posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 04:19 PM
It occurred to me that it might slow down confusion and reduce thread clutter if there were some way people could vote for a post to be marked as
showing clear signs of not reading the thread.
I'm not talking about:
--cases where an answer is a question of interpretation
--where some small post has been overlooked,
--or where an alternative to the official explanation is being discussed
But I am talking about:
---ones where many posters seem to be unaware an official explanation even exists, despite it being posted many times. For example, someone might post
"What on earth could this picture be, it's totally impossible to explain" in a thread where several people have posted cites where the person who
took the picture said it was a giraffe, and included other pictures of giraffes for comparison.
--ones where the thread title and the OP are related in a non-obvious way, but the poster has answered the title. For example, a thread might be
called "Why are giraffes so weird?" and someone might answer with information on the evolution of giraffe necks, without realizing that the content
of the OP was actually about the poster having visions of giraffes singing opera over her bed on a nightly basis.
Right now, what happens is that someone else who didn't read the thread sees the "impossible to explain" post, replies to it, and begins a whole
new chain of conversation predicated on the idea that nobody has any idea what the picture is. Or they also skip the OP, read the evolutionary
explanation post, and they think the thread is about that debate, and we're off to the races.
If there was some way for a certain threshold of votes -- not just one or two, but some number that represents a significant consensus -- to cause a
flag to appear on a post indicating that it appears to be missing very significant amounts of content like that, it might really cut the confusion
that arises in those cases, without creating more work for the mods.