Sugar Babies
Shemales

Author Topic: How to be a forum helper?  (Read 17154 times)

Offline Steely Dan

While it was discussed some time back, a few have forgotten the best practices of being a forum helper. There is now a 'Hayes Manual' for being a helper on Puntingwiki.  Consider this version 1.0.  Head1 has agreed it, but we need to get 'water through the pipes' to see if this helps.
External Link/Members Only
We may alter the guidelines on indexing after the coding expert corrects the current bugs over the next little while. But for now, this is best approach (one escort fucked = one index).


Online Foxtail17

While it was discussed some time back, a few have forgotten the best practices of being a forum helper. There is now a 'Hayes Manual' for being a helper on Puntingwiki.  Consider this version 1.0.  Head1 has agreed it, but we need to get 'water through the pipes' to see if this helps.
External Link/Members Only
We may alter the guidelines on indexing after the coding expert corrects the current bugs over the next little while. But for now, this is best approach (one escort fucked = one index).

Thanks for this. Made the odd blooper myself when I first became a helper.

Online WARSZAWA16

While it was discussed some time back, a few have forgotten the best practices of being a forum helper. There is now a 'Hayes Manual' for being a helper on Puntingwiki.  Consider this version 1.0.  Head1 has agreed it, but we need to get 'water through the pipes' to see if this helps.
External Link/Members Only
We may alter the guidelines on indexing after the coding expert corrects the current bugs over the next little while. But for now, this is best approach (one escort fucked = one index).

Thanks.

Offline mrfishyfoo

While it was discussed some time back, a few have forgotten the best practices of being a forum helper. There is now a 'Hayes Manual' for being a helper on Puntingwiki.  Consider this version 1.0.  Head1 has agreed it, but we need to get 'water through the pipes' to see if this helps.
External Link/Members Only
We may alter the guidelines on indexing after the coding expert corrects the current bugs over the next little while. But for now, this is best approach (one escort fucked = one index).

That's very helpful.  :hi: :hi:

Offline scutty brown

I have to question this one
Quote
If she has a new name, best practice to index once. Mention her old name in comment. Or else the counting does not work. Why? If she has 10 positives with her old name, and ten with her new name. She has 20 positives. But if half of her new name reviews are then also linked to her old name, it looks like she has 25 positive. Defeats the purpose.

I know there was some disagreement over this, but it seems better that reviews are reindexed under a girls latest profile otherwise the older ones get "lost". That always seemed to be Oldadmin's preference, and he said on more than one occasion that he was planned to automate this so that multiple IDs are linked.
As long as readers understand that the only count that matters is the one for the newest profile then there isn't a problem with double counting

Offline Steely Dan

I have to question this one
I know there was some disagreement over this, but it seems better that reviews are reindexed under a girls latest profile otherwise the older ones get "lost". That always seemed to be Oldadmin's preference, and he said on more than one occasion that he was planned to automate this so that multiple IDs are linked.
As long as readers understand that the only count that matters is the one for the newest profile then there isn't a problem with double counting

Current Admin has agreed the statement on the Wiki.  He also confirmed he has a coder lined up to sort out the indexing. Not sure what the outcome of that intervention will be. Meanwhile, best if we all do the same thing, don't you think?

Offline mrfishyfoo

Current Admin has agreed the statement on the Wiki.  He also confirmed he has a coder lined up to sort out the indexing. Not sure what the outcome of that intervention will be. Meanwhile, best if we all do the same thing, don't you think?

How many actually read the wiki ??  :unknown: :unknown:  I suspect many less than what read the main UKP site.

IMHO the count on here is much more important to punters than what's on the wiki.  :hi: :hi:

If the coder is any good all we should see is the current, or most recent, AWank ID with all previous "identies" linked when drilling down into the pro$$ies reviews.

Offline PatMacGroin

While it was discussed some time back, a few have forgotten the best practices of being a forum helper. There is now a 'Hayes Manual' for being a helper on Puntingwiki.  Consider this version 1.0.  Head1 has agreed it, but we need to get 'water through the pipes' to see if this helps.
External Link/Members Only
We may alter the guidelines on indexing after the coding expert corrects the current bugs over the next little while. But for now, this is best approach (one escort fucked = one index).

Thanks for this.

I thought it was policy to index both/multiple AW ID's to a review when the WG has reprofiled several times. I thought it made it easier to identify the WG's full history of profiles without having to individually scan through every review to find individual postings referencing their other profiles.

Obviously, it can make the count totals a bit confusing at first glance. Unless someone goes through their full history of reviews indexing every ID so that all the totals pull through as identical. And then that gets even more complicated when you have WG's that have reprofiled dozens of times (is there a max limit on profiles that can be indexed to a review?). Or profiles that have been repeatedly swapped back and forth between several different active WG's.

I don't often index profiles. Usually some one else beats me to it. I'll keep an eye on this thread for further instructions.

P.S. Just in case some helpers don't notice this thread, it might be a good idea to PM helpers with a link to it? I know I only check the new reviews boards regularly, and only check this general threads board occasionally. Although not sure how many helpers there are or if you have an easy mass PM function.

Offline PatMacGroin

How many actually read the wiki ??  :unknown: :unknown:  I suspect many less than what read the main UKP site.

IMHO the count on here is much more important to punters than what's on the wiki.  :hi: :hi:

If the coder is any good all we should see is the current, or most recent, AWank ID with all previous "identies" linked when drilling down into the pro$$ies reviews.

There'll probably be all sorts of ideas about how this should be approached. As with all issues like this it'll come down to:
- How good the coder is
- How complicated you want to make it (so that it's simple enough to be maintained and updated in the future)
- How much does Admin want to spend on this not for profit website

Offline scutty brown

Current Admin has agreed the statement on the Wiki.  He also confirmed he has a coder lined up to sort out the indexing. Not sure what the outcome of that intervention will be. Meanwhile, best if we all do the same thing, don't you think?

But did he know that your post disagreed with past practice and is simply your interpretation of how the forum should work? And that your interpretation was at variance with actual practice?

Offline mrfishyfoo

Thanks for this.

I thought it was policy to index both/multiple AW ID's to a review when the WG has reprofiled several times. I thought it made it easier to identify the WG's full history of profiles without having to individually scan through every review to find individual postings referencing their other profiles.

Obviously, it can make the count totals a bit confusing at first glance. Unless someone goes through their full history of reviews indexing every ID so that all the totals pull through as identical. And then that gets even more complicated when you have WG's that have reprofiled dozens of times (is there a max limit on profiles that can be indexed to a review?). Or profiles that have been repeatedly swapped back and forth between several different active WG's.

I don't often index profiles. Usually some one else beats me to it. I'll keep an eye on this thread for further instructions.

P.S. Just in case some helpers don't notice this thread, it might be a good idea to PM helpers with a link to it? I know I only check the new reviews boards regularly, and only check this general threads board occasionally. Although not sure how many helpers there are or if you have an easy mass PM function.

Exactly !!!   :hi: :hi:

Offline mrfishyfoo

But did he know that your post disagreed with past practice and is simply your interpretation of how the forum should work? And that your interpretation was at variance with actual practice?

Here's a good example of multi-profile indexing in action.

https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=274936

Don't personally see how anyone would conclude that the lass had 32 reviews.  :hi: :hi:

If the code that does the counting in the WIKI gives 32 then maybe it needs looking at ??  :unknown: :unknown:

Offline Steely Dan


If the code that does the counting in the WIKI gives 32 then maybe it needs looking at ??  :unknown: :unknown:
Forget the wiki for now.  The current issue is the counting directly on this forum is a bit broken.  Once that is repaired, we can reflect on what is best.  How many positives an escort had 3+ years ago is of little interest to most of us anyway - what is more important is what is she like recently, and will my punt with her next week be good!

Offline millbush

My "coding man" could fix that in a trice if you want not exactly rocket science,I'd even have a fair stab at it.
Banned reason: Troll.
Banned by: daviemac

Offline scutty brown

Here's a good example of multi-profile indexing in action.

https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=274936

Don't personally see how anyone would conclude that the lass had 32 reviews.  :hi: :hi:

If the code that does the counting in the WIKI gives 32 then maybe it needs looking at ??  :unknown: :unknown:

Whereas if we didn't reindex old reviews to new profiles, those 14 reviews would get stretched over three unlinked profiles: we'd lose the overview

Offline scutty brown

Forget the wiki for now.  The current issue is the counting directly on this forum is a bit broken.  Once that is repaired, we can reflect on what is best.  How many positives an escort had 3+ years ago is of little interest to most of us anyway - what is more important is what is she like recently, and will my punt with her next week be good!

If the wiki is wrong it needs changing now before the wrong instructions get cast in stone.
Its wrong, we know its wrong, it needs fixing

Offline millbush

You are ignoring this user. Show me the post.

Offers open without obligation I imagine these 2 posts are not offering though.
Banned reason: Troll.
Banned by: daviemac

Offline scutty brown

You are ignoring this user. Show me the post.

Offers open without obligation I imagine these 2 posts are not offering though.

WTF are you talking about?

Offline mrfishyfoo

Forget the wiki for now.  The current issue is the counting directly on this forum is a bit broken.  Once that is repaired, we can reflect on what is best.  How many positives an escort had 3+ years ago is of little interest to most of us anyway - what is more important is what is she like recently, and will my punt with her next week be good!


Then what's the point in indexing fullstop ??  :dash: :dash:

I for one like to know what a lass will do in a room and that means reading ALL her reviews not just her most recent ones.  :hi: :hi:

« Last Edit: March 05, 2020, 08:00:41 pm by mrfishyfoo »

Offline millbush

You are ignoring this user. Show me the post.

I'll gladly accept a PM from a serious inquiry,this problem would be childs play for my coder.
I wouldn't even charge for it.
Banned reason: Troll.
Banned by: daviemac

Offline mrfishyfoo

Whereas if we didn't reindex old reviews to new profiles, those 14 reviews would get stretched over three unlinked profiles: we'd lose the overview

HAMMER !!! NAIL !!! HEAD !!!

.....unless The Boss  :hi: :hi: has a different perspective on the matter.  :unknown: :unknown:

Me thinks Head1's guidance is required here   :unknown: :unknown: before this turns into a "shouting" match.  :scare: :scare:

Offline mrfishyfoo

Here's an example of one of the lost.

https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=275342

This lass has more than 2 reviews on here. If the "new" guidance is followed then what about all the others that are showing at the top of my review from 2 years ago ??

https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=177894


Offline millbush

Here's an example of one of the lost.

https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=275342

This lass has more than 2 reviews on here. If the "new" guidance is followed then what about all the others that are showing at the top of my review from 2 years ago ??

https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=177894

I've offered to get it this sort of issue fixed for nothing,I await a serious response.
Banned reason: Troll.
Banned by: daviemac

Offline scutty brown

I've offered to get it this sort of issue fixed for nothing,I await a serious response.

Only serious offers are likely to get a serious response - and I suspect your offer is  unlikely to be taken seriously. You cocked up your last two posts in this thread, your chances of getting coding right seem unlikely.
Of course you weren't offering your services - is your coder aware you were offering his services FOC? I'm sure he'll be happy with that

Offline Steely Dan

Here's an example of one of the lost.

https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=275342

This lass has more than 2 reviews on here. If the "new" guidance is followed then what about all the others that are showing at the top of my review from 2 years ago ??

https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=177894
We are on the same side.  We want the numbers to be right, why not? First, the coding needs fixing - the first link, at first look, shows 0 0 0.  Broken. When it is fixed, we will all rally round to get all the numbers sorted, based on what solution the coder creates.  Meanwhile, less is more.

Offline PatMacGroin

We are on the same side.  We want the numbers to be right, why not? First, the coding needs fixing - the first link, at first look, shows 0 0 0.  Broken. When it is fixed, we will all rally round to get all the numbers sorted, based on what solution the coder creates.  Meanwhile, less is more.

Coders/Developers can be a funny lot. Almost as bad as mechanics sucking the air over their teeth as some sort of universal signal meaning:
"This will take forever and cost you as much as I can get out of you"
in response to your exasperated exclamation of:
"I don't know what's wrong with it, it it's not working. You're the mechanic. It's your job to find out what's wrong, and fix it."

With developers it's usually best to have a clear idea of how you want something to work, and what you want it to look like in the end, before you get started. Providing them with clear specification documents stating user requirements and acceptance criteria. Even mocking up a process flow diagram explaining exactly how the procedure should work. Otherwise you can go round and round in circles for a long time.

The difference between a Car Mechanic and a Developer, is that if we don't know what it's supposed to do, then the developer wont know either.

Offline scutty brown

We are on the same side.  We want the numbers to be right, why not? First, the coding needs fixing - the first link, at first look, shows 0 0 0.  Broken. When it is fixed, we will all rally round to get all the numbers sorted, based on what solution the coder creates.  Meanwhile, less is more.

The indexing still works, that's not broken. All that's broken is the review count, and OldAdmin broke that before he left.
Maybe the count will get fixed, but waiting for it before indexing is a fools errand as it may never happen.
In the meantime we should carry on as before, reindexing when replacement profiles appear

Offline mrfishyfoo

Coders/Developers can be a funny lot. Almost as bad as mechanics sucking the air over their teeth as some sort of universal signal meaning:
"This will take forever and cost you as much as I can get out of you"
in response to your exasperated exclamation of:
"I don't know what's wrong with it, it it's not working. You're the mechanic. It's your job to find out what's wrong, and fix it."

With developers it's usually best to have a clear idea of how you want something to work, and what you want it to look like in the end, before you get started. Providing them with clear specification documents stating user requirements and acceptance criteria. Even mocking up a process flow diagram explaining exactly how the procedure should work. Otherwise you can go round and round in circles for a long time.

The difference between a Car Mechanic and a Developer, is that if we don't know what it's supposed to do, then the developer wont know either.

This ^^^

Offline Head1

  • Site Owner
  • Moderator
  • **
  • Posts: 2,016
  • Likes: 55
  • Reviews: 0
HAMMER !!! NAIL !!! HEAD !!!

.....unless The Boss  :hi: :hi: has a different perspective on the matter.  :unknown: :unknown:

Me thinks Head1's guidance is required here   :unknown: :unknown: before this turns into a "shouting" match.  :scare: :scare:

Its a matter of trust and patience
I'm not having someone I don't know poking about in here
It will be sorted.......eventually :drinks: 

Offline mrfishyfoo

Its a matter of trust and patience
I'm not having someone I don't know poking about in here
It will be sorted.......eventually :drinks:

 :lol: :lol: :lol:

Fingers crossed.  :hi: :hi:

Offline Moby Dick

If I see multiple or new AW profiles of the same WG then I will index them on the most recent review.
For me it is better we can readily see the history and link to other reviews on obsolete profiles rather than if the numbers add up. I would like to see that the latest “current” profile has at least one link to each of their previous profile reviews. Adding them all is not necessary but does not harm if helpers have time to spare.

Offline Liverpool

On the London board I've seen 'redundant thread' added to topics that have been covered ad infinitum. Is this something as forum helpers we should be getting involved in doing? I've checked the forum helper wiki but could see no guidance. Grateful for a steer.

Offline scutty brown

On the London board I've seen 'redundant thread' added to topics that have been covered ad infinitum. Is this something as forum helpers we should be getting involved in doing? I've checked the forum helper wiki but could see no guidance. Grateful for a steer.

got any examples?
its something that could easily go wrong - there's never been any suggestion we should make that kind of decision. Who's doing it?

Offline Liverpool

Hidden Image/Members Only

That's what I thought when I saw it that us making decisions like that goes over our jurisdiction as helpers, but thought to check with those in charge or the moderators.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2020, 07:00:26 pm by Liverpool »

Offline scutty brown

Hidden Image/Members Only

yeah I found them after you posted
its a bloody stupid idea tantamount to attempted censorship

Offline kuck

Indexing non AW reviews - here's an idea for discussion.

Could we use 10 digit high numbers starting with 99999 as ids to index non-adultwork profiles?
e.g.
 - Dorami Lulu - 9999900001
 - Diva Light Brown Oliva - 9999900002
 - Olina Lara - 9999900003

and so on.

We could have a thread that serves as an index for these numbers.

Offline bedhedred

Indexing non AW reviews - here's an idea for discussion.

Could we use 10 digit high numbers starting with 99999 as ids to index non-adultwork profiles?
e.g.
 - Dorami Lulu - 9999900001
 - Diva Light Brown Oliva - 9999900002
 - Olina Lara - 9999900003

and so on.

We could have a thread that serves as an index for these numbers.

I suggested this several weeks ago to use dummy ids. It's a useful way to get around the restriction. Is there any reason why it would not work?

Cheers FS.

Totally agree regarding the lists. I was quite daunted by the volume of her reviews and then I realised someone (actually you) had already done a partial link compilation at the last review.

I often struggle with the ukp search facility and it is not always so easy to extract the info consistently.

Half of the Hod roster have left and some have set up aw profiles. So that may become a way to aggregate their pre aw reviews.

If you can index using a real aw identifier, then could a dummy identifier not be used for a non-aw SP?
« Last Edit: October 12, 2020, 02:24:38 pm by bedhedred »

Offline daviemac

  • Board Moderator
  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 25,013
  • Likes: 369
  • Reviews: 24
Indexing non AW reviews - here's an idea for discussion.

Could we use 10 digit high numbers starting with 99999 as ids to index non-adultwork profiles?
e.g.
 - Dorami Lulu - 9999900001
 - Diva Light Brown Oliva - 9999900002
 - Olina Lara - 9999900003

and so on.

We could have a thread that serves as an index for these numbers.
Who's going to number them.   :unknown:

Offline bedhedred

If there was a dedicated thread, then the forum helper would add the girls name and increment the number for everyone to reference. It is not fool proof but with a little care it could be made to work.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2020, 02:27:17 pm by bedhedred »

Offline daviemac

  • Board Moderator
  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 25,013
  • Likes: 369
  • Reviews: 24
If there was a dedicated thread, then the forum helper would add the girls name and increment the number for everyone to reference. It is not fool proof but with a little care it could be made to work.
So what you mean is have another thread for reviews that aren't AW ones? do you mean one thread to include all areas or one extra one for each area.  :unknown: 

What's wrong with the way it is now, all reviews for a given area are in one place, members can scroll through or use the search function with the escort's name. 

In my opinion it's just extra work to make life easier for the lazier members. The search function works perfectly, give it a try, I've just put 'Bliss massage' (who advertise on Gumtree) 'NE region' in the search and it's brought up 33 reviews amongst the 50 results.

Edit

You probably don't realise how many mistakes are made by forum helpers when indexing AW reviews, so good luck with the care that's needed to make this work.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2020, 02:44:47 pm by daviemac »

Offline kuck


You probably don't realise how many mistakes are made by forum helpers when indexing AW reviews, so good luck with the care that's needed to make this work.

Hadn't considered this.

Could we trial it for a while? Will it be easy to revert if it doesn't go to plan?

Offline daviemac

  • Board Moderator
  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 25,013
  • Likes: 369
  • Reviews: 24
Hadn't considered this.

Could we trial it for a while? Will it be easy to revert if it doesn't go to plan?
Not my decision mate, you need to ask Head1 if he's willing to set up new threads to accommodate it. I think you will need to convince him why the search function isn't good enough though.

Have to say if he asks for opinions in the mods forum I would be against it, I don't see the advantage of complicating matters when all the information is available with a few clicks.

As an aside OldAdmin was working for quite a while on a system to index VivaStreet adverts the same way as AW but he could never get it to work correctly.

 

Offline scutty brown

Vivastreet profiles are so transient and the photos so fake that any attempt would be pointless.
Even trying to index parlour profiles would be difficult due to the high churn rate

Offline SynDee

  • Banned
  • Service Provider
  • Posts: 34
  • Likes: 1
Its a matter of trust and patience
I'm not having someone I don't know poking about in here
It will be sorted.......eventually :drinks:
  :drinks: AMEN xx
Banned reason: Total loon. Posting a review of herself.
Banned by: daviemac

Online southcoastpunter


You probably don't realise how many mistakes are made by forum helpers when indexing AW reviews,

what sort of mistakes do you mean ? (I might be one of those innocently making them)

Offline daviemac

  • Board Moderator
  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 25,013
  • Likes: 369
  • Reviews: 24
what sort of mistakes do you mean ? (I might be one of those innocently making them)
Missing a digit off the number, not checking the OP has posted the correct AW link for the review he's posted, there's a few that get reported.

Offline scutty brown

Indexing an AW or Gumtree profile could be done as they all have unique IDs.
The problem is in the short-term nature of most of them. After 30 days most are gone, making the effort pointless
« Last Edit: January 07, 2022, 12:33:43 pm by scutty brown »

Offline daviemac

  • Board Moderator
  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 25,013
  • Likes: 369
  • Reviews: 24
Indexing an AW or Gumtree profile could be done as they all have unique IDs.
The problem is in the short-term nature of most of them. After 30 days most are gone, making the effort pointless
OldAdmin looked onto indexing Gumtree etc and it wasn't viable.

Online southcoastpunter

a question related to best practice for forum helpers please.

I thought forum helpers could only change review ratings with the specific prior approval of the OP so to avoid FH's interpreting things for themselves and avoiding things such as "well it reads to me more like a negative than a neutral or positive etc. Is this so?

(the one that makes me ask the question is a fairly blatant positive that should be negative but i asked the Op to confirm but yet another FH comes along and just changes it (as far as i can see). Whilst i am not in any way disputing this individual rating change - i would like clarification as to whether we FH's can/should use our discretion on rating changes or does it always need the OP's specific approval?

Offline Goldfinch

it always need the OP's specific approval
This has always been my understanding.

External Link/Members Only

Correct Rating

Only do this if you are certain it is the punters choice.Usually this is when the punter asks it to be changed.It could be something obvious like it says neutral or negative in the text so it is certain.But otherwise, wait until the punters agrees. Example: he may describe a Bait and Switch. Which you think should be negative. Result: don't change. Because it is his review, not yours. When in doubt, leave it or report it.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2022, 02:23:05 pm by Goldfinch »