[TimG]

hotShot, on Feb 27 2009, 08:10 AM, said:

If you want a true picture how many would fail to find the best solution,

The forums really shouldn't be about figuring out how many people will fail. It's about getting constructive discussions about problems.

[sathyab]

gnasher, on Feb 27 2009, 08:35 AM, said:

Consider this thread:

http://forums.bridge...showtopic=30467
...
....
I also don't see the phenomenon of sheep-like answers as a problem. 

Imagine if the thread had been peppered with a bunch of WTPs and LOLs, because it did seem like a routine 1d-1h-1s-2nt-3nt to quite a few who replied. Isn't it more likely then that you might have ignored the thread? Notice too that the title of the thread is "Bidding problem or may be a WTP". Isn't that the case in real life too sometimes? At one table it's just another routine deal whereas something interesting does happen at the other ? Why did the poster find it necessary to add a disclaimer right at the outset that it might be a WTP ? May be he or she has seen many posts from non-experts being declared WTP or LOL, so just in case... ?

[whereagles]

I wouldn't worry much about copy-cats. I mean.. who cares?

Incidently, agree with Ron's next post.. LOL

[jdonn]

sathyab, on Feb 27 2009, 06:19 PM, said:

Notice too that the title of the thread is "Bidding problem or may be a WTP". Isn't that the case in real life too sometimes? At one table it's just another routine deal whereas something interesting does happen at the other ? Why did the poster find it necessary to add a disclaimer right at the outset that it might be a WTP ? May be he or she has seen many posts from non-experts being declared WTP or LOL, so just in case... ?

Or maybe if it was a WTP, he wanted to be told.

[bill1157]

to hide answers would completely change the nature of the forums. Ideas develop bit by bit, discussions morph in various ways, new threads are created on top of old ones.
I wouldn''t change it, so what if you have to skim over a couple more posts?

Bill

[655321]

sathyab, on Feb 27 2009, 06:19 PM, said:

gnasher, on Feb 27 2009, 08:35 AM, said:

Consider this thread:

http://forums.bridge...showtopic=30467
...
....
I also don't see the phenomenon of sheep-like answers as a problem. 

Imagine if the thread had been peppered with a bunch of WTPs and LOLs, because it did seem like a routine 1d-1h-1s-2nt-3nt to quite a few who replied. Isn't it more likely then that you might have ignored the thread? Notice too that the title of the thread is "Bidding problem or may be a WTP". Isn't that the case in real life too sometimes? At one table it's just another routine deal whereas something interesting does happen at the other ? Why did the poster find it necessary to add a disclaimer right at the outset that it might be a WTP ? May be he or she has seen many posts from non-experts being declared WTP or LOL, so just in case... ?

Not sure what this has to do with anything. Perhaps gnasher would indeed find a thread peppered with LOLs and WTPs less interesting than the one he linked to. (You did notice that his thread had no LOLs or WTPs, didn't you?)

By the way, LOL does not mean the same as WTP.
WTP stands for 'What's the problem?' It indicates that for the person answering, there is clearly only one answer.
LOL stands for 'Laugh out loud'. The implication (often) is that the post being replied to is so ridiculous, there is nothing to do but laugh at it.

[gnasher]

sathyab, on Feb 28 2009, 12:19 AM, said:

Imagine if the thread had been peppered with a bunch of WTPs and LOLs, because it did seem like a routine 1d-1h-1s-2nt-3nt to quite a few who replied. Isn't it more likely then that you might have ignored the thread?

No, not if I found the subject interesting (a judgment which I can make without counting the number of people who don't). I'd have ignored the WTPs and LOLs, and read the messages that had more substance.

Reading an internet forum inevitably involves filtering out a lot of noise (or what a particular user regards as noise). Given the choice between seeing a few interesting posts mixed with a lot of rubbish, and not seeing the interesting posts at all, I prefer the former.

[pirate22]

A very sensible suggestion,and if soft ware can handle it,the answers would be more diversified,and get more opinions as to the answer regards

[1eyedjack]

I suspect that the trolls who currently only post "I agree", etc, would under the proposed change simply not post at all until the thread becomes visible, and would then pile in with "I agree", etc.

Perhaps an interesting idea but no more than that.

[Phil]

This would be a user defined setting from the OP. I would have no problem if others that posted bidding problems were to allow unhidden responses immediately.

As far as the idea that I can skip the "me too" responses I don't see the problem of hiding the answers. If its truly a "WTP", then *obviously* those answering in the blind certainly shouldn't mind answering blind, right?

[Phil]

1eyedjack, on Feb 28 2009, 06:48 AM, said:

I suspect that the trolls who currently only post "I agree", etc, would under the proposed change simply not post at all until the thread becomes visible, and would then pile in with "I agree", etc.

Perhaps an interesting idea but no more than that.

What usually happens is this. Someone credible answers a problem, the sheep echo this (while patting themselves on the back as doing the same as a WC player), and then someone else credible stands up and says, "wait I don't like that idea", or "maybe we should consider this". Then they get LOL'd by one of the sheep.

Look at bridge problems in the BW MSC. Frequently there will be a two or three way split. I doubt bidding problems posted here are nearly as interesting, but there is way too much agreement here, and I think its because of the way threads are handled.

Later in the thread, you'll get a lot of credible people who don't visit the forums 3x a day who come in back up alternative ideas. In the end, I just scratch my head at what the 'right' answer actually is.

I would be willing to try it on a trial basis, but my sense you would get a lot more of a diversity of answers, and sensible reasoning in the process which has to be a positive thing.

Those that don't have the stones to post until a sample of good players post will just have their ideas at the end of a thread, instead of at the beginning. But thats where these posts belong anyway.

[Phil]

Continuing on:

Polls are useful for determining true opinion. When you answer a poll, you don't see the poll results first! All I'm suggesting is that threads can operate in the same manner. Instead of seeing what everyone is doing, you have to post blind and show your true colors.

And for those that don't like this idea; have you ever answered a poll question (Without reading the thread), and then felt silly posting your reasons after you read other's reasons?

[sceptic]

http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?cod...iscussion&it=le

I watch this site daily, as I work for the company on this page, but the have a vote for each post button, it does not stop stupid posts (I do not ever post here btw, so not as many silly posts as you would imagine:), but all you have to do is vote it up or down, that way there is no need to post I agree etc etc

[Free]

I'm a bit late to the discussion, but I want to share my opinion.

I think it's a good idea, but there are still some ways to "hack" the system. A better way maybe is to disable the option to "show the votes" and hide the replies until you vote (and this for a limited time so you don't get random voters). This way, you can't even look at the votes and "agree with most".

[Phil]

Is there a file where suggested ideas go for consideration?

[zasanya]

What will be he result if the original poster starts his topic with "please do not answer WTP or I agree with.....Please give your reasoning"?

[inquiry]

Phil, on Mar 5 2009, 12:01 PM, said:

Is there a file where suggested ideas go for consideration?

Hi Phil...

Suggestion not supported by Invision Board, are obviously not going to be implemented. I don't know about the other board adminstrators, but i am reading this thread. What can be done will be considered. This might be as good a place as anywhere else to make suggestions. However, you might try making them in the BBO support forums, as Fred and uday are more likely to read those than up here in general bridge discussion. OF course with a title like this one has, they are surely likely to read it.

[Phil]

inquiry, on Mar 6 2009, 05:53 PM, said:

Suggestion not supported by Invision Board, are obviously not going to be implemented.

Ben:

'Supported' as in Invision doesn't have the capability to automatically hide responses?

Or other reasons?

[kenberg]

I don't think of myself as a sheep. More often I find that, while I am typing, someone else with faster fingers is there first. I hope that when people hear an echo they notice the closeness of the time stamps.
The suggestion might increase diversity. It also might increase the number of repetitive answers.

[H_KARLUK]

Phil, on Feb 26 2009, 07:04 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.

How about closed for late inputs position after a period under that condition?

i.e. Topic started noon, inputs hidden auto 24 hrs. When they revealed no further entries allowed to post.

I hope it won't bring much xtra works to server.