G@G Update: Out With the Old, In With the New!

[GirlsAskGuys]

Hey G@Gers!

We are very excited to share this myTake to give you the rundown of the recent changes we have made!

Select More MHO's

Some of you already noticed that we were gradually introducing this and now it's fully here! Question Asker's will now be able to select 2 MHO's per gender on their questions, regardless of how many opinions there are. We received a lot of feedback that some members couldn't decide on simply one MHO from girls or guys, especially if their question received dozens of opinions. So now, you'll be able to reward even more of the helpful, funny, or interesting opinions you like! However, our System will only auto-select a third or fourth MHO if there are more than 10 Opinions for that gender.

Giving You More Control

We have extended the "I don't want to see this" option for opinions as well. Previously, this was only available on opinion replies but now if an Asker does not like an opinion on their question, you can use this option to get rid of it. We hope this will give everyone even more control over your own threads.

Losing the Close Feature

In this update, we have completely gotten rid of the Close feature for questions. We found that it was not being used very often and was only complicating things for other site features such as deleting or disavowing questions. So now when you want to delete a question, you will not have to worry about closing it first (keep in mind that other restrictions may still apply!).

More Label Options for myTakes

We have added new "Interview" and "Watching" labels for myTakes that can be added during the myTake creation process. These options will currently be for Editor and Influencer members only. So if you're interviewing someone, be sure to select the "Interview" label! Similarly, if you're talking about that cool new movie (or maybe a movie you didn't like so much) select the "Watching" label!

That's all for now! We hope you all like these changes and let us know what you think in your opinion below! We always value your feedback! 😊

[splashofyellow]

I'm not a fan of askers being able to hide opinions. This kind of censorship seems worrisome on a site that is supposed to be about giving your opinion.

It's too easy to abuse that feature and delete all differing opinions that the asker doesn't like for whatever reason. After all, it's not about only hearing what you want to hear. It can be difficult to accept opinions different from one's own but how will we learn if we can just push a button and make that opinion disappear as if it never existed?

Reporting an opinion gives the responsibility of hiding something to (what should be) a neutral party. While moderators can be biased to a certain extent, because we're just normal people like everyone else here, we should be able to fairly judge what kind of opinions are breaking the rules. Just because someone disagrees with the asker's own views doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to voice their differing opinion.

I don't see any reason why an asker would have to be able to hide opinions. If they ask a question, they should be prepared for whatever the answers might be, as long as they follow the site guidelines, of course. And if the site rules are broken, use the report function.

No need to limit free speech any more than the site guidelines already do.

[NYCQuestions1976]

I 1000% agree. If the site can review posted questions, why can't posts be submitted for review instead of just deleting them? Rude and abusive are not the same thing. It's censorship.

[Halligan]

I don’t believe in censorship, but if someone if harassing everyone who has replied to a question or a MyTake, I do wish their opinions could be removed and them be banned from that post. Repeat offenders from the site. Trolling and harassment should not be allowed.

[splashofyellow]

@Halligan That is why the report option, moderators and admins exist, no? Like I said, there are guidelines on this site, and harassment certainly isn't tolerated.

[Halligan]

I’ve reported, but the trolling/spamming/harassing replies seem to remain even after the user is reprimanded or banned. Even when I block a user, still see the replies... would love to not see past replies if I block someone.

[splashofyellow]

@Halligan That's odd. The replies shouldn't remain if they break the rules. Have you reported the specific replies and not just the user?

[Halligan]

I’ve done both. I know others have reported specific replies and the user. We’ve all blocked the user, so they post to us as annon. That’s a feature I’d also like fixed.

[splashofyellow]

@Halligan I agree that there are things that need fixing with reporting and blocking. It doesn't work as effectively as it could and should. I suggest that you contact g@g directly with your suggestions of how these could be improved.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@Halligan @splashofyellow If the site can review questions in a matter of minutes, why can't posts and opinions be submitted for review instead of them just being deleted without any review process? It's censorship and a terrible idea.

[Halligan]

@NYCQuestions1976 agreed. Best case scenario, instead of the poster being able to remove posts, if there are several complaints on the same member on the same thread, the person is temporarily banned from that thread until a moderator can investigate.

[villageidiot]

@Halligan THey refure to tell us how the process works in detail. I have asked several times and my messages have gone unanswered.

[Halligan]

@villageidiot it’s a mystery.

[Alessus]

Wow, so Question Askers can now censor opinions to their questions, which could well be informative, well-put together and useful to other members of the site that take a look at the question, but just doesn't jive with the QA for whatever reason? I can't help, but feel slightly disappointed in that GaG would enable such censor.

[NYCQuestions1976]

This is a terrible option.

[Alessus]

@NYCQuestions1976 Fully agreed, considering that GaG seems to advertise itself as a site where you can get honest opinions and answers to question you may have. This function simply increases the likelihood that the site will simply become an echo chamber for certain type of thinking while all the other answers will be censored. Though perhaps that is exactly what GaG is trying to achieve and I suppose I wouldn't be too surprised if it was true.

[Goodwifie]

Not very fond of the new censorship option.
A recent Mytake was a very unpopular take and most users disagreed with the mytake author.
The mytake didn't break any GaG rules so it's stayed up because it was just one persons opinion.

Now there was one recent opinion on the question about "hot wife ing " and and under 16 user asked what it was and and an older user sent him a link as a reply.
It had a highly sexual content yet when it was reported and deleted it was put back up again. It was a story about how a married couple agreed upon sharing the wife around for sex with her husbands friends.

[Izumiblu]

The “I don’t want to see this” sounds like a horribly bad idea. It was less impactful as an opinion reply but when an asker can remove anything for whatever reason, we’ll thats just not very meaningful. Sometimes the best opinions are the ones that people might struggle with.

The questions are often not just for the asker to be informed, they are also for others to learn as well.

Bad move gag, this should be immediately removed.

[JimRSmith]

Seems like a bit of a Charter for Safe Spacers, this business of being able to remove answers you don't like?

[NYCQuestions1976]

Yes I agree. Bad BAD idea.

[JimRSmith]

@NYCQuestions1976 I've just been and tried this out, on an old question, with a short opinion, from somebody who is deactivated. Nothing offensive about it, but gone, just like that.

It is indeed a terrible idea. We all know there will be people who'll censor stuff left, right and centre.

[Alessus]

You might need to tread carefully or GaG will "I don't want to see this" your opinion.

[JimRSmith]

@Alessus It's an incredibly poor idea, this.

There will be people who'll remove everything they don't like, until only a few regulars they get on with ever answer their questions.

I can't imagine it's going to do anything other than lead to fewer answers overall, and later, to fewer people using the site? Definitely poorly thought-through...

[Alessus]

Fully agreed on that.

[Thisperson98]

They added this stupid feature instead of fixing a security issue that I told them about a year ago.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@Thisperson98 @JimRSmith @Alessus if the site can review questions in a matter of minutes, why can't they do the same for posted opinions? Replies, posts, and opinions should be submitted for review before they are removed. It's something that should only take a few minutes. Without a review process, it's censorship and a terrible idea. There's a difference between being rude and being abusive.

[Goodwifie]

@JimRSmith we know of one recent mytake author who would love the censorship opinion 😆.

[Thisperson98]

Giving users more control is a terrible idea. We moderators can't even see most reports, but regular users can delete opinions without any reason? Uber mods can't even do that.

[Thisperson98]

How about instead of adding features that most users hate, fix the security issues!!!

[NYCQuestions1976]

Censorship without a review process is a bad idea.

[ksoma]

Does removing an answer you don't like just mean you can't see it, or that it is actually deleted?

Having something genuinely offensive removed, or people just saying insults, that makes sense. Just sometimes genuine advice, or a legitimate answer, may not appeal to some people. I don't understand how the nature of a site that seeks to give advice and answers seeks to benefit by giving people the option to say "no, you don't agree with me, so you're banished!"

[NYCQuestions1976]

Exactly. Bad idea

[dipta]

Why is there a need for filtering unwanted opinions? Obviously I'm not referring to abusive or one word opinions, but in general shouldn't we all be free to see and agree or not with the expressed opinions?
Such option will only encourage people to not put much effort into replying to anyone when it's already obvious that's not what the asker wants to hear.

I don't understand why you guys are always trying to make GAG a happy-go-lucky unicorn land. It was the same when we were only allowed to upvote and never downvote.
On the same note, there are incredibly biased mytakes around here, to put it lightly. I would like to be able to downvote a bunch of them, but now not only I'm still not able to, any disagreeing opinion that is posted will also be promptly censored? How great...

[bacca400]

Because some people have rude replies and literally cannot control themselves.

Also, downvotes tend to result in a forum being just an echo chamber, so in general, I'm against down votes. Reddit is a good example of an echo chamber.

[CubsterShura]

Hmm...

More MHO: I think more MHO's are needed only when we have 100+ opinions, but we really did not need that many MHO's. But ok.

Hiding opinions: Could be useful for me since I get a lot of troll and Islamophobia on some of my posts and I just want to remove them, but I could have just reported them... and people can easily abuse it and just remove any opinion they dislike even if it was good and helpful. Especially pink anon asking questions and barking at everyone except those who gave the kind of answer that she wanted.

Losing Close Feature: Yes it was used less but it was still important for many of us! Bring it back!

More Labels: Not bad!

[Purple_Summer]

Deleting opinions you don't want to see? I hope they meant only hide them for themselves, while others can still see it. it could still be helpful to others.

[SirRexington]

These responses that the asker doesn't want to see, is that just the asker can't see it? Because what if others want to read it? What if it's just an opinion someone doesn't like? I'm sorry, but again... Simply not liking someone's opinion is not an excuse to hide, delete, report or any other censoring act. I see opinions I don't like everyday, I just scroll past them. Deal with it or get off a sote

[SirRexington]

Deal with it or get off a site specifically made to give opinions.*

[NYCQuestions1976]

This censorship option is a bad idea.

[White_Widow]

Thanks for the update, but the button for censorship has got to go. I agree with most people here, as this being a site for giving advice and opinions it can not happen just because someone doesn't like what's being said it can just be wiped out.

[NYCQuestions1976]

Perfectly stated. The comment should be submitted for review instead.

[coachTanthony]

Yeah because we want to leave it to the Harvard Grads of GAG to decide what censorship is all about right? Not to mention it takes days not minutes for GAG to reply to comments that are reported. Good luck with that.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@coachTanthony Unless your paying the site for the rights to advertise your company or drum up business, no one person or entity has the unilateral right to censor opinions without a review process.

[coachTanthony]

@NYCQuestions1976 Your not listening so lets just drop it. You keep vomiting the same talking points and it's hurting my head.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@coachTanthony It's "you're", not "your".

I'm sorry that logic hurts your head, but you ignored the last item I brought up. This site is free. Are you paying them for the right to advertise your company and drum up business?

[NYCQuestions1976]

@coachTanthony Never mind I withdraw my question. I'm not a customer, or the B. B. B., nor do I suspect foul play, so at the end of the day, it's none of my concern.

Vomiting? Harsh man... harsh. lol

[coachTanthony]

@NYCQuestions1976 So if someone states that I am a child rapist and I am wanted by the FBI.. is that their opinion or just a flat out attack?

[NYCQuestions1976]

@coachTanthony Obviously that's an extreme example.

[coachTanthony]

@NYCQuestions1976 Yes you are correct but nevertheless this kind of stuff has happened to me. So if GAG can intervene in a timely manner on stuff like this great.. but I don't think they can so they gave us the power to do so.. good or bad.

[coachTanthony]

More control over your own threads. Amen to that! Nobody wants someone to come into their post and Hi-jack it with trolling or abusive behavior and I think this is what we are talking about here. If Susie writes a post about red lip stick and asks for other people to share there opinion on their favorite color and starts censoring everyone who doesn't say they like red lipstick well guess what.. nobody is going to respond to her posts anymore. So be it. First of all it's her post.. you want to leave it up to GAG to police censorship? Why? Because GAG employees are top of the line scholars on the first amendment and censorship? Really? And finally.. Say you do leave it up to GAG and they remove a comment that you deem okay? Then what?

[NYCQuestions1976]

Only opinions submitted for review would run the risk of being removed. If the person that starts the thread doesn't ask for the post to be reviewed, then nothing would happen.

The process is something that should happen within a matter of minutes. I absolutely agree with that. No reason for the site to drag their feet.

However, the bottom line is this: The new "control" feature is censorship, and it's just another tool for someone to dial whine-1-1 and request a wah-mbulance.

[coachTanthony]

@NYCQuestions1976 if someone drops an opinion and said's Don't listen to this guy he is a child rapist and wanted by the FBI.. I should then have to wait hours if not days for the to be removed? You see.. if GAG responded quickly than fine but they haven't said they will be responding quickly so I should have the right to delete it so it doesn't interrupt or slander the poster. So again I am not talking about normal opinions on me or my business so please I beg you to stop telling me that.

[NYCQuestions1976]

My lunch break is nearly over. We'll agree to disagree. Please feel free to answer my questions and whatever else I post (bonus points for sarcasm and humor). Later. 👍

[coachTanthony]

@NYCQuestions1976 Alright man.. have a good day!

[Pamina]

This thread ins only 2 hours old and there's already plenty of users compaining about the "Giving You More Control" feature. Maybe, G@G you will have to reconsider that one? It's clearly very unpopular, and understandably so. It will create echo chambers. That's very problematic and will distort the discourse. Bad idea.

I'm not sure if I get the new MHO system. So you can pick 2 for each gender now, okay. But what was that about a third and fourth MHO picked by the system? Huh?

[Pamina]

Oh, and another question: If someone's opinion gets removed by the Asker, will that user also lose their Xper points for that opinion?

[Waftpermidgeon]

I immediately disregard any opinion from someone who uses the word "problematic."

[Pamina]

@Waftpermidgeon Okay? So you agree with this new feature. Good for you, I suppose?

[NYCQuestions1976]

@Pamina Agreed. Censorship without a review process is a terrible idea.

[Pamina]

@NYCQuestions1976 Yep.

[villageidiot]

@NYCQuestions1976 THey never explain why! THey just give this generic warning and refuse to answer the messages I send them. The conservative bias is sooo obvious on this site.

[LisaLisa89]

So, you can delete opinions you don't like - and then everybody agrees with you that Donald Trump is fantastic, abortion is right, or that age-old one about all girls liking improbably huge (sentence curtailed due to lack of space).
Aside from that the changes look okay - thank you.

[CT_CD]

The "Giving You More Control" thing is just dumb. People can just remove any opinions they disagree with. Doesn't even have to be breaking the rules. I hope that change doesn't stay long because it's terrible.

[NYCQuestions1976]

I 1000% agree. If the site can review posted questions, why can't they review submitted opinions before removal is allowed? There's a difference between rude and abusive.

[CT_CD]

@NYCQuestions1976 I agree. I hope it gets changed back. The Asker shouldn't be able to just remove anyone's opinion because they feel like it. Shouldn't be removed unless it's breaking the rules

[NYCQuestions1976]

Unfortunately, it's more "safe space" thinking.

[NYCQuestions1976]

All of these updates are awesome... except for one. Censorship? Really? Basically a new personalized "safe space" tool for people to dial whine-1-1 and request a wah-mbulance.

[NYCQuestions1976]

How about if people are genuinely concerned about actual abusive comments and not just "I disagree" or "you're wrong" comments, they can be submitted for review instead?

[Kyren]

I did wonder about this! I was also concerned that when people are using the "I don't want to see this" option, isn't it possible for people to abuse this if they chose to delete every opinion on their question except for certain people so they gain easy MHOs unfairly?

[NYCQuestions1976]

@Kyren I was just looking at it from the censorship point of view. I didn't think about or consider the effect on Most Helpful awards...

[BaileyisDarcy]

Get rid of the delete comment button. Or at least change it so the deleted comment gets reviewed, and if found non offensive, reinstated.

People are going to disagree with other people. Children, no matter how old the child is, shouldn't have the option to pretend criticism or disagreements dont exist.

[Red-Blaze]

I have to say that I like that you allow to select more then one most helpful, will really help
But on that note also want to say that I think allowing anyone to delete an opinion is bad, as that is a great way to create an echo chamber :(
Its better if one can mark it, but let someone else not the asker pick if to delete it

[MsShahad]

I don't think that anyone's opinion should be filtered based on whether or not an "Asker does not like an opinion on their question". It seems to me like this defeats the purpose of the entire website. Thre reason why we ask questions is to see peoples opinions, I feel like people would just use this to promote their own opinion by filtering out anyone that disagrees.

[douride2]

Not much new here. The label option on the myTake may be useful. The MHO how can you have 2 MHO? As for the I don't want to see this does that automatically delete the opinion or does it hide it till it's reviewed by a GAG mod? The only update of use is the elimination of the close questions. Closing of questions was silly to begin with.

[NYCQuestions1976]

Unless there's a way to put posts under review before removing them, the censorship option is a bad idea.

[douride2]

@NYCQuestions1976 That is what I'm thinking.

[villageidiot]

What they censor and what they leave alone stinks of bias. They won't answer the objections of those who question them. The administrators make no secret of their conservative bias.

[andreasderjuengere]

Partly appreciated. I read numerous comments on censorship. And I see that 'risk'; but it depends on individual maturity and those who count will handle it reasonably; but it will help to block out irrelevant certain youtube clips or general disturbing of things. In the end, we will be kept busy with features; that's the game, isn't it?