Blog Comment Functionality Removal

[Z98]

You object to a decision we made and make a suggestion. We point out issues with said suggestion. You present a counter that has significant security ramifications. We balk at said counter and question if you've thought through your suggestion. You insist that your position is based on your own experience and can be applied here. We find your position unpersuasive continue to disagree and present an alternative. That about sums up this entire thread.

[Black_Fox]

I can't be bothered to read that last one...
Did you go on the course on how to alienate people? If visitors read this and they are inclined not to help I can see why.

Visitors are just pissed because nothing gets done and stuff gets delayed because of these forum discussions that quickly start to get nowhere. Come on, let's go do some testing/translation instead...

[Webunny]

You object to a decision we made and make a suggestion. We point out issues with said suggestion. You present a counter that has significant security ramifications. We balk at said counter and question if you've thought through your suggestion. You insist that your position is based on your own experience and can be applied here. We find your position unpersuasive continue to disagree and present an alternative. That about sums up this entire thread.

You could be a bit more diplomatic about it, though. I know you're utterly convinced that you are right and do the right thing, and consider it a necessary 'thick skin'... but you seem very reluctant in ever doing some self-contemplation about it. I know you've got a pretty low opinion of every poster here not doing actual code, but that doesn't help in establishing good relationship with the public/users/testers. You did it with this one too: you are directly doubting his claimed experience, and largely base yourself on that to brush him off. Mind you: I understand you can't just believe anyone claiming anything on the forum. But wouldn't it have been wiser and more diplomatic to maybe ask for more proof of his credentials, and after that ask him to present his solution and test it out for a while?

Ultimately, whatever theory one goes by, it's the result that counts, right? You're idea doesn't ALWAYS have to be the only correct one, after all - even if you seem to be convinced this is the case. Think of it that way: maybe he IS actually experienced in it, and he CAN do what he claims he can. If, by being a bit more diplomatic and letting him prove his claims, you could engage and 'haul him in', as an experienced webmaster/ CMS-expert, he could be a valuable asset for the website. I mean: it's not like you have an overabundance of people managing the site or have (human) resources enough, do you? You're always complaining you are short-handed. By the way you react - and, let's face it, it's not only this one time - you basically blow any potential chance he would be willing to help. No-one is really inclined to help with any specific thing for ROS/the site if he's treated like that, surely you must see that. One can call it 'hurt feelings' to easily dismiss such complaints, but it's a fact that in a social context, these things ARE important. Being a bit more reflective about it wouldn't hurt neither, you know. You're dealing with human beings here, so you have to use some social skills too.

Now, it's true you can't know if he's BS'ing or not, but why not let him the opportunity to show it? It's doesn't even have to be ROS-related, he said he managed 40 websites; if he can prove that and his management of it seems fine (aka, being capable), that alone would bolster his credentials, would it not? And even if you don't like his take on it, maybe you still could make him interested enough to take up some other work on the site. As said, it's not like we're awash of resources and people doing stuff. If we were, I wouldn't be waiting for over two months, spending a half dozen posts and 2-3 pm's asking, for a simple answer of how to translate the links/tabs under the 'navigation' menu.

I can't be bothered to read that last one...
Did you go on the course on how to alienate people? If visitors read this and they are inclined not to help I can see why.

Visitors are just pissed because nothing gets done and stuff gets delayed because of these forum discussions that quickly start to get nowhere. Come on, let's go do some testing/translation instead...

You have all sort of visitors, just like you have all sort of posters. So I think their reaction will vary too, and the parent poster isn't completely wrong neither, thus. There is no doubt, in general, that some reactions/treatment of 'officials' to visitors puts them more off than others, and makes them less likely to help or to offer help in the future. Someone who doesn't feel appreciated and gets a mental kick in the butt is ALSO going to be less inclined to translate/test/donate/etc. That seem very obvious to me, if you understand the social context of dealing with people. Granted, it might be a slim chance what he says was al true, but if it was - and you could easily test that - we've just made a potential worthwhile aid increasingly and considerably less inclined to help. And for what? The effort of being a bit more diplomatic and asking for some additional proof, and willingness to reconsider a given choice if he can prove his credentials and show he's capable of getting rid of the spam-problem?

[Z98]

He had several opportunities to demonstrate his credibility. The first one was when he brought up the issue and made a suggestion. He proposed usage of a captcha, without getting any more specific than that. There are a lot of captchas out there, some that have been thoroughly broken and others that have not been broken. There are also a lot of captchas that are so painful to use that they stop as many legitimate posters as they do spambots. Those were issues we brought up, which I have no problem with us being the ones to raise them, but he chose not to try to address them beyond saying they worked for him and therefore were a good solution. When the issue moved on to dealing with the inevitability of a captcha being bypassed or broken, his suggestion was to grant wider access to administrative powers. My reaction to that is why in the world does that not sound security alarm bells in the heads of someone who claims to be an experienced sysadmin. I'm assuming he did recognize that that suggestion could turn into a vector of attack on the site because he didn't bother bringing it up again. And finally when I present an alternative that achieves the same "liveness" feel that he wanted without having to make compromises on the main site, his response is he isn't going to bother reading about that alternative.

There are two things that I am utterly convinced of. One is that I make mistakes. The other is that people in general tend to think only from their own perspective and not realize the massive amount of information others are missing relative to themselves. I cannot read other people's minds and thus I cannot know why someone is so confident of a solution they propose. I can only demand that people prove the validity of their solution and maybe in the process get across the point that one should assume others will not understand you and thus you need to provide all the information up front instead of forcing others to drag it out piece by piece. Is this achievable by being more diplomatic? Probably. But that's what Victor and Amine are for. They take the time to ask questions in such a way that a person often answers without possibly realizing that the answers they gave should have been part of the initial post. I demand the answers up front by questioning the basic premise of a person's position to force them to explain their assumptions as quickly as possible.

[Webunny]

He had several opportunities to demonstrate his credibility. The first one was when he brought up the issue and made a suggestion. He proposed usage of a captcha, without getting any more specific than that. There are a lot of captchas out there, some that have been thoroughly broken and others that have not been broken. There are also a lot of captchas that are so painful to use that they stop as many legitimate posters as they do spambots. Those were issues we brought up, which I have no problem with us being the ones to raise them, but he chose not to try to address them beyond saying they worked for him and therefore were a good solution. When the issue moved on to dealing with the inevitability of a captcha being bypassed or broken, his suggestion was to grant wider access to administrative powers. My reaction to that is why in the world does that not sound security alarm bells in the heads of someone who claims to be an experienced sysadmin. I'm assuming he did recognize that that suggestion could turn into a vector of attack on the site because he didn't bother bringing it up again. And finally when I present an alternative that achieves the same "liveness" feel that he wanted without having to make compromises on the main site, his response is he isn't going to bother reading about that alternative.

There are two things that I am utterly convinced of. One is that I make mistakes. The other is that people in general tend to think only from their own perspective and not realize the massive amount of information others are missing relative to themselves. I cannot read other people's minds and thus I cannot know why someone is so confident of a solution they propose. I can only demand that people prove the validity of their solution and maybe in the process get across the point that one should assume others will not understand you and thus you need to provide all the information up front instead of forcing others to drag it out piece by piece. Is this achievable by being more diplomatic? Probably. But that's what Victor and Amine are for. They take the time to ask questions in such a way that a person often answers without possibly realizing that the answers they gave should have been part of the initial post. I demand the answers up front by questioning the basic premise of a person's position to force them to explain their assumptions as quickly as possible.

Well, there you go! You can do an admirable effort if you want to!

What you say is fair enough, however, if you're pointing to vicamaral for the more diplomatic effort, it would be wise to give him a sign to respond to it, before you have already increased the likelihood of someone being less inclined to help. Unless you are truly convinced it's a waste of time anyhow.

An interesting read on captcha's, and something I think is closer to the truth than just claiming captcha's are virtually useless since they don't guarantee they stop 100% of the spam:

http://blog.codinghorror.com/captcha-effectiveness/

[bernarddt]

I think SQLR logins will help. When it is available.

[dizt3mp3r]

If I were you I'd spend less time analysing things and more time doing! I reckon on this forum there are too many brain cells and too many words and I for one are going to stop contributing here. My last post.

[Webunny]

If I were you I'd spend less time analysing things and more time doing! I reckon on this forum there are too many brain cells and too many words and I for one are going to stop contributing here. My last post.

Was that in response to me or to bernarddt, z98 or someone else?

It's difficult to know if you don't use quotes.

[dizt3mp3r]

z98!