Sounds kinda like NG.

Seconded on the NG vibe. Sounds good

a lot of the ideas sound like something else (ng, sa), but it beats the current moderation/control system (4chan) any way ya look at it =)

That music made this YTMND a solid winner.

It really, seriously does. Cept with site performance instead of age.

As soon as the voice kicked in, I knew it was C & C and I knew it was go time. Let's do this! REVOLUTION. REFORM. RECONSTRUCT.

+2

We have a current moderation system? It exists, but right now its not effective.

5'f for epic C&C old school music!

+1

i never thought i'd see the day when RA2 is old school... hell, i remember when RA1 was fairly new. still, hell march + that other music = cool

I also think there shouldn't be more than two users on a single IP.

+1

Some colleges use 1 ip. Impractical. Some of the best users on this site use alts, either voting or non-voting. Some of the most important figures in literature used pseudonyms or multiple pseudonyms. Kierkegaard published a critique of one of his own works that he published under one pseudonym under another pseudonym. I didn't think that we were in the habit of blatantly restricting creativity.

+7

Oh, but, I forgot. Complaining about quality and alts is really just a thinly veiled disguise for everyone's continual bitching and moaning about their inability to effectively votewhore with downvoters and alts present. Your site ratings are not serious business. Get over it. Downvoters affect all sites fairly equally, your site is not harmed relative to any others. [comments aimed at ytmnd 'community', or aggregate of immature attention whores]

+4

Gimmick downvoters are equal. One person's 20 alts that are used soley to target certain people are not. I've long stopped caring about my ratings, but when you get attacked the moment you make a site it does get frustrating.

+2

Korf41 can namedrop like nobody's business. But to put it in layman's terms, imagine a world with no Dr. L337.

never liked kierkegaard.

+1

dynamic IPs

only max can vote. and inkdrinker.

+3

And me, i'm a good guy.

I second this.

Make this happen

agreed

yes...YES! Punch the keys for Gods sake!!

-2

isnt the IP rule already in affect? and i dont like the plus 1 rule, because the absolute max sites you can make in a week is 6, and while that's good for the sh*tty YTMNDers, let's not put a cap on the good ones

by "IP rule" i'm referring to the first one btw

it doesn't seem to be. i'm on a shared lan, and my friends can log in after i log out / at the same time.

That sound is definitely from Command and Conquer.

No posting on Digg.com or popular forums espcially wow forums.

+1

that music kicks ass.

Good ideas. Should they be retroactive???

I say history is good the way it is =) Stats retroactive, but weight system would just make everyone throw a fit "my site USED to be a 4.3, now it's a 4.2. WHINEWHINEWHINE"

hahaha funny site man

lol i love how the song kicked into full swing the second I read the last line. Also, not a bad idea

5'd for Truth, Justice, and C&C Hell March

Vote weighting based on average rating of a users' sites is a terrible idea.

+6

think of it as elective republic -- someone who has high ranked sites has goodwill of the site and more clout than shmoe up/downvoter off the net. it's not like someone could dictatorially control a ytmnd's fate, just have more "oomph."

+1

For example, fad sites usually average a high rating. Users who make exclusively fad sites will end up having the most vote power, who will in turn upvote other fad sites. It will stagnate creativity. Everyone should have the same vote power.

+7

sites with cats have incredibly inflated scores. The higher the ratio of cat sites to total sites, the higher the average vote ratio, the more power they wield, even though their sites are horrible. And, regardless of quality, most users' averages settle in between 2.5-3.5, and a user with a 1.0 rating has 1/2 the power of a user with a 2.0 rating, but a 5 star user has only 5/4 the power of a 4 star user. Idiotic idea.

+4

the relationship between average rating and vote power needn't be linear.

Then why did you demand a linear relationship? weight = avg site rating + 1 = a linear relationship.

+1

i'm not demanding anything. i made a site. 'avg site rating'+1 is the base of the calculation.

I don't think we should use the the weight by average rating until we have made a reform in that area.

vote weighting is a f*ckin retarded idea. The only thing that would happen would be one big circle jerk of upvoting so a users voting power could go up. Anyone whos been around long enough has seen the "hey you upvoted me, i'll upvote you" sh*t that happens here. gayed.

+5

Cooke, that is a "slippery slope" argument, and it is fallacious. Just because someone makes a fad site does not mean that they are incapable of recognizing the merits of an original site. A user could have made a single fad site, that does not mean that they are suddenly partial to the fad sites of others. I think icenine's presumption is that ytmnders that make quality sites are more judicious with voting than those who do not make good sites, or any at all (such as myself), and I think this is the case.

Dude... Fad sites usually get TERRIBLE ratings, especially mine for some reason. I made a NEDM/300 site, and it diddn't get that high a rating. It's just terrible. I vote for this system!

-3

Uh did you guys miss this somehow? http://wiki.ytmnd.com/YTMND:Weighted_Voting#Max.27s_attempt_at_an_algorithm

"Cooke, that is a "slippery slope" argument, and it is fallacious." Actually it's a "best response". Just like split voting. It's what rational people do, given that they don't value integrity.

I'd have to say its more phallicious!

the voting system we need must not create a pavlovian response loop of similar and bad sites. it should encourage creativity, and quality. how to do this is the question

Suggestions are pretty good. I think that after a certain time limit, all sites that are between 1 and 1.99 should be deleted, to clear out the trash. There are so many terrible sites clogging the works.

-2

http://ytmnd.com/users/J-Man/. Not to mention that would wipe out almost everything ever made by inkdrinker, adverb, etc. I don't think storage space is really costing the site nearly as much as transfer costs from off-site linking.

-1

in response to bleys, sure it may not clear up much in costs, but, it will definately get rid of crap clogging searches, as well as discourage dumbasses from using ytmnd as much and making it less fun for the rest of us

-1

This is a terrible list of reforms. I live with 4 other college aged kids and we share the same ip. Entire colleges share ips. Thus, all your ip related rules are completely worthless. As for your sites per week, that is horrible as well. The best RATED user can create 6 sites per week (aka the guy who has made 400 horrible sites but keeps the one site with 2 votes and a 5.00 rating) and for everyone else it's just an arbitrary number. It encourages deleting sites lost to the void, not good sites...

+1

more identity verification's necessary, and ips are the only viable choice. lifetime rating could include all sites created, regardless of whether they've since been deleted.

-2

Actually there is no viable choice. Deal with it.

+4

bassem.

Your weighted voting system suffers the same problems, and discourages creativity and experimentation, as they will hurt your average site score. Horrible ideas across the board. I don't think I could have come up with a worse list had I tried.

+3

i disagree here; i believe it would encourage effort, forethought, and prevent quality content from being scrolled off recently created in 15 seconds. if your average goes down, then no big deal. just try again later.

If you actually believe what you say, then you're incredibly naive. But, you've already proven that and THEN some with your pitiful quality manifesto that doesn't even make a single demand of quality and isn't even a manifesto, merely a list of demands. I demand a f*cking pony. It would certainly be better than the things you propose, because your propositions would do harm. They wouldn't do more harm than good, because there is no good to speak of.

+2

i'm not demanding anything. i made a site and sponsored it.

I'm inclined to agree, weighted voting is a terrible idea. It would lead to cabals of voters who would upvote each other and downvote everyone else, giving themselves boosted voting power while at the same time reducing others. It would lead to a system where people voted to affect the balance of power rather than on a sites merits, which defeats the whole point of having voting at all.

+1

get rid of voting? lol.

Honestly, I'm too drunk to understand your proposal.

I visit this site semi-regularly but don't have the talent or means to produce anything I'd consider a contribution. I consider it my responsibility not to post whatever garbage I'd make just to earn a right to an opinion. Think for a moment about how people can appreciate art or music without needing to be artists or musicians. YTMND is the same way but vastly less difficult to appreciate, since the product here is, well, you know.

+2

Just thinking about this for 15 seconds yielded the following abuses: 1) Downvoting sites to reduce vote influence. 2) Upvoting morons to increase vote influence in exchange for their upvotes. 3) Alts upvoting each other's copied sites to wield even more influence. What you actually want is to have a natural aristocracy. What I suggest is you create your own site with these reforms and see how it goes. You and your friends can each appreciate your own vast superiority to the lame sites you find here.

+1

1 and 2 happen on a site rather than user level already, and it's a lot harder to swing an entire catalog of sites. idea's this: a disproportionate number of the best sites come from some dedicated users, just like in any system. the idea here is to reward users with overall high quality sites for their efforts and keep them coming back -- a lot like free market capitalism, where you get to keep and spend the money you earn.

3 would be curtailed by ip filtering and moderation. think of the ip filter as a hedge against less devious abusers, kind of like a red light or stop sign. you get a lot more people following the rules than if you just said 'stop at every intersection.'

5 for good ideas and sponsorship. I don't like the idea of banning people with multiple users on the same IP. I'd prefer it if a moderation team looked over accounts that share the same IP and handed out punishment if abuse/alt voting was going on.

actually a lot of your ideas suck, but at least you're promoting some kind of discussion about it

+1

I agree, the idea's arnt fantastic. Thank you for throwing something out there, i have been trying to think of a few ways to improve the site myself.

+1

those rules suck

+2

Ive had friends log on their accounts from my computer.

+2

Ariel porn = auto5

5 for trying to improve ytmnd. i didn't take the time to understand it though...

i agree more things need to be done about "malicious" alts, but most of the stuff you listed will probably end up f*cking someone over thats legit. also weighted voting could end up being abused imo, and just make things worse like people have already mentioned above.

Your name and your bad ideas have convinced me that you are trying to destroy ytmnd. In your system, people are rewarded not for making quality sites, but rather for making sites which are either liked by a bunch of idiots, or which get one five vote before being forgotten by everyone. Also, people who are disliked by the majority should not have their opinions count less simply because they are disliked. Oh yeah, and your IP idea is unusable in real life, BTape's idea is better.

Yeah, that'd certainly end the life of a troll. Unless the troll votes on his own sites (CHANGING HIS IP AS WELL) and sticks it into the up&coming.

Eh, two for at least kind of thinking about it, I guess.

awesome

Wow that's the stupidest thing I've ever read. You make one bad site and have to wait a week to make another one, that's dumb. And the IP bit? There's this thing called NAT and sometimes lots of different people can be behind the same firewall (4 roomies behind a router, an apartment behind a big pipe, etc.) 1'd.

3'd for audio and connery image

how about this, post a WoW related site = instant ban

YTMND IS SRS BSNS

Dumb. Way to sponsor your own site, douche. I can't be totally mad though, because yours $40.18 may be just enough money to keep YTMND alive for that extra 24 hours so I can see enough funny sites, making me forget this one. Elitist attitudes suck. Go ahead and downvote my sites, perhaps you will lower the amount I can make next week.

how's it elitist? make well-rated sites and you get bonuses.

+1

lol, do you even read your own posts ice?

yes, i do. that's how it's elitist: make well-rated sites and you're given bonuses.

however high site rating does not = quality in some cases

Pros: Polished site. Good aesthetic. Donation. ATTEMPTING to produce good ideas. Cons: see korf41's posts.

i guess this should be 4.49 ones

I like it.

+1

5 stars for HM.... I'm against the idea of it, though.

We didn't start this fire...

I diagree with the idea, but fived for the EPIC use of that music. Manifesto indeed. HURRAH!

5'd for hell march remix, best song in Red Alert history.

1 site per week per user.. that should force people to take thier time making a good ytmnd delete inactive users. that will make it far more annoying to have 100 alts.. if they get deleted after not beeing logged in. reeintroduce "moderators Favorites". this time with a better MOD system. maybe make a parallel site for MOD favorites. An idea would be to make severel parallel ytmnd sites, with each its own ytmnd style or Fad.

-1

...Because nothing would be more fun than wandering through the Brian Peppers parallel site. Ooooo boy. Can't wait to click through 73,457 emo suicide sites one after the other. And imagine how f*cking balls *ss great the EPIC universe would be. Joy.

+1

excelent idea.

-1

lame. atleast max made $40.18 though

+1

word.. i also can't believe i am on the same side as Korf on this one.

im sorry, i dont even slightly agree with any of these. i share a computer with family members and think the ip address idea is crappy, sites with low rating should be autodeleted when they drop out of the last page of newly created, not restrict the amount made. also, alt account bans should only happen if the user up votes their own sites/ downvotes a site(s) with all/some of their accounts. if these rules came into effect i'd stop sponsoring sites, perhaps stop using ytmnd altogether

also, about restricting users making crap sites, i like to make many sites. i havent made any successful ones, my average rating is around 3 for my existing sites. but if my sites do poorly and it is clear they are not gonna be popular, i delete them. however, a 4 for suggesting changes and we need users like you on the site. the site is rapidly becoming less and less funny and some sort of change has to happen