| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > MB Suggestion Box > Topic: Squelch function |
Topic: Squelch function
| Author | Message |
| WordyBird | Posted – 4/29/2008 11:37:44 AM | show profile I've noticed that there are some regulars in some of the threads who apparently live to spout racist drivel, and others who just plain make no sense for their lack of coherent thought and grammatical talent. Maybe this has been suggested before--I tend to post in fits and starts so I may have missed it--but how about a squelch function on each member's profile that would allow one member to ignore another member's posts? If there already is such a function, maybe someone can point me to it. |
| Mirage | Posted – 4/29/2008 2:50:48 PM | show profile I second that. |
| snappiness | Posted – 4/29/2008 5:24:21 PM | show profile Yes! I've been wishing I could do that. |
| WordyBird | Posted – 5/20/2008 1:53:40 PM | show profile Bumpity-bump-bump. |
| snappiness | Posted – 5/20/2008 2:09:19 PM | show profile Greg says he's lobbying for it. |
| maphop | Posted – 5/20/2008 6:43:07 PM | show profile Oh, Oh, Oh ...and can the squelch parameters include everyone who uses IM-style abbreviations and ALL LOWER CASE too? Especially when they are asking for 1) advice on why they can't get a job, 2) whining because their queries to editors are not being responded to and 3) wonder why their postings to a board designed for communication professionals don't get responses? Please?! |
| deadbeatdad | Posted – 5/20/2008 7:06:32 PM | show profile You might find yourself looking at an empty board. |
| PluckyPane | Posted – 5/21/2008 9:48:05 AM | show profile good point, deadbeatdad. we don't have enough grown ups here to warrant that button because irritated posters who don't like the opinions of others will simply flag the post for removal. if greg's overworked now... |
| Rulebook2 | Posted – 5/23/2008 2:16:42 AM | show profile ^^^^^^^ The ignore function does not remove posts, it simply hides posts from specified handles based on an individual's preferences. That function is not supported by this board (I don't think), so it would require new software. Which is needed, since this board functionality is late-nineties shit. |
| slink | Posted – 5/23/2008 4:17:58 PM | show profile This message-board application doesn't even allow users to edit their own responses. Good luck on getting an Ignore feature. |
| WordyBird | Posted – 6/25/2008 6:15:58 PM | show profile Bumping this up. This needs to be done, soon. Come on, MB, you're supposed to be "cutting edge." Well? |
| ManhattanMatt | Posted – 7/9/2008 8:31:49 PM | show profile Why stop there? Why not just "squelch" everything, everywhere that's not to our taste? Part of being a learned adult in a free society is that you have to be open to ALL points of view, not just the ones you agree with. I'm sure you'd fit in quite well on the Rush Limbaugh Show. |
| Stanley_Milgram | Posted – 7/10/2008 12:16:16 PM | show profile That's a ridiculous comparison, Matt. I'm for a squelch button. It let's the individual control whose posts they want to read (or more to the point, don't want to read). It doesn't interfere with what anyone else can read. I think it can only improve the quality of the experience here which, as many have pointed out, has been sadly in decline. |
| WordyBird | Posted – 7/11/2008 11:41:14 PM | show profile Hey Matt, you missed the point. But then again, maybe you ARE a point. |
| detour_memphis | Posted – 7/14/2008 2:49:58 PM | show profile See everyone wants a picture-perfect board... and you wonder why this board and others have such heated talks about race, office problems, etc. People only want to hear what they believe. The idea of a squelch control will hinder free speech. How would you like it if you were in a meeting and someone stood up and covered your mouth as you wanted to get a thought out? |
| WordyBird | Posted – 7/15/2008 1:25:29 AM | show profile Another one who misses the point. If I were to squelch you, it would mean I can't see your posts. Everyone else can still see them. The squelching is just for my use, so I can scroll down the page more quickly. It's a convenience for each individual user. In other words, it's not banning. See the difference? Or are certain people here so full of themselves that they can't bear the thought of someone choosing, on an individual basis, to ignore their posts? Sorry, but that's just ridiculous. Get over yourselves! |
| robbo | Posted – 7/15/2008 2:03:13 PM | show profile What I don't understand (and I'm really not trying to be an a-hole) is why if you know the name of the poster you don't want to read, you can't just ignore all the posts from them as you scroll down a page. Sort of an all-natural squelch function. |
| rochelle, rochelle | Posted – 7/15/2008 3:28:19 PM | show profile Maybe I haven't had enough coffee today, but I don't get it either. I understand the need to control harassing and threatening interactions, but it seems to me that when you're posting to a public board, you are making yourself somewhat vulnerable to god-knows-who's out there. As for grammatical errors, even the most fastidious of us can slip up from time to time. But if grammatical errors were grounds for being squelched, then I guess maphop's post would have fallen by the wayside for not using parallel construction and misplacing the "1)," which should have gone after "are." |
| WordyBird | Posted – 7/15/2008 3:50:08 PM | show profile "What I don't understand (and I'm really not trying to be an a-hole) is why if you know the name of the poster you don't want to read, you can't just ignore all the posts from them as you scroll down a page. Sort of an all-natural squelch function." 1. Because some of these people post TOMES of garbage in thread after thread after thread. 2. Because some of us are AG members who pay to read the AG threads and don't want to waste our time scrolling and scrolling and scrolling. 3. Because just about every other MODERN BBS system has that option as a convenience to its members. Really, why is this such a big deal? If you don't want to use a squelch function, then don't use it. But I don't see the harm in it for those of us who don't have the time to scroll through pages of nonsense from one or two dingbats to get to the good stuff. Frankly, I think anyone who is offended by this must be afraid of being squelched, themselves. |
| WordyBird | Posted – 7/15/2008 3:53:27 PM | show profile ALSO...some people change their names on here more frequently than the rest of us change our underwear. The squelch function would block posts coming from that *account* from view. |
| WordyBird | Posted – 7/29/2008 12:11:06 AM | show profile Northcoastlife, survey said? EEEENNNNNH! I have been WordyBird on this service for a good eight or nine months now. Go back and read old, old posts, where people address me by name. Also, read other threads where other people incorrectly accused me of being someone else and were corrected by those who are on my LinkedIn and who know me through other freelance groups. My previous moniker was CBL (for Crazy Bird Lady), and before that, about a year and a half ago, I had one that was a play on a certain dessert. That's it. Now move along. |
| WordyBird | Posted – 7/29/2008 12:13:35 AM | show profile And by the way, I haven't been on these boards that much for the last two or three weeks. I've been too busy working my successful little fingers off. And you? |
| ferdinand | Posted – 7/29/2008 12:29:39 AM | show profile I'm no old lady, but I have to say I've never heard of such a thing as a squelch function. And I have to say, too, that I could give two poops whether this board gets a squelch function or not - people will get used to it, and so it will be. But here's the thing, on a conceptual level, that I find bizarre about the concept: If each one of us gets to pick and choose our reality by removing some posters from our view, then that means we no longer have a shared reality - because we're all reading different things! This is just a giant head-scratcher for me. And really, I'm down with most things folks would call modern, but this just makes me go, "Is this what the world has come to?" Am I just being backwards here? Am I the only one? Anyone else feel the cockles of their soul burp, "Me too!"? |
| WordyBird | Posted – 7/29/2008 12:43:39 AM | show profile --But here's the thing, on a conceptual level, that I find bizarre about the concept: If each one of us gets to pick and choose our reality by removing some posters from our view, then that means we no longer have a shared reality - because we're all reading different things! This is just a giant head-scratcher for me. And really, I'm down with most things folks would call modern, but this just makes me go, "Is this what the world has come to?"-- Most BBSes have squelch functions. Some call them "ignore lists." I really don't see what the confusion is about. Then again, I'm an existentialist. |
| 1410dhm | Posted – 7/29/2008 10:39:36 PM | show profile FWIW, Usenet has had this functionality since well before the advent of the Web in the form of killfiles, or "plonk" filters. On one hand, I like the ability to tune out trolls; on the other, I've seen such functionality cause flame wars to escalate in that the combatants are often compelled to announce that they're ignoring their foes. |
