More data -- How many people are ignoring a user

[Frabjous]

It would be nice if when we click on a user’s name if we could see the number (not names) of people who were ignoring the user.

 

[berkeman]

I've never seen that in a Profile before. Where do you find that?

 

[Nugatory]

It would be nice if when we click on a user’s name if we could see the number (not names) of people who were ignoring the user.

As far as I know that information is not even available to the mentors.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Interesting, but a negative metric that could be uncomfortable for many

 

[Frabjous]

Interesting, but a negative metric that could be uncomfortable for many

I would respond that there are three or four users over the past couple of years that I wish that I had not paid any attention to. Most of them were eventually banned. Providing the information would provide them with unbiased information from peers which might inspire them to mend their ways and also provide warning to some of PF’s stronger personalities to help prevent some of the confrontations that lead to banning.

I think that in an effort to be helpful, we sometimes enable behaviors that are detrimental.

Maybe the count should only be for the previous month so that people are not tarred with youthful indiscretions.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I would respond that there are three or four users over the past couple of years that I wish that I had not paid any attention to. Most of them were eventually banned.

I think a better way is for users to make use of the "report a post" feature so the staff can handle them professionally.

 

[Paul Colby]

People would have to pester me a great deal before I would ignore them.

test: in the last reply I made in the quantum forum it refused to format the latex. $2+2=4$ what gives? Feel free to ignore this.

 

[berkeman]

People would have to pester me a great deal before I would ignore them.

test: in the last reply I made in the quantum forum it refused to format the latex. #2+2=4# what gives? Feel free to ignore this.

Double-#

 

[pinball1970]

I would respond that there are three or four users over the past couple of years that I wish that I had not paid any attention to. Most of them were eventually banned. Providing the information would provide them with unbiased information from peers which might inspire them to mend their ways and also provide warning to some of PF’s stronger personalities to help prevent some of the confrontations that lead to banning.

I think that in an effort to be helpful, we sometimes enable behaviors that are detrimental.

Maybe the count should only be for the previous month so that people are not tarred with youthful indiscretions.

I think it would put people off. New users and regular users, the non Scientists would feel stupid and self conscious and god forbid a big hitter got an 'ignored' against their name.
Imagine Phinds or V50? They would go on a killing spree. Everyone would pay, EVERYONE!
My vote is stick to report.

 

[Paul Colby]

It might be useful for oneself to know the number of people ignoring you? I guess maybe $N$ people find you useless and annoying isn’t very uplifting for $N>0.$

 

[pinball1970]

It might be useful for oneself to know the number of people ignoring you? I guess maybe $N$ people find you useless and annoying isn’t very uplifting for $N>0.$

Would the feedback on the posts not provide that kind of information?
In a more constructive way?

 

[Paul Colby]

Certainly, the ratio of messages to reaction score is sufficient information. I'm impressed by yours, BTW.

 

[pinball1970]

Certainly, the ratio of messages to reaction score is sufficient information. I'm impressed by yours, BTW.

I was referring to comments in terms of content. The vast majority of my upvoted are not Science related. Music, general stuff.