Blind upvotes

[Jacobmeister]

-snip-

 

Okay, so over nearly two years (551 days exactly) there have been three mistakes pointed out in this thread. Around 50 suggestions get accepted a day (and these days it's generally more - in the last 24 hours 80 suggestions were accepted!) which means that out of roughly 25,000 accepted suggestions (and I'm being conservative here) you're getting nitpicky about THREE mistakes just to try prove a point?

 

That's madness.

 

Mistakes happen. These mistakes were just plain misjudgements, we're all human. I think you need to take a step back here and realise that three suggestions being accepted mistakenly is nothing in the long run, it does not show any sort of trend, and that blind accepting is just a form of mistake that happens very, very rarely. Since some of these mistakes we've added measures to rectify the problem (like the ability to revert suggestions which has been around for just under a year now). I really don't understand why you're making such a big fuss over this.

[HarryG]

Okay, so over nearly two years (551 days exactly) there have been three mistakes pointed out in this thread. Around 50 suggestions get accepted a day (and these days it's generally more - in the last 24 hours 80 suggestions were accepted!) which means that out of roughly 25,000 accepted suggestions (and I'm being conservative here) you're getting nitpicky about THREE mistakes just to try prove a point?

 

That's madness.

 

Mistakes happen. These mistakes were just plain misjudgements, we're all human. I think you need to take a step back here and realise that three suggestions being accepted mistakenly is nothing in the long run, it does not show any sort of trend, and that blind accepting is just a form of mistake that happens very, very rarely. Since some of these mistakes we've added measures to rectify the problem (like the ability to revert suggestions which has been around for just under a year now). I really don't understand why you're making such a big fuss over this.

Damn right I did it to prove a point; it's even more ridiculous to say that nobody does it and then make a long string of excuses when it's pointed out. The majority are correct but don't say an error has never happened due to blind accepting; that's not right either.

 

 

NOW I'm done here.

 

 

-HarryG

[Foamy the Fearsome]

So don't say it doesn't.

All examples ive seen here are mistakes, not blind accepts.

 

Other, similar examples:

http://backpack.tf/suggestion/56f7a12483de6b6194261489

http://backpack.tf/suggestion/56f807a883de6b058926f716

I did not accept the first one because I did not check anything. I checked the first link and subsequently opened the sellers outpost, showing 50 keys were offered. In earlier posts, the seller said he was willing to take 50. Luckily someone else caught my mistake there.

 

http://backpack.tf/suggestion/5720317dc4404538d736925c

http://backpack.tf/suggestion/5726044e8667476df952257d

http://backpack.tf/suggestion/5727d4dac4404552cc3fd79f

Same story. I checked stuff; I found another sale to back up the value, and accepted it as such. In that 2nd case, I should also have checked the seller's outpost, as the sale was listed there, but I went with the evidence provided and the additional sale I found, as it seemed to check out.

 

There are two different concepts going on here; blind accepting and "doing poor research", or whatever you want to call the situation in which the moderator ends up accepting a suggestion with incorrect, incomplete or insufficient evidence.

 

Blind accepting does not happen, which is what is said, and I dont see anything wrong with that. Even the example you showed after that - shit was checked before the decision was made. it was not a 'blind accept'. Im not saying it was impossible to verify the sale, and in my examples above, that I was not able at all to know what really went on, but the label you put on it is the wrong one