdonn, on Feb 26 2009, 09:42 PM, said:

I guess some people think they are funny. Not me of course.

agree with Donn.

[Apollo81]

Phil, on Feb 26 2009, 01:04 PM, said:

I have a weird idea.

Would it be possible if the original poster had the option of having all responses hidden from view for the first 6/12/24 hours? It seems that there is real tendency here for someone that is a great player to post, and then have ten sheep-like posts follow. Not all of these are "me too", but many are. This creates an illusion that there is unanimity on a subject when in real life at the table this would be far from the case.

After the waiting period, the posts would be revealed, and rebuttal would then take place.

Like the suggestion -- with the added condition that the posts when they become visible would have to clearly indicate whether they were made before or after the waiting period.

[Codo]

I would hate it for Eliannas reasoning.

[helene_t]

As for responses, agree with Elianna.

I don't hate is at much wrt polls but don't like it much there either.

[1eyedjack]

Elianna, on Feb 27 2009, 03:03 AM, said:

I don't really like the idea so much for a normal thread. You might then get a lot of posts saying the same thing, and repeating the same arguments, which is rather tedious. Or else people have different opinions, but can't address what others have to say for a few days. And so they post their opinion, but may have lost interest in rebutting what someone else says a few days later. I agree with you and Adam that the me tooers are annoying. Most annoying are the people who say something like "agree with [blank]" before that person even posted! I'm sure that they would STILL do that in your proposal, because they seem to think that it's funny for some reason.

Bear in mind that all that was being suggested was to provide the thread starter the *option* to enable this feature on a thread by thread basis. Nothing would be compulsory. If your fears materialise in respect of an individual thread then it would result from the flawed judgement of the thread starter, not from the enabling of the facility. I am all for delegation of enabling features where it would do no harm to others. Let the thread starter have some responsibility. No need to hold his hands.

[Fluffy]

I like it, you would see much better responses.

When I see a difficult problem with 3 answers, I can't refrain from reading them before thinking the problem deeply.

The big problem for this is: You ahve to reprogram part of the forum's software, wich I don't think it is possible nor even legal.

[hotShot]

I have seen threads where almost all favored solution A, until a prominent expert states his preference for solution B. If the expert post appears early in the thread, the discussion often ends there. This can influence polls as well.

If you want a true picture how many would fail to find the best solution, it's better to hide the answers for a while. Very few will admit that they would pick a path that has been marked as inferior by an expert.

So I would think it's a great option and I think it won't be used to often, because it's annoying to wait for responses.

[gnasher]

I wouldn't like it much. It would mean that we'd stopped having a conversation and instead were just participating in a quiz.

Consider this thread:

http://forums.bridge...showtopic=30467

About half of the posts are responses to other posts. Personally, my interest in the thread increased significantly once I saw responses from other people. These led to my changing my mind about what the best contract was, seeing something interesting in the play that I wouldn't otherwise have noticed, and learning that a sequence whose meaning I thought obvious might have been interpreted in two other ways.

Whilst this might still have taken place after the two-day embargo ended, the discussion would have been more disjointed, and confusing because after two days of independent postings we'd have a barrage of rebuttals.

I also don't see the phenomenon of sheep-like answers as a problem. It's obvious which ones they are, because it's nearly always the same people posting one-line answers without any reasoning. Can't you just ignore them? Alternatively, when you post your question, ask Justin not to reply for a couple of days.