Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => General Discussion => Topic started by: Matthew on August 26, 2022, 05:41:55 PM
-
I had to replace my Internet hardware today.
TURNED OUT TO BE A HUGE PRODUCTION DEAL.
Took 5 hours out of my afternoon. But the fallout was serious.
The technician did a hardware reset on my router. ("Don't worry, I'm just a Grandma that uses the router to share the Internet between 1 old PC and my 1 smartphone. I'm not a power user or anything!" ::))
Just as serious: they are switching to a new range of IP addresses for their static IP customers -- that means me. Giving me a new static IP is a HUGE deal, for obvious reasons.
I have to change all my domains over to the new static IP address! And then there's the propagation delay.
It will take 2-48 hours for the whole world to catch up to the new Internet location of "CathInfo.com" and my other web properties.
There are always some lucky ones who update right away. If you're reading this early Friday evening, congratulations you lucky duck! I was not so lucky. I had to cheat by adding CathInfo's new IP address to my local hostfile.
198.46.13.253 cathinfo.com
198.46.13.253 www.cathinfo.com
-
I guess I’m a lucky one! :laugh1: All kidding aside, sorry about your troubles Matthew.
-
It was out all day for me. I was just now able to get in. I thought the NWO had taken you out.
-
The box that connects us to the Internet really needed replacing. The white plastic was actually discolored from a few years of being warm. AND it was causing brief outages (personal outages, just for me!) all by itself.
If I had known, however, what a can of worms this was going to be, I might have put it off a bit longer. Or at least prepared better.
-
I'm setting up CathInfo on what's probably a DYNAMIC (changing) IP address.
So the outages are NOT over or behind us yet, unfortunately.
I'm getting a new router, since that piece of equipment seems to be going, going gone. But that's not the only problem. The main problem is that my ISP isn't giving me the static IP I'm paying for. When I reboot the router, I get a new IP!
But for all of Friday (6 PM on, until Saturday morning) I wasn't getting Internet AT ALL. Not fun.
The problem is, it takes time to keep updating the IP address. But my time is the least of the issue -- it takes 2-48 hours to propagate such changes over the Internet.
-
I thought the NWO had taken you out.
With all due respect, that's never going to happen.
Or, HOW exactly did you think that would play out? Did you really think black helicopters fired missiles at my house on Friday? Really?
Do you understand I'm self-hosted? About the only way to take out CathInfo would be to shut down my utilities -- or for me to have average, residential Internet problems. But you see, Internet issues (company upgrading hardware, having growing pains, causing outages to their customers, static IP address issues, etc.) are always TEMPORARY.
So can "stuff happen" to take down CathInfo for a day or two? Sure. But "take down CathInfo" as in take it down for more than a few days? No.
I keep backups of the site. Server hardware (a.k.a. PC hardware -- my "servers" are more like high-end PC workstations) is still for sale. Linux, apache, MySQL, PHP, etc. can be downloaded from the Internet. The Internet as a whole is up and accessible. No vaccine is required to access the Internet. As long as those things are true, CathInfo isn't going anywhere.
When they start rounding people up to "the camps"? Then maybe. When cινιℓ ωαr breaks out and electricity goes out to large swaths of the United States? Then maybe. When cancel culture reaches the point where water companies and electric companies start cancelling people -- then maybe we'll talk. But we are certainly not there yet.
The most controversial figures can't use Paypal, GoFundMe, certain financial products, or things like MailChimp mass e-mailing services. But I don't need any of those things to keep CathInfo up. I don't even need a webhost. That's the key.
-
Hi, Matthew,
CathInfo keeps going down for me, and then later it'll come back up.
I'm getting this IP address for www.cathinfo.com -- 70.40.18.39
-
Was up and down for me too. I figured it was a DDOS
Seems good now though
-
Hi, Matthew,
CathInfo keeps going down for me, and then later it'll come back up.
I'm getting this IP address for www.cathinfo.com -- 70.40.18.39
I've had the same problem since I joined.
-
With all due respect, that's never going to happen.
Or, HOW exactly did you think that would play out? Did you really think black helicopters fired missiles at my house on Friday? Really?
Do you understand I'm self-hosted? About the only way to take out CathInfo would be to shut down my utilities -- or for me to have average, residential Internet problems. But you see, Internet issues (company upgrading hardware, having growing pains, causing outages to their customers, static IP address issues, etc.) are always TEMPORARY.
So can "stuff happen" to take down CathInfo for a day or two? Sure. But "take down CathInfo" as in take it down for more than a few days? No.
I keep backups of the site. Server hardware (a.k.a. PC hardware -- my "servers" are more like high-end PC workstations) is still for sale. Linux, apache, MySQL, PHP, etc. can be downloaded from the Internet. The Internet as a whole is up and accessible. No vaccine is required to access the Internet. As long as those things are true, CathInfo isn't going anywhere.
When they start rounding people up to "the camps"? Then maybe. When cινιℓ ωαr breaks out and electricity goes out to large swaths of the United States? Then maybe. When cancel culture reaches the point where water companies and electric companies start cancelling people -- then maybe we'll talk. But we are certainly not there yet.
The most controversial figures can't use Paypal, GoFundMe, certain financial products, or things like MailChimp mass e-mailing services. But I don't need any of those things to keep CathInfo up. I don't even need a webhost. That's the key.
It was a joke.:laugh1: Anyway, it seems to be back up now. I have checked on two different browsers and computers, and I was able to get in without a problem.
-
I just got back on now. ( I thought maybe my cell was hacked.)
-
It was a joke.:laugh1: Anyway, it seems to be back up now. I have checked on two different browsers and computers, and I was able to get in without a problem.
Yes, I realize you were mostly joking -- but it's something a LOT of people keep thinking, the first thing they think, every time my Internet goes down here at CathInfo HQ for more than an hour.
I just wanted to put that rumor out of its misery, once and for all. So it's nothing personal against you, sorry if it came off that way.
-
HERE'S THE UPDATE:
The plan is to leave CathInfo up on the current FAILING router and the current TEMPORARY IP address, until Monday morning if possible.
New router comes in today. I might open it up and start messing with it, but I won't risk hooking it up. "Let sleeping dogs lie."
I'm not going to mess with those sleeping dogs until my Internet provider is open for business again!
On Monday late morning, I'll hook up the new router and hopefully get my permanent ("static") IP address after some time on the phone with my Internet provider. That will probably be afternoon. Then I'll have to move CathInfo to that new address -- which means another outage of anywhere from 2 hours to 48 hours, depending on where you live. So BE WARNED!
-
With all due respect, that's never going to happen.
Or, HOW exactly did you think that would play out? Did you really think black helicopters fired missiles at my house on Friday? Really?
Do you understand I'm self-hosted? About the only way to take out CathInfo would be to shut down my utilities -- or for me to have average, residential Internet problems. But you see, Internet issues (company upgrading hardware, having growing pains, causing outages to their customers, static IP address issues, etc.) are always TEMPORARY.
So can "stuff happen" to take down CathInfo for a day or two? Sure. But "take down CathInfo" as in take it down for more than a few days? No.
I keep backups of the site. Server hardware (a.k.a. PC hardware -- my "servers" are more like high-end PC workstations) is still for sale. Linux, apache, MySQL, PHP, etc. can be downloaded from the Internet. The Internet as a whole is up and accessible. No vaccine is required to access the Internet. As long as those things are true, CathInfo isn't going anywhere.
When they start rounding people up to "the camps"? Then maybe. When cινιℓ ωαr breaks out and electricity goes out to large swaths of the United States? Then maybe. When cancel culture reaches the point where water companies and electric companies start cancelling people -- then maybe we'll talk. But we are certainly not there yet.
The most controversial figures can't use Paypal, GoFundMe, certain financial products, or things like MailChimp mass e-mailing services. But I don't need any of those things to keep CathInfo up. I don't even need a webhost. That's the key.
I'm not sure it's that outrageous. They could just have the ISP take you down on account of the content here on CI. I'm actually a bit surprised that they haven't already tried -- except that perhaps they think the forum/site is small enough that it's not any kind of threat to them. I bet that if somehow membership and traffic on this site exploded, they'd be getting a corrupt judge issue an order to the ISP to take down your connectivity. They blocked the President of the United States off of Twitter, Facebook, etc. ... well short of before they start rounding people up into camps. And even the temporary outage could be caused by a DDOS attack.
-
HERE'S THE UPDATE:
The plan is to leave CathInfo up on the current FAILING router and the current TEMPORARY IP address, until Monday morning if possible.
New router comes in today. I might open it up and start messing with it, but I won't risk hooking it up. "Let sleeping dogs lie."
I'm not going to mess with those sleeping dogs until my Internet provider is open for business again!
On Monday late morning, I'll hook up the new router and hopefully get my permanent ("static") IP address after some time on the phone with my Internet provider. That will probably be afternoon. Then I'll have to move CathInfo to that new address -- which means another outage of anywhere from 2 hours to 48 hours, depending on where you live. So BE WARNED!
If there's any way you can get the new IP before they make the switch and perhaps communicate it, we wouldn't have to wait for the DNS propagation.
-
I'm not sure it's that outrageous. They could just have the ISP take you down on account of the content here on CI. I'm actually a bit surprised that they haven't already tried -- except that perhaps they think the forum/site is small enough that it's not any kind of threat to them. I bet that if somehow membership and traffic on this site exploded, they'd be getting a corrupt judge issue an order to the ISP to take down your connectivity. They blocked the President of the United States off of Twitter, Facebook, etc. ... well short of before they start rounding people up into camps. And even the temporary outage could be caused by a DDOS attack.
DDoS is more possible than the first option. But even then -- it would probably be temporary; it would come and go. It's not like I need the site up 24/7 so people will send in their $10 a month, and if the site is down enough, then everyone will cancel their service. NOPE. All those "compromised" PCs will have other sites to attack besides mine; and if the botnets are active too much, their owners will discover the malware infection and remove it. CathInfo isn't hosted on an old laptop either -- you have to be a Big Boy for me to even notice.
Facebook and Twitter are services -- they aren't some kind of public utilities that everyone has a right to. Facebook and Twitter are private websites, private corporations that have "Terms of service" and sometimes they can be unfair -- but they are still well within their rights to ban someone.
Internet access is more equivalent to electricity, phone, natural gas, water, sewer, or garbage service. Utilities that even convicted criminals get to enjoy in this country -- assuming they have served any prison sentence(s). Especially considering this is 2022, where many people work from home. Internet access is as necessary as electricity for a man whose career involves working from home in 70% of cases. And entire homes are designed to need the Internet now -- the "Smart Home". I'm against "smart" devices myself, but they don't know that. There are households with 1-2 kids that have 65 or even 100 devices connected to their WIFI router: light bulbs, appliances, tablets, phones, video cameras, TVs, monitors, you name it.
SERVICES and WEBSITES, even webhosting services and various money-handling services (Paypal, GoFundMe, etc.) I've seen many times. But basic utilities, or being allowed to shop at grocery stores? As far as I know, even the most hated people can still enter any store they want. They just might get harassed by the patrons if they're infamous enough.
-
Just move to the cloud ... jk
-
I have no idea what Lad and Matthew are talking about. :laugh1:
-
If there's any way you can get the new IP before they make the switch and perhaps communicate it, we wouldn't have to wait for the DNS propagation.
If you reduce the TTL on your DNS record, other nameservers around the internet won't cache it for so long. Looks like it's currently set to 24 hours...I'd set it to something like 15 minutes if you anticipate your IP changing frequently.
$ dig +noall +answer www.cathinfo.com
www.cathinfo.com. 85558 IN CNAME cathinfo.com.
cathinfo.com. 85557 IN A 70.40.18.39
You could change that 85557 to 900 (seconds). Just a thought from a fellow computer janitor.
-
If you reduce the TTL on your DNS record, other nameservers around the internet won't cache it for so long. Looks like it's currently set to 24 hours...I'd set it to something like 15 minutes if you anticipate your IP changing frequently.
$ dig +noall +answer www.cathinfo.com
www.cathinfo.com. 85558 IN CNAME cathinfo.com.
cathinfo.com. 85557 IN A 70.40.18.39
You could change that 85557 to 900 (seconds). Just a thought from a fellow computer janitor.
Various DNS servers will ignore the TTL and cache them longer anyway.
-
I have no idea what Lad and Matthew are talking about. :laugh1:
Me too! 😀 I’m completely lost when they talk about IPs.
-
I can't access CathInfo on Chrome, but I can access CathInfo on Firefox. Not sure why. Any suggestions?
-
I can't access CathInfo on Chrome, but I can access CathInfo on Firefox. Not sure why. Any suggestions?
Do not use Chrome :laugh1:.
Seriously though, restarting your computer should help.
-
Well, Chrome just found CathInfo. These things just baffle me.
-
Well, Chrome just found CathInfo. These things just baffle me.
Most browsers do additional caching of DNS information. This improves performance since the browser does not have to reach out to a DNS server every time it makes a request from a website.
Step 2 here would have cleared out Chrome for you:
https://geekflare.com/clear-dns-cache-on-windows-chrome-firefox-and-safari/
Firefox has it as well, but perhaps it had been over 24 hours since you used Firefox to access Cathinfo, which which case the cache TTL would have expired and it would have acquired a new DNS IP, whereas if you usually used Chrome, it would still have been using the cache from the old IP.
-
For future notice:
You can always get updates when my server is down by going to my Facebook group:
"SSPX Resistance Supporters"
https://www.facebook.com/groups/574007992777698
I will be installing the new router on Monday morning, then calling my Internet provider to get things set up properly -- i.e., with a STATIC, unchanging IP so there will be no further problems.
So expect some outage on Monday morning/afternoon -- but there might be another DNS propagation delay as well (the old 2-36 hours thing). I set the expiration date ("TTL" for the nerds) to 1 hour, but some systems in the chain (from me to you -- there are many points that cache or "remember" an IP address) might not respect that. So I did my part, did my best, in that area. Hopefully more people will get the update sooner.
-
For future notice:
You can always get updates when my server is down by going to my Facebook group:
"SSPX Resistance Supporters"
https://www.facebook.com/groups/574007992777698
I will be installing the new router on Monday morning, then calling my Internet provider to get things set up properly -- i.e., with a STATIC, unchanging IP so there will be no further problems.
So expect some outage on Monday morning/afternoon -- but there might be another DNS propagation delay as well (the old 2-36 hours thing). I set the expiration date ("TTL" for the nerds) to 1 hour, but some systems in the chain (from me to you -- there are many points that cache or "remember" an IP address) might not respect that. So I did my part, did my best, in that area. Hopefully more people will get the update sooner.
And people should also keep in mind how their local system and browsers could also cache the DNS and perhaps keep a bookmark to this link here to clear it out.
https://geekflare.com/clear-dns-cache-on-windows-chrome-firefox-and-safari/
It might also be good to point your DNS to, say, Google, vs whatever default one your ISP might be using, since individual ISPs are more likely to cache longer than the source TTL indicates.
-
198.46.13.253 cathinfo.com
198.46.13.253 www.cathinfo.com
Do you have an onion (Tor) address?
-
I wanted to start a new topic in general discussion but there is no new topic button ?
Could be because I don't have enough posts yet ?
-
No one can post in General anymore except Matthew. It was being abused so you have to post in the nearest appropriate heading.
-
No one can post in General anymore except Matthew. It was being abused so you have to post in the nearest appropriate heading.
Ok, thanks.
-
As for internet service providers not pulling the plug on websites, since they're basically infrastructure/utility --
https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/04/tech/cloudfare-blocked/index.html
Matthew Prince, the CEO of Cloudflare, has long expressed discomfort about his company's potential role of deciding what can and cannot be online. It is a position echoed by others in Silicon Valley who argue it shouldn't be up to them to police speech online.
"This is an extraordinary decision for us to make and, given Cloudflare's role as an Internet infrastructure provider, a dangerous one that we are not comfortable with," Prince wrote in a blog post Saturday after blocking Kiwi Farms.
But, he said the rhetoric on Kiwi Farms "and specific, targeted threats have escalated over the last 48 hours to the point that we believe there is an unprecedented emergency and immediate threat to human life unlike we have previously seen from Kiwifarms or any other customer before."
While they are saying this is an "unprecedented emergency and immediate threat to human life," as people seem to be harassing some "Canadian trans woman[sic]", we're only a couple steps and a fαℓѕє fℓαg attack [say, the murder of a sodomite] before any sites that express disapproval of sodomy or other such aberrations are shut down as [somewhat less than] immediate threat to human life.
-
As for internet service providers not pulling the plug on websites, since they're basically infrastructure/utility --
https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/04/tech/cloudfare-blocked/index.html
While they are saying this is an "unprecedented emergency and immediate threat to human life," as people seem to be harassing some "Canadian trans woman[sic]", we're only a couple steps and a fαℓѕє fℓαg attack [say, the murder of a sodomite] before any sites that express disapproval of sodomy or other such aberrations are shut down as [somewhat less than] immediate threat to human life.
Cloudflare is a service though. They stand in between websites and customers, basically masking the REAL location of a website, so Denial-of-Service attacks can't reach the actual website target. It functions like a shield of sorts.
Basically I would point CathInfo to "Cloudflare", and that's the only IP address you'd ever see. You physically couldn't see the IP address where CathInfo REALLY resides; only Cloudflare would know this. They would stand out in front of CathInfo and block any Denial of Service attacks.
That's my understanding of what Cloudflare does. They might offer other services too, but nothing you can't get elsewhere.
Basically, the common wisdom is that once you reach a certain size, or a certain prominence/importance, you NEED services like Cloudflare to protect you or you WILL fall victim (collapse because of) DoS and DDoS attacks.
-
we're only a couple steps and a fαℓѕє fℓαg attack [say, the murder of a sodomite] before any sites that express disapproval of sodomy or other such aberrations are shut down as [somewhat less than] immediate threat to human life.
That was it. They fαℓѕє fℓαgged multiple swattings and blamed it on kiwifarms. Using it as an excuse to take down the forum, so people have no place to speak freely online unless it's the politically correct narrative.
Cloudflare blocking the site was the final straw. There are no other options equipped to handle the forum.
This is unprecedented within the age of the Internet and I'm sure any sort of free speech the Internet still had will be handled similarly.
-
Cathinfo went down for me a couple of times last week and once or twice the week before. I use a browser called Vivaldi (customizable and fairly private) and wondered if that was the issue, but a reboot each time brought everything back. I also have Linux computer that I use when Windows gives me problems. Perhaps a Linux based system would slow down or eliminate interference from the big boys. It's easy to use, easy to change over your computer, and at the very least it won't be subject to viruses. Still, you'll need someone familiar with Linux to carry you through the process. Good luck with everything Matthew.
-
Cloudflare is a service though. They stand in between websites and customers, basically masking the REAL location of a website, so Denial-of-Service attacks can't reach the actual website target. It functions like a shield of sorts.
Basically I would point CathInfo to "Cloudflare", and that's the only IP address you'd ever see. You physically couldn't see the IP address where CathInfo REALLY resides; only Cloudflare would know this. They would stand out in front of CathInfo and block any Denial of Service attacks.
That's my understanding of what Cloudflare does. They might offer other services too, but nothing you can't get elsewhere.
Basically, the common wisdom is that once you reach a certain size, or a certain prominence/importance, you NEED services like Cloudflare to protect you or you WILL fall victim (collapse because of) DoS and DDoS attacks.
Yes, it's a service, but this is step one toward their interfering with "infrastructure". Mostly what people use it for is as a CDN (content delivery network). So the CEO objected on those grounds, but felt he had no choice. Next step of course is that they fαℓѕє fℓαg some sodomite getting killed as the result of some hostility on a forum, and then they'll start creating lists of sites that are anti-sodomite and start taking them down. We're not there yet, but even Stevie Wonder can see where this is going.
-
Next step of course is that they fαℓѕє fℓαg some sodomite getting killed as the result of some hostility on a forum, and then they'll start creating lists of sites that are anti-sodomite and start taking them down. We're not there yet, but even Stevie Wonder can see where this is going.
Yes, and that's when it's time to start doing stuff -- in minecraft, of course. ;)
For further discussion of what should be done at that point -- we'd have to take it to the Members Only.
-
That was it. They fαℓѕє fℓαgged multiple swattings and blamed it on kiwifarms. Using it as an excuse to take down the forum, so people have no place to speak freely online unless it's the politically correct narrative.
Cloudflare blocking the site was the final straw. There are no other options equipped to handle the forum.
This is unprecedented within the age of the Internet and I'm sure any sort of free speech the Internet still had will be handled similarly.
It isn't the first time Cloudfare has taken action, though. First was Andrew Anglin's Daily Stormer and then 8chan (some manifestos were posted there), but it's not a good precedent.
The DOJ began working on legislation attempts relating to the 1996 Communications Decency Act under AG Barr, and I doubt they've stopped. Until there is a change at the legal level, I expect to see ever increasing escalations to control the internet through other means. They need the laws changed to engage in lawfare against those who engage in or allow wrongthink.
-
Clicking on any thread results in blank content (even though the page numbers are there). I've tried different browsers, refreshing, clearing cache. Not hopeful that this post will go through.
-
Clicking on any thread results in blank content (even though the page numbers are there). I've tried different browsers, refreshing, clearing cache. Not hopeful that this post will go through.
I can see them if I hit reply. Otherwise, same problem here regardless of browser.
-
I broke it -- sorry about that. I made a change to the upvote/downvote system, and apparently made a typo.
-
I broke it -- sorry about that. I made a change to the upvote/downvote system, and apparently made a typo.
Just tried to upthumb someone and it wouldn't work.
-
Just tried to upthumb someone and it wouldn't work.
Tested it. Says page won't load.
-
Just tried to upthumb someone and it wouldn't work.
It worked for me as you can see!
-
It worked for me as you can see!
I tried to upthumb you and got a blank sheet, no upthumb.
down thumb worked -sorry Nadir lol
Upthumb did not work for Nadir, but it did for TKGS and 2V, did not work for Matthew.
-
Just tried to upthumb someone and it wouldn't work.
LOL ... you just got a free upthumb because I had to test it out on your comment because of what you wrote. Worked for me. Of course, I could have tried a downthumb on your post too.
-
I broke it -- sorry about that. I made a change to the upvote/downvote system, and apparently made a typo.
Ah, yes, I've been there before, having broken a production system here or there due to a typo. For as smart as compilers and IDEs have gotten, they still can't prevent the old-fashioned typo. Latest version of Visual Studio from Microsoft (2022), that thing actually (often correctly) suggests an entire block of code the second I start typing it, guessing what it is I'm about to type. We're probably about 10-15 years away from a business user being able to type in free-form business requirements and having it generate a software application, so even we programmers can get on board with Schwab's Great Reset, and have no jobs, own nothing ... while being "happy".
-
It worked for me as you can see!
Just tried to upthumb your post...wouldn't work. Evidently, some upthumbs work and others don't.
-
Just tried to upthumb your post...wouldn't work. Evidently, some upthumbs work and others don't.
I also seem to be unable to upthumb.
-
Thanks for the reports. I realized I was restricting upvotes, which I didn't mean to. I only want to stem the ability of "newbies" to attack long-standing members of CathInfo.
Let's put it this way: those who have stuck with CathInfo for years, made thousands of posts, should NOT be at a disadvantage compared to new users! But a month ago, if Joe Newbie signed up for a new account (and made the requisite # of posts to be able to start up/downvoting), Joe Newbie could become 13% of ANY user's downvotes -- including members with +4000 upvotes and -1000 downvotes. 13% of 1000 is 130! That's not fair to the long-standing member. So I had to do something about it.
NOW: instead of giving everyone a 13% cap on downvotes, it varies by person. Long-standing members will get the full 13% of a target's downvotes. But if your CURRENT UPVOTE COUNT is less than your victim's downvote count, you are limited to
13% of YOUR UPVOTE COUNT + (1/4 of the difference between your upvote count and his downvote count)
NOTE: It only goes one direction. If you have 6,000 upvotes, you don't get 13% of that figure. The system only checks to see if your Upvote count is LESS THAN your intended target's downvote count. If so, then it runs the calculation. You end up being able to give less downvotes, as you hit the 13% wall a bit sooner.
I might tweak that formula as time goes on. I might increase that 13% figure, now that it's not given out to anyone and everyone. Also, since people aren't very good about using the upvote/downvote feature (i.e., it doesn't have high participation UNFORTUNATELY), I might have to use POST COUNT instead of UPVOTE COUNT. Both would give me roughly what I'm looking for: an investment in the forum, something that says you deserve to vote that many times against an established member's reputation.
-
Sorry Matthew! Hey! This is fun!
-
Mathew, first a belated thanks for taking time to maintain a great forum and thanks for allowing me to join it.
Also, iirc I read somewhere here I need 100 posts to use the thumbs up feature ?
-
Thanks for the reports. I realized I was restricting upvotes, which I didn't mean to. I only want to stem the ability of "newbies" to attack long-standing members of CathInfo.
Let's put it this way: those who have stuck with CathInfo for years, made thousands of posts, should NOT be at a disadvantage compared to new users! But a month ago, if Joe Newbie signed up for a new account (and made the requisite # of posts to be able to start up/downvoting), Joe Newbie could become 13% of ANY user's downvotes -- including members with +4000 upvotes and -1000 downvotes. 13% of 1000 is 130! That's not fair to the long-standing member. So I had to do something about it.
NOW: instead of giving everyone a 13% cap on downvotes, it varies by person. Long-standing members will get the full 13% of a target's downvotes. But if your CURRENT UPVOTE COUNT is less than your victim's downvote count, you are limited to
13% of YOUR UPVOTE COUNT + (1/4 of the difference between your upvote count and his downvote count)
NOTE: It only goes one direction. If you have 6,000 upvotes, you don't get 13% of that figure. The system only checks to see if your Upvote count is LESS THAN your intended target's downvote count. If so, then it runs the calculation. You end up being able to give less downvotes, as you hit the 13% wall a bit sooner.
I might tweak that formula as time goes on. I might increase that 13% figure, now that it's not given out to anyone and everyone. Also, since people aren't very good about using the upvote/downvote feature (i.e., it doesn't have high participation UNFORTUNATELY), I might have to use POST COUNT instead of UPVOTE COUNT. Both would give me roughly what I'm looking for: an investment in the forum, something that says you deserve to vote that many times against an established member's reputation.
OK, so it sounds like I should have been able to upvote that person.
I will definitely have to come back to your description above when I am less distracted as I do want to understand the new algorithm.
Thank you.
-
NOW: instead of giving everyone a 13% cap on downvotes, it varies by person. Long-standing members will get the full 13% of a target's downvotes. But if your CURRENT UPVOTE COUNT is less than your victim's downvote count, you are limited to
13% of YOUR UPVOTE COUNT + (1/4 of the difference between your upvote count and his downvote count)
Interesting algorithm. But something like this does make sense. So, for instance, I have >5,000 downvotes. For this reason, a newbie could have come on here, or else some member could create a new account, and then give me up to 650+ downvotes ... being limited only by his patience to go around finding that many posts. Not that I care too much, but there was a potential for abuse from a hostile individual. Usually the problem would take care of itself, since these users would ultimately get banned, and thus take all their downvotes with them.
-
I only want to stem the ability of "newbies" to attack long-standing members of CathInfo.
Please, just remove this silly system. I'm not the only one who thinks that the system has become increasingly meaningless, but no one else has posted about it. You might as well put the equivalent of Twitter's blue checkmarks next to names. We already know without the checkmarks or upvotes.
-
but no one else has posted about it
Meant to say that I know those remaining silent about the issues who post or read here.
-
Thanks for the reports. I realized I was restricting upvotes, which I didn't mean to. I only want to stem the ability of "newbies" to attack long-standing members of CathInfo.
Let's put it this way: those who have stuck with CathInfo for years, made thousands of posts, should NOT be at a disadvantage compared to new users! But a month ago, if Joe Newbie signed up for a new account (and made the requisite # of posts to be able to start up/downvoting), Joe Newbie could become 13% of ANY user's downvotes -- including members with +4000 upvotes and -1000 downvotes. 13% of 1000 is 130! That's not fair to the long-standing member. So I had to do something about it.
NOW: instead of giving everyone a 13% cap on downvotes, it varies by person. Long-standing members will get the full 13% of a target's downvotes. But if your CURRENT UPVOTE COUNT is less than your victim's downvote count, you are limited to
13% of YOUR UPVOTE COUNT + (1/4 of the difference between your upvote count and his downvote count)
NOTE: It only goes one direction. If you have 6,000 upvotes, you don't get 13% of that figure. The system only checks to see if your Upvote count is LESS THAN your intended target's downvote count. If so, then it runs the calculation. You end up being able to give less downvotes, as you hit the 13% wall a bit sooner.
I might tweak that formula as time goes on. I might increase that 13% figure, now that it's not given out to anyone and everyone. Also, since people aren't very good about using the upvote/downvote feature (i.e., it doesn't have high participation UNFORTUNATELY), I might have to use POST COUNT instead of UPVOTE COUNT. Both would give me roughly what I'm looking for: an investment in the forum, something that says you deserve to vote that many times against an established member's reputation.
Heh. I think Joe Newbie doesn't like your new algorithm. :laugh1:
If I'm understanding the new algorithm, I think a weakness might be that the number of posts may not mean "long standing member" in all cases.
-
Matthew should call it the "Croix clause"
-
Heh. I think Joe Newbie doesn't like your new algorithm. :laugh1:
The "long-standing members" are the ones who have been complaining the loudest. I even got downvoted for it!
If I'm understanding the new algorithm, I think a weakness might be that the number of posts may not mean "long standing member" in all cases.
Let's break out the CathInfo blue checkmarks and save time :laugh1:
-
Let's break out the CathInfo blue checkmarks and save time :laugh1:
I know you put the laughing smilie, so you might be joking, but I just want to interject --
If there WERE an "elite" on CathInfo, the equivalent of Twitter's "blue checkmarks", it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. These individuals WOULD be more trustworthy, of higher status, to be considered "better", etc. than members without the checkmark.
How? Why? You might be screaming. We're all against the Blue Checkmark brigade on Twitter after all.
It's simple. CathInfo is not Twitter. Twitter is 90% bots and 9% leftists. CathInfo is virtually all Traditional Catholics bravely holding the Faith in a period of great crisis. The amount of education and virtue varies by member, but 99.9% of CathInfo members are AT LEAST TRYING.
It's like criticizing monarchy or dictatorship. THOSE ARE NOT BAD FORMS OF GOVERNMENT. Only when a godless man is at the helm. As a matter of fact, St. Thomas Aquinas thought that Monarchy was the best form of government, all things considered. Including the consideration that some monarchs are evil and some are good. Oh, and the Catholic Church is a monarchy with a hierarchy, not a democracy. So there's that.
-
It's like criticizing monarchy or dictatorship. THOSE ARE NOT BAD FORMS OF GOVERNMENT. Only when a godless man is at the helm. As a matter of fact, St. Thomas Aquinas thought that Monarchy was the best form of government, all things considered. Including the consideration that some monarchs are evil and some are good. Oh, and the Catholic Church is a monarchy with a hierarchy, not a democracy. So there's that.
Yes, that is the best form of government. I better understand why from this snip from Fr. Wathen.....
"...All legitimate rulers, we must understand, receive their power from God. All the kings of the middle ages, when they assumed power, acknowledged that they reign by the mercy of God. And the people recognized that for this reason they could not, either ignore their commands, nor could they overthrow them..."
-
I know you put the laughing smilie, so you might be joking, but I just want to interject --
I was just teasing about blue checkmarks, but it would be more open and direct than this contrived reputation system. I don't know if the world is ready for the CathInfo peerage, but CathInfo Elites would make it plain for everyone (hierarchy). You are free to have favorites on your own site.
-
Don't we already have a sort of "blue checkmark" system with the member statuses such as Jr., Sr., Hero, etc.?
-
Don't we already have a sort of "blue checkmark" system with the member statuses such as Jr., Sr., Hero, etc.?
Yes we have gold boxes!
-
Thanks for the reports. I realized I was restricting upvotes, which I didn't mean to. I only want to stem the ability of "newbies" to attack long-standing members of CathInfo.
Let's put it this way: those who have stuck with CathInfo for years, made thousands of posts, should NOT be at a disadvantage compared to new users! But a month ago, if Joe Newbie signed up for a new account (and made the requisite # of posts to be able to start up/downvoting), Joe Newbie could become 13% of ANY user's downvotes -- including members with +4000 upvotes and -1000 downvotes. 13% of 1000 is 130! That's not fair to the long-standing member. So I had to do something about it.
NOW: instead of giving everyone a 13% cap on downvotes, it varies by person. Long-standing members will get the full 13% of a target's downvotes. But if your CURRENT UPVOTE COUNT is less than your victim's downvote count, you are limited to
13% of YOUR UPVOTE COUNT + (1/4 of the difference between your upvote count and his downvote count)
NOTE: It only goes one direction. If you have 6,000 upvotes, you don't get 13% of that figure. The system only checks to see if your Upvote count is LESS THAN your intended target's downvote count. If so, then it runs the calculation. You end up being able to give less downvotes, as you hit the 13% wall a bit sooner.
I might tweak that formula as time goes on. I might increase that 13% figure, now that it's not given out to anyone and everyone. Also, since people aren't very good about using the upvote/downvote feature (i.e., it doesn't have high participation UNFORTUNATELY), I might have to use POST COUNT instead of UPVOTE COUNT. Both would give me roughly what I'm looking for: an investment in the forum, something that says you deserve to vote that many times against an established member's reputation.
Is this the reason that no one is able to downvote certain posters? e.g.:
Pretty much no one can downvote you anymore, Lad,
I'm not going solely by my own ability, but also by looking at reputation scores, as well as recent threads & their downvotes. And comments such as the one above. It seems some posters are no longer able to be downvoted at all.
-
Here's a SIMPLE way of looking at it that anyone should be able to understand --
You say no one can downvote Lad? But here's the thing -- YOU HAVE TO GIVE HIM A BUNCH OF DOWNVOTES TO HIT ANY SORT OF LIMIT. So basically you're being stopped from "smashing" someone you dislike -- what the system was designed for, ultimately.
(Yes, I'm assuming your account has hit the maturity threshold to be able to vote at all -- a certain # of posts)
A member is only stopped at 13% of a victim's downvotes -- though the "total" is your # of upvotes now, instead of his downvotes*, which of course changes things when those 2 numbers are drastically different. 20 downvotes out of your 600 upvotes is a bigger number than 20 downvotes out of his 3,000 downvotes total. BUT NOTE THAT YOU GAVE THE POOR GUY 20 DOWNVOTES ALREADY. WE GET THE IDEA. You hate his guts. As the software says when you hit the downvote limit, "Pray for him."
Part of my redesign is to give more "protection" to longer-term members, and to seriously restrict the voting ability of newer members, at least towards more-established members. Again, I think that's a good thing. Some new member shouldn't be able to come in here like a bull in a china shop and give long-established members like Ladislaus 100's of downvotes on day one. It's like punishing members for sticking with CathInfo for years and making thousands of posts. I DON'T THINK SO.
* It's not exactly that simple. It goes with whichever of the 2 is smaller. It still uses your target's downvote total UNLESS your upvote total is smaller -- that's the ONLY time it recalculates at all. Also, when it "recalculates", it gives you 1/4 of the gulf between them as well -- now I might change that percentage if the current equation isn't working well. But I'm on the right track at least; of that I'm certain.
-
I seem to accuмulate about 50-100 downvotes per week, so I don't think it's really preventing too much.
With the old system, given that I have 5,000+ downvotes, an individual poster could have gone in and given me close to 1,000 just by himself. There's a good chance that there are several individuals here who are responsible for 500 or more of the 5,000 that I accuмulated before. Meanwhile, a poster with about 10 downvotes (because they only had a small number of posts), I couldn't give more than 2 to. In other words, that person could hammer me with 1,000, while I could only give them 2. So I agree that something didn't seem right.
I don't really care about the downvotes, personally. I only even notice them when I get some for a completely innocuous post.
And, no, I'm not going to back down from a handful of posters here who continue to promote the Western / Jєωιѕн / Satanic propaganda against Russia and Putin, along with slanderous character assassination of any who feel that there's some (albeit limited) good in Putin ... such as +Vigano, +Williamson, myself, and quite a few others.
I've never said that Russia is beyond reproach or criticism, but the maniacal one-sided obsession with Putin, while ignoring the evils of the West, and practically serving as mouthpieces for Western propaganda ... that I have no patience for whatsoever. That one poster who complained about being unable to downvote me posted a link implying that those who don't back the US in this entire thing are traitors and guilty of treason (and he'd likely have given me 1,000 downvotes by now if he could have). I might take some of these guys seriously if they criticized both sides, but not when they might as well be CNN's, the UN's, Biden's, and Soros' representatives, propaganda mouthpieces, and paid agents on this forum.
-
You say no one can downvote Lad? But here's the thing -- YOU HAVE TO GIVE HIM A BUNCH OF DOWNVOTES TO HIT ANY SORT OF LIMIT. So basically you're being stopped from "smashing" someone you dislike -- what the system was designed for, ultimately.
But that's why I don't think that's the problem: I haven't given Ladislaus that many downvotes. I'm sure my up-votes for him vastly exceeds my down-votes, & likewise for other posters who seem impossible to down-vote. Also the fact that his down-vote count (or 'negative' part of his reputation) has been holding steady at -5066 for at least 3 weeks also seems strange. Has everyone who wanted to downvote Lad for the past 3 weeks given him so many down-votes already that they're all disqualified?
A member is only stopped at 13% of a victim's downvotes -- though the "total" is your # of upvotes now, instead of his downvotes*, which of course changes things when those 2 numbers are drastically different. 20 downvotes out of your 600 upvotes is a bigger number than 20 downvotes out of his 3,000 downvotes total. BUT NOTE THAT YOU GAVE THE POOR GUY 20 DOWNVOTES ALREADY. WE GET THE IDEA. You hate his guts. As the software says when you hit the downvote limit, "Pray for him."
But there's no way I've exceeded 13% of Lad's downvotes. I upvote his posts far more often than down. And there's no way I downvote him at some larger percentage than other posters do either. [And that's the case with other posters I've found it impossible to downvote as well.] I can't think of any posters whom I downvote constantly because I can't stand them. I generally ignore the posts of a member whose posts I almost always dislike.
-
I seem to accuмulate about 50-100 downvotes per week, so I don't think it's really preventing too much.
Then why has your "reputation" stayed at -5066 for the past 3 weeks? Am I incorrect in understanding that to be a count of downvotes? Whenever I down-vote anyone, that number changes.
-
Then why has your "reputation" stayed at -5066 for the past 3 weeks? Am I incorrect in understanding that to be a count of downvotes? Whenever I down-vote anyone, that number changes.
Well, if that's true, I find it rather sad/petty that you've kept track of my downvote total for 3 weeks. You know more about my number of downvotes than I do. I have no knowledge or recollection of the number of up- or down- votes of any member here, including myself. If I mis-recall having received a fair number of downvotes recently, then it's mostly because I don't pay attention and don't care.
But, as Matthew indicated, the number is not limited by 13% of my downvotes, which would be about 600, but it has something more to do with your own upvotes. What Matthew was trying to do was to prevent a user who comes on here, registers, hits the 100 posts, and then could immediately launch in and downvote me 600 times, and it makes perfect sense to throttle that nonsense a bit.
In the past, given how many downvotes I have, the only limit was really the degree of the person's animosity toward me vs. their patience and perseverance in going around and finding enough posts to downvote 600+ times.
Matthew isn't trying to block anything other than this type of absurd behavior, where someone out of spite would go around on a down-thumb campaign, down-thumbing everything I post simply because my name is next to it. Perhaps there's a much more sophisticated algorithm that could be employed to find that balance, but it's probably not worth the amount of time it would take to implement.
-
BTW, Lad, I just noticed additional text to your last post here, and I just want to say, my issue has nothing to do with the Putin topic or any other topic. I am only commenting because I have noticed the inability to downvote certain posters, so when folks on other threads mentioned being unable to downvote you, I thought I'd point it out. I just think there must still be a glitch in the system, because I find it hard to believe I'm an extreme down-voter for any member here.
p.s. The only reason I know your vote count is that I happened to screenshot some comments on a thread last month, and happened to trip across this screenshot. The screenshot had nothing whatsoever to do with the vote count; I only saved it because there was some item of interest. [I don't even recall at the moment what it was. And it was nothing negative - i.e. I did not dislike what you posted in that thread!] But when I saw that some posters are unable to be downvoted, and then I happened upon that screenshot I'd saved (totally unrelated), I was able to see that your vote count hadn't changed.
-
BTW, Lad, I just noticed additional text to your last post here, and I just want to say, my issue has nothing to do with the Putin topic or any other topic. I am only commenting because I have noticed the inability to downvote certain posters, so when folks on other threads mentioned being unable to downvote you, I thought I'd point it out. I just think there must still be a glitch in the system, because I find it hard to believe I'm an extreme down-voter for any member here.
I think the algorithm is a function of the number of upvotes you have, so it has nothing to do with being an "extreme down-voter".
-
PAT317 --
Your "denominator" for Ladislaus should be 1616. ((4415 - 683) / 4) + 683.
I ran a rectifying script that sets a user's "reputation" score to their ACTUAL, LATEST number of downvotes in the database. Each time someone is banned, their votes all get deleted. I don't have a script to automatically do this for each person -- but I can do it for select users. It just takes my time. Yes, I could write another script to go through and rectify each CathInfo user's votes. But I don't have the hours to write that script right now. (Maybe someone could motivate/bribe me to do so, with an Amazon gift. There is a place you can send a custom message on the gift receipt, just saying ;))
Anyhow, Lad has 4415 downvotes. You have 683 upvotes. You also "get" 1/4 of the difference between the two. That's a total of 1616.
So you should be able to downvote Lad a total of 210 times. You're not even 10% there yet.
What happens when you try to downvote Lad? You can try it JUST THIS ONCE for science. A) does the post show a downvote? If so, THE DOWNVOTE 100% EXISTS AND IS COUNTED. B) Does the Rep score update? The Rep score is a less reliable indicator; it's subject to being "updated" later with latest downvote totals. It's more of a best-guess or snapshot.
All that really matters is: did the vote get created or not. Rep scores could easily be "updated" by some script in the future. That's why I don't sweat it -- and why I simply delete the banned users VOTES on their way out. Because the votes' existence is the only issue. That's why, for example, the system looks at the TOTAL DOWNVOTES and not the REP SCORE when calculating the limits!
-
As I said, I really don't care. If Matthew wanted to throw a "Ladislaus Exemption" into the rule, I'd be fine with that, but he was simply trying to prevent the scenario (based on the old algorithm), where a guy, possibly a disgruntled ex-member like Croix, could come on here, make his mandatory 100 posts, get about 10 upvotes and 90 downvotes, and then immediately come after me out of a past grudge and hit me with 600 down-thumbs. There are some people who are that petty. I've noticed a few times, after one of the Croix accounts got banned, that there was a significant drop in my downthumb totals.
-
What happens when you try to downvote Lad? You can try it JUST THIS ONCE for science. A) does the post show a downvote? If so, THE DOWNVOTE 100% EXISTS AND IS COUNTED. The Rep score is a less reliable indicator; it's subject to being "updated" later with latest downvote totals. It's more of a best-guess or snapshot.
Thanks for the explanation.
When I try to downvote (the several posters whom I am unable to downvote), I get a screen that says:
This page isn't working.
www.cathinfo.com is unable to handle this request.
And the vote definitely doesn't register.
Other posters said they get a blank page. They might have meant that same screen.
Has anyone noticed that downvotes for Lad lead to a blank page?
-
As I said, I really don't care. If Matthew wanted to throw a "Ladislaus Exemption" into the rule, I'd be fine with that, but he was simply trying to prevent the scenario (based on the old algorithm), where a guy, possibly a disgruntled ex-member like Croix, could come on here, make his mandatory 100 posts, get about 10 upvotes and 90 downvotes, and then immediately come after me out of a past grudge and hit me with 600 down-thumbs. There are some people who are that petty. I've noticed a few times, after one of the Croix accounts got banned, that there was a significant drop in my downthumb totals.
I understand what he's trying to achieve, and I think it's a good idea. But it isn't just your account; it's several people. No big deal in the grand scheme of things, but I just like to see the system working. ::)
-
Thanks for the explanation.
When I try to downvote (the several posters whom I am unable to downvote), I get a screen that says:
This page isn't working.
www.cathinfo.com is unable to handle this request.
Other posters said they get a blank page. They might have meant that same screen.
I get that sometimes as well, both for up- and for down- votes. I think that usually I can shut down the browser, then bring it back up and then it works. If I recall, I got some message about an expired session.
-
Ugh. I may have to look into it then. I know the system *mostly* works, because I (and most people) can up/down vote. I don't know what's causing such a strange error in *some* cases. I don't know when I'll be able to look into, and/or solve this reported problem.
-
FWIW, I haven't noticed any problem with upvoting.
-
FWIW, I haven't noticed any problem with upvoting.
I've seen it with both, but not sure I saw the same thing you did.
In any case, a possible divide by zero error depending on the numbers? I don't recall what the formula is, but if there's a ...
A/(B-C), if B-C=0, that would throw an error, or else B-C can go negative, making the total number of possible upvotes be negative? Just stabbing in the dark, since I don't know the exact formula.
-
Ugh. I may have to look into it then. I know the system *mostly* works, because I (and most people) can up/down vote. I don't know what's causing such a strange error in *some* cases. I don't know when I'll be able to look into, and/or solve this reported problem.
I've noticed that lots of posters are able to be downvoted (not necessarily by me), because I see that they've received recent downvotes. And as I said, I've not experienced any problems upvoting posts. So I think you're right; it *mostly* works. I think I've noticed about 8 posters who can't be downvoted. No big deal as to when it gets fixed. I'm just glad you're aware of it.
-
What browser are you two using?
-
It seems I can upvote anyone, but can't downvote anyone. I use the Brave TOR browser.
-
What browser are you two using?
Brave. [But I think I've experienced it on other browsers too.]
ETA: Just tried with Safari. With that I get the blank page that Cera must have been talking about, rather than the "This page isn't working.
www.cathinfo.com (http://www.cathinfo.com) is unable to handle this request." message I got on Brave.
-
Brave. [But I think I've experienced it on other browsers too.]
ETA: Just tried with Safari. With that I get the blank page that Cera must have been talking about, rather than the "This page isn't working.
www.cathinfo.com (http://www.cathinfo.com) is unable to handle this request." message I got on Brave.
PAT317-
I just tested the downvote on you, and it unexpectedly worked. My apologies. I do not believe there is a way for me to remove that downvote.
Interestingly, it still does not work on Ladislaus, 2Vermont, Stubborn, Matthew (these are the only ones I tried it on; since they all posted in the last couple pages, they were convenient).
-
PAT317-
I just tested the downvote on you, and it unexpectedly worked. My apologies. I do not believe there is a way for me to remove that downvote.
My first reaction: :laugh1:
But maybe you could give me a few upvotes, or at least 1, to counterbalance it?
[I just noticed I got an upvote for that post, so if that was you, thanks!]
-
My first reaction: :laugh1:
But maybe you could give me a few upvotes, or at least 1, to counterbalance it?
[I just noticed I got an upvote for that post, so if that was you, thanks!]
I gave you 4 upvotes for the mistake, since upvotes are harder to get than downvotes, and also because they disproportionately affect reputation more than upvotes.
-
I gave you 4 upvotes for the mistake, since upvotes are harder to get than downvotes, and also because they disproportionately affect reputation more than upvotes.
Thank you. I appreciate that. I've learned in this thread there is some extra value to upvotes.
-
PAT317-
I just tested the downvote on you, and it unexpectedly worked. My apologies. I do not believe there is a way for me to remove that downvote.
Interestingly, it still does not work on Ladislaus, 2Vermont, Stubborn, Matthew (these are the only ones I tried it on; since they all posted in the last couple pages, they were convenient).
I think that your total number of upvotes is way too low to be able to downvote members who have a lot of them.
-
What browser are you two using?
I tend to use either Chrome or Edge. Sorry, was away for a while.
-
Once again I find myself laughing at concerns about "downthumbs."
If "trads" worry about downthumbs, God help them when things get much worse in real life.
-
Once again I find myself laughing at concerns about "downthumbs."
If "trads" worry about downthumbs, God help them when things get much worse in real life.
This is the opposite of the usual concern, this being the inability TO downthumb others.
-
..........
-
Also the fact that his down-vote count (or 'negative' part of his reputation) has been holding steady at -5066 for at least 3 weeks also seems strange. Has everyone who wanted to downvote Lad for the past 3 weeks given him so many down-votes already that they're all disqualified?
Seems his down-vote count has gone POSITIVE, from -5066 to -4415, since yesterday.
:popcorn:
-
I think Matthew was saying he ran a script that re-calculated Ladislaus' counts which had a banned member's totals included previously. We are now seeing his count from active/non-banned members.
-
Thanks for the explanation.
When I try to downvote (the several posters whom I am unable to downvote), I get a screen that says:
This page isn't working.
www.cathinfo.com is unable to handle this request.
And the vote definitely doesn't register.
Other posters said they get a blank page. They might have meant that same screen.
Yes Pat that has been the same page I've seen. Also like you, I often upvote Lad because I often strongly agree with some points he makes.
That said, the whole upvote downvote thing is irrelevant. Years back, I exposed facts about a pseudo-Catholic cult and several of the cult members went back to downvote every post I'd even made. Ha ha. I'm working on detachment, so it was good for me.
To me the whole thing smacks of a social credit score.