Viewing the message boards in:

The Origin and Meaning of "Woo"

189111314

Replies

  • Posts: 3,882 Member
    corrarjo wrote: »
    f0123qnek3wb.png

    I've only been here two months, and they all came from you guys.

    Post history checks out. You avoided the forums for a remarkably long period of time considering you joined in '14 but only just started posting a couple months ago. I admire your resilience.
  • Posts: 34,537 Member
    *twinsies*
  • Posts: 3,882 Member
    *twinsies*

    @pinuplove is my twin but we can be triplets because more is better.
  • Posts: 35,971 Member
    sijomial wrote: »

    I use the woo button in the way it's supposed to be used - is that rude or just direct?
    The point I was making is that don't say "BS/too good to be true/WTF" when you mean "well done".

    Personally I don't mind having a discussion with someone I disagree with but there are people on here that it's impossible to have a sensible dialogue with and/or it avoids the ganging up aspect that people disliked before the woo button was instigated - hopefully if people see multiple woos against a post it raises a bit of a warning flag for people to consider, including the person who posted (hopefully!).

    Do wish MFP would spend 5 minutes changing the label on the HTML tag to something unambiguous.

    It's food for thought to me, I admit, to see >1 woo on one of my posts. There again, context is important.

    And, to your first question, I think it's direct, though I would typically state my objections in more detail (probably absurdly exhaustive, over-caveat-ed detail: Sigh) if no one else had already done so.

    I would certainly say "BS" to someone IRL in a conversation, if that were my best tactic. (For changing their mind, or influencing bystanders, it often isn't, even if it's part of my mental reaction. Online is a little different, but not totally.)
  • Posts: 12,871 Member

    @pinuplove is my twin but we can be triplets because more is better.

    Our level of twinsieness is approaching uncomfortable levels :lol: Just don't hug me if we ever meet on the street and we're all good. I'll admire your shoes and you can say I look nothing at all like a cat.
  • Posts: 35,719 Member
    Fivepts wrote: »

    But yours has 8 now and it's still here.

    It was a bug for a while though, which was great!
  • Posts: 3,882 Member
    pinuplove wrote: »

    Our level of twinsieness is approaching uncomfortable levels :lol: Just don't hug me if we ever meet on the street and we're all good. I'll admire your shoes and you can say I look nothing at all like a cat.

    We shall then nod and walk past each other and never speak of the incident again but continue on our merry MFP ways.
  • Posts: 346 Member
    I always thought it was:

    jvqessemmi4q.jpg
  • Posts: 35,971 Member
    NovusDies wrote: »

    Since I have a crush on Ann it would be creepy for me to call her "granny."

    Or kinky. Just saying.

    But don't even. Right now, I like you.
  • Posts: 3,882 Member
    qweck3 wrote: »
    I always thought it was:

    jvqessemmi4q.jpg

    This is a definition I could get behind.
  • Posts: 35,971 Member
    edited March 2019

    But you know who I mean, don't you? C'mon. Help an old guy out. It's gonna bug me.

    *kitten*

    @middlehaitch That's who I'm thinking of and who I thought you meant for some reason.

    No offense @AnnPT77, it's just who first came to mind with @pinuplove 's comment

    I would love to be mistaken for haitch, but it's not gonna happen. Well, maybe except for you, TW.

    I think haitch has been smart enough to stay the heck off this thread, at least recently? Me, well, not so much . . . .

    :lol:
  • Posts: 3,495 Member

    Wait. It says your join date was 2014.

    Did you just find the forums?

    tumblr_of9a97XO6I1vdlvpao1_400.gif

    Oh I avoided the forms for years. To me, the main function of this website is not the forums. Meanwhile, my main source of social networking, Ravelry...

    I'm typically more surprised when people haven't seen those forums despite being members for years and years, but the forums there are far more robust.
  • Posts: 7,122 Member
    pinuplove wrote: »

    Her too :smile: I want to be like both of them when I grow up.

    Yeah, like you'll ever "grow up"....
  • Posts: 8,940 Member

    Yeah, like you'll ever "grow up"....

    It is kind of weird see you post this much without your buddy @quiksylver296 showing up.
  • Posts: 11,233 Member

    Yeah, like you'll ever "grow up"....

    eeew. grow up?
  • Posts: 22,505 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »

    I have to guess that putting up with a bunch of woo-whining is easier for the very patient and helpful moderator crew than putting out dumpster fires constantly . . . much as I love a good dumpster fire.

    And since (Ann ducks) I know I'm not supposed to comment about moderation, I'll add that I do woo posts from time to time, when that seems like a rational reaction, and especially when others have already made the substantive argument. I appreciate having that option. A post having a boatload of woos and a couple of sound counter-argument replies is a picture that tells a story (once people grasp what woo means). I don't think it's meaningless.

    I don't woo-stalk, though, or woo just because a particular person (with a particular reputation IMO only) said something I disagree with. I probably judge some people's posts more harshly because of past interactions, but truly try not to do that.

    I do think it's funny (funny ha-ha) that the MFP culture likes to woo posts that mention woo. I might sometimes have done that . . . !

    edited: typo

    I agree that in that instance, it would tell a story. However since the button is misused all over the forums as "I don't like this person" or "I don't like that the person said something positive about their experience using (certain exercise, certain woe) to help them reach their goals," people who are new to the forums aren't getting the meaning that people who have been here awhile are trying to steer them away from something that might be "too good to be true."

    You can't share information with someone who might be helped by it if you immediately drive them away. I know some people are perplexed that other users choose groups over the main forums, because groups don't always have a lot of opposing viewpoints to discuss. But when every topic on that subject gets a bunch of woos just because some people don't like it, even completely innocuous posts where the person just mentions the tools they use in weight loss, it's really not all that surprising that people don't want to stick around and engage with people who behave that way.
  • Posts: 28,055 Member
    kgeyser wrote: »

    I agree that in that instance, it would tell a story. However since the button is misused all over the forums as "I don't like this person" or "I don't like that the person said something positive about their experience using (certain exercise, certain woe) to help them reach their goals," people who are new to the forums aren't getting the meaning that people who have been here awhile are trying to steer them away from something that might be "too good to be true."

    You can't share information with someone who might be helped by it if you immediately drive them away. I know some people are perplexed that other users choose groups over the main forums, because groups don't always have a lot of opposing viewpoints to discuss. But when every topic on that subject gets a bunch of woos just because some people don't like it, even completely innocuous posts where the person just mentions the tools they use in weight loss, it's really not all that surprising that people don't want to stick around and engage with people who behave that way.

    I agree with everything you've said in this and your last post, but could we at least have it changed to something more clear, like "Disagree"?

    In every thread or long discussion about Woo, some people post that they didn't realize they were using it incorrectly, and often feel bad.
  • Posts: 35,971 Member
    Now I'm wondering if woo-stalkers are ever an actual thing, or just imagination by those of us (sometimes me) who feel like a lot of random innocuous posts have been woo-ed in a short time period.

    I almost never try to guess who woo-ed my posts, although sometimes it's tempting to assume. Can't say I care, either.
  • Posts: 8,940 Member
    edited March 2019
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    Now I'm wondering if woo-stalkers are ever an actual thing, or just imagination by those of us (sometimes me) who feel like a lot of random innocuous posts have been woo-ed in a short time period.

    I almost never try to guess who woo-ed my posts, although sometimes it's tempting to assume. Can't say I care, either.

    I have had it happen in other places than just here and one person was quite vocal about down-voting my posts. He wasn't happy when I was laughing over it and talking about setting up camp in his brain for some reason. Go figure.
  • Posts: 3,882 Member
    NovusDies wrote: »

    I have had it happen in other places than here and one person was quite vocal about down-voting my posts. He wasn't happy when I was laughing over it and talking about setting up camp in his brain for some reason. Go figure.

    Ah yeah, I'm guessing projection. He probably gets really mad when people woo his posts, so he thinks it'll make you mad, and then gets mad when it doesn't.
  • Posts: 8,940 Member

    Ah yeah, I'm guessing projection. He probably gets really mad when people woo his posts, so he thinks it'll make you mad, and then gets mad when it doesn't.

    He definitely took himself, posting, and post voting very seriously (it was a sports related message board).
This discussion has been closed.