Blocking users

23 200
Avatar for Read.Cash
4 years ago

It's not a fun topic to write about, but these things happen. Some user bugs you and you just don't want to see them anymore.

We have implemented blocking.

Just click the user's username and go to his/her page:

Click "Block user"

Confirm and that's it.

You won't see this person's articles or comments, all of the blocked user's comments will be hidden from your articles, and the person won't be able to see your articles too, seeing this instead:

Not much to say about this feature. Sad, but necessary.

5
$ 1.33
$ 1.00 from @btcfork
$ 0.10 from @Morti
$ 0.10 from @unitedstatian
+ 2
Sponsors of Read.Cash
empty
empty
Avatar for Read.Cash
4 years ago

Comments

It is an interesting move to protect the dignity of the platform and creates room for everyone to not just post irrelevant materials but deliver effective contents with an intent to network, share and inform the community. I think there is more improvements and suggestions to come.

$ 0.00
3 years ago

A feature I’d like to see: being able to sort articles by Tip amount, Post Date, Topic Tags, etc..

$ 0.00
4 years ago

Go to the main page: click "Top" - that's by "Tip amount, click "New" - that's by "Post date", click the topic name - that's the topic. I'm not sure how to "sort by topic name", since each article has at least 10 topics..

$ 0.00
4 years ago

Totally agree, sad but necessary as the site grows we'll need something to block out toxic users and low quality bulk posters

$ 0.10
4 years ago

Yep, all that and also without resorting to full-blown censorship campaign.

$ 0.10
4 years ago

It is very interesting! Anyone that is not adding value to my life will surely be blocked. "I always avoid distractors and timewasters".

$ 0.00
3 years ago

There's no way to downvote. Front page is a limited resource.

$ 0.00
4 years ago

It kind of makes no sense to downvote, because we can't subtract money... I mean then we'd need to show "how much money did the post make", "how much money did the users sent to downvote", etc... It doesn't make much sense.

However, we're almost done with the "Communities" feature, which should really solve the problem of the overcrowded main page. (Even though, I see the crowded main page as a good problem to have, empty one would've been much worse 😁) Give us a few days to finish it.

$ 0.00
4 years ago

Why can't I downvote with money?

No need to subtract it - if I believe that this content is deserving of negative representation, then I should be just as willing to prove that financially as I am to prove financially that content is deserving of praise?

$ 0.00
4 years ago

Who gets the money if you downvote? If it goes to read.cash that may be a sustainable biz model! ;)

$ 0.00
4 years ago

Here are two situations: 1) you and other people can only upvote content. That's cooperation. You're working together. Feels nice. 2) you and other can upvote and downvote. That's competition. Doesn't feel that nice anymore, because suddenly somebody with more money can belittle or totally destroy the results of your efforts. You wouldn't even want to upvote next time.

We want to build something where people cooperate on stuff, not try to undermine each other's effort. This is counterproductive. "If you don't like something, go build something you'd like" - I really liked that idea from Falkvinge's memo:

It means we don’t berate others for doing what we don’t like, but either choose to ignore it, or do something we like instead, which others are free to follow in turn. (In a way, this is just condensing the Internet’s Golden Rule: “If you see something you don’t like, write something else that you do like.”)

What we really need is a way for people to concentrate attention on things they like - i.e. personalization of the feed, creating "communities", where only relevant content is published.

So it's possible that we'll implement something like "Show less content like this", but it's very unlikely that we'll make a "Downvote for all" feature.

$ 0.10
4 years ago

This is the better answer. should've lead with that :)

$ 0.00
4 years ago