Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Major CathInfo outage  (Read 3960 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Stubborn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12288
  • Reputation: +4810/-797
  • Gender: Male
Re: Major CathInfo outage
« Reply #60 on: September 14, 2022, 05:02:56 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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..." 
    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Online dxcat40

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 562
    • Reputation: +280/-111
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Major CathInfo outage
    « Reply #61 on: September 14, 2022, 06:57:56 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.


    Offline DigitalLogos

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6906
    • Reputation: +3916/-721
    • Gender: Male
    • Slave to the Sacred Heart
    Re: Major CathInfo outage
    « Reply #62 on: September 14, 2022, 07:03:23 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Don't we already have a sort of "blue checkmark" system with the member statuses such as Jr., Sr., Hero, etc.?
    "For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears:" [2 Tim. 4:3]

    "Be not therefore solicitous for tomorrow; for the morrow will be solicitous for itself. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." [Matt. 6:34]

    "For the letter killeth, but the spirit quickeneth." [2 Cor. 3:6]

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7725
    • Reputation: +3856/-840
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Major CathInfo outage
    « Reply #63 on: September 14, 2022, 08:06:40 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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! 
    "For there is not any thing secret that shall not be made manifest, nor hidden, that shall not be known and come abroad."- Luke 8:17

    Offline PAT317

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 810
    • Reputation: +722/-114
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Major CathInfo outage
    « Reply #64 on: October 01, 2022, 02:38:26 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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. 



    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 29156
    • Reputation: +24950/-417
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Major CathInfo outage
    « Reply #65 on: October 01, 2022, 04:22:43 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • 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.
    Want to say "thank you"? 
    You can send me a gift from my Amazon wishlist!
    https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

    Paypal donations: matthew@chantcd.com

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 32594
    • Reputation: +19325/-4415
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Major CathInfo outage
    « Reply #66 on: October 01, 2022, 04:29:17 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    Offline PAT317

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 810
    • Reputation: +722/-114
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Major CathInfo outage
    « Reply #67 on: October 01, 2022, 04:33:22 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0

  • 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? 


    Quote
    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. 


    Offline PAT317

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 810
    • Reputation: +722/-114
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Major CathInfo outage
    « Reply #68 on: October 01, 2022, 04:34:07 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.  

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 32594
    • Reputation: +19325/-4415
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Major CathInfo outage
    « Reply #69 on: October 01, 2022, 04:51:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    Offline PAT317

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 810
    • Reputation: +722/-114
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Major CathInfo outage
    « Reply #70 on: October 01, 2022, 04:55:01 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.  


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 32594
    • Reputation: +19325/-4415
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Major CathInfo outage
    « Reply #71 on: October 01, 2022, 04:56:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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".

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 29156
    • Reputation: +24950/-417
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Major CathInfo outage
    « Reply #72 on: October 01, 2022, 04:56:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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!
    Want to say "thank you"? 
    You can send me a gift from my Amazon wishlist!
    https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

    Paypal donations: matthew@chantcd.com

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 32594
    • Reputation: +19325/-4415
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Major CathInfo outage
    « Reply #73 on: October 01, 2022, 05:02:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    Offline PAT317

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 810
    • Reputation: +722/-114
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Major CathInfo outage
    « Reply #74 on: October 01, 2022, 05:04:15 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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?