Anonymous people

@Reject It was there very early on. Like sometime in 2016. I know because it was there in October when I joined.

@DeWayfarer I made an account here when the site started and I don’t ever remember seeing people on the top like that. Maybe I missed it, but everyone I know has been reacting to it’s very recent appearance.

@Reject it was there. I know because I turned it off very early on because I was having problems with catfish back then. They were monitoring that online status light. No status light, no catfish.

@Reject it's a recent thing

@DeWayfarer You might be the only one who saw it then. At least to my knowledge.

@jake60 @Reject referring to the status light. Not the images. The images are recent not the status light. It was pretty much always there.

@DeWayfarer Oh, I see. That makes sense. Yes the status light has been there for awhile, but Jake was talking about it’s implementation in the pictures specifically and that’s what was being discussed. So I just assumed you were talking about that too.

@Reject the images are the people that you at sometime reacted in some way. Could be even a like.

Many people have noticed that they really haven't replied to some of those images. Yet likely they forgot at sometime they somehow reacted.

What's truly funny is they could have reacted with a dislike. And that would put it them on that image list.

Dislike isn't a downvote. It's just a reaction.

@DeWayfarer Recent interactions aren’t the images. At least not all of them. People see users that haven’t been online for years. People they haven’t interacted with in years.

@Reject i didn't say recent! My meaning was at anytime!

You could have disliked years ago. And not even remember it.

Dislike was there as early as 2019.

@DeWayfarer Fair enough, looking at this thread though I’m wondering why we’re even talking about that. You’ve steered the conversation away from the point again. The issue here was how it showed online users and no one is really happy with it anyways.

@Reject ever wondered why there is only just some negative reactions when the major websites add a new feature?

It's because those negative reactions are not broadcasted like on here.
It's their site though. Not mine, your's or the vast majority of users website.

We are even lucky that negative reactions are even broadcasted.

It's because of this I don't complain. Only on admin announcements does negative reactions matter. And even then only within the constraints of the pole which is often taken.

When they talked about the down vote recently they limited the constraints of the pole. They didn't mention to eliminate the down vote.

So once again it's their site. Complaining just doesn't matter outside of admin announcements and even then within the constraints that they have already set up.

Not "steering" the conversation. Just pointing out it's pointless! Accept or leave is actually how the admin think on this! It's their site, once again.

@DeWayfarer The point of their site is it’s userbase. They made it for us and want to get as many people using it as possible. For this goal they monitor things even outside of their pole posts or admin announcements so you’re wrong there. What people say matters. Even now the top bar seems to be changing everyday. They haven’t mentioned anything about it. How would they know what to do with that unless they were watching us?

@Reject the userbase has changed many times over. Just look at the recent, and brand new group for sw status. When this site started this site eventually had over 100,000 users when it started when I joined. Now they finally admitted in those status posts it's around 70,000 users. And has varied with each addition from other sites like Yahoo answers and their old site Iorbix.

So please don't say



Because it's simply untrue!

They made it for themselves! They are a business!

@DeWayfarer There’s no such thing as a business that doesn’t consider it’s consumers. The best actually are centered around them. That is the point, because people are what pay for your business.

@Reject true. Yet your forgetting I mentioned "within constraints."

They simply can't run any site without making a profit. It's that profit that makes it their site.

Sure they will take suggestions. Yet only in certain places and times. And even like I mentioned under constraints.

Heck you can no longer tag them without a warning shown saying they are not likely to answer. That's a business decision. Their time is valuable.

What happens when a business gives away everything? It goes out of business!

You're only thinking on the user end. Not the business end. It's the business end that they were FORCED to rearrange the cotton picking groups that so many hate!

These images are no different! It's there for them to increase their profits. And why it can't be turned off to begin with. They could have easily done so while they were implementing them.

@DeWayfarer You know what makes a business successful? When they turn a profit without telling everyone that’s what they’re doing. If anyone needs to cry about considering the business end such as you are, then your business is failing. Which brings us back to original point. People aren’t enjoying the site. You’re contributing to that.

@Reject that statement is conflicting with itself! Because I'm not the one complaining!