Doug Scott friend request

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.

I've just had a rather creepy friend request from Doug Scott (or someone purporting to be him on Facebook and using his old Facebook page.) I thought he died about 7 weeks ago? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

6
 Dave Garnett 26 Jan 2021
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I think you're safe to assume it isn't this Doug Scott at least:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/07/doug-scott-obituary

 Cog 26 Jan 2021
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

After Ed Grindley had died Facebook suggested several times that I should be his friend.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

A friend request, or a 'people you may know' thing?

The latter are automatic. I'm pretty sure the former are not.

In reply to captain paranoia:

I don't like the way this person appears to have stolen Doug Scott's old Facebook page. I also don't like the way someone here dislikes me for not liking this. Maybe there really are some cretins who approve of people disrespecting the dead, particularly someone as great as Doug Scott, in this way? I despair.

11
In reply to captain paranoia:

It was a friend request. Nothing to suggest it wasn't genuine.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I have neither liked nor disliked your posts. That dislike may be in agreement with your observation; they dislike what you have reported, not you. Try not to take things so personally.

The profiles of the deceased are sometimes maintained by family members, and that may involve expanding the 'friend network', in memoriam, if you like.

I have no idea what is happening in this case; I'm just providing you with an alternative explanation for what you perceive as 'creepy'.

Post edited at 18:24
 Giles Davis 26 Jan 2021
In reply to captain paranoia:

I was just about to reply with similar a post. Ted Deerhurst (UK Pro Surfer who died in 1997) has a Facebook 'presence' which is maintained (not sure whether by family, friends or just a fan).

Post edited at 18:27
 wercat 26 Jan 2021
In reply to captain paranoia:

UKC is responsible for a lot of this grief - if they had just given us "Agree" and "Disagree" buttons it would have seemed a lot less personal

Post edited at 18:27
20
In reply to captain paranoia:

Thanks, yes.

 deepsoup 26 Jan 2021
In reply to wercat:

> UKC is responsible for a lot of this grief - if they had just given us "Agree" and "Disagree" buttons it would have seemed a lot less personal

We'd still see people whingeing that someone disagrees with them and doesn't have the courtesy to say why.  UKC have made it easy to turn the buttons off and Gordon has been pointed at that feature many times, but he seems to prefer being regularly offended by them and derailing his own threads to moan about it.

In reply to wercat:

> UKC is responsible for a lot of this grief - if they had just given us "Agree" and "Disagree" buttons it would have seemed a lot less personal

The buttons are not labelled, are they? They are thumbs up and thumbs down. Interpret them as 'agree' and 'disagree' if you like. That's how I generally use them.

 wercat 26 Jan 2021
In reply to deepsoup:

well that might be true but being disliked is a bit more bad sounding than being disagreed with perhaps?

 wercat 26 Jan 2021
In reply to captain paranoia:

perhaps you are quicker than I - the Hovery tooltips show "Like" and "Dislike"

In reply to wercat:

Ah, okay; I dont see those on mobile, which is how I usually access UKC. And, yes, I generally just hit the buttons; thumbs up and thumbs down seem pretty obvious in meaning to me.

But yes, that would be an easy change for UKC to make.

 65 26 Jan 2021
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

There has been a fake/scam Doug Scott FB thing going on for a while. I posted about it (on FB) c.1month before he died.

 deepsoup 26 Jan 2021
In reply to wercat:

> well that might be true but being disliked is a bit more bad sounding than being disagreed with perhaps?

There's the problem in a nutshell - getting a 'dislike' on a post is not necessarily "being disliked".  I've seen people busting up their own threads with a whinge about a dislike on the OP when it's entirely likely that the 'disliker' was actually expressing agreement with them.

This could be an example even.  If Gordon has a recent facebook friend request from Doug Scott, what could that mean?  Well possibly that some random person has hacked Doug Scott's FB account and is (mis)using it themselves.  I wouldn't like that idea. I would dislike it in fact.  So if I wasn't in the habit of posting loads and loads (and loads) of words on here, perhaps I'd just push the button that says "I dislike this!"

Lots more people read the forums here than ever post in them.  If one of those users has pressed the 'dislike' button, they are not going to de-lurk and engage in a conversation with some outraged regular poster demanding to know why.  They already didn't want to put their heads above the parapet when things seemed perfectly (by UKC standards) friendly, they're not going to de-lurk specifically to get into an argument.  How many times has this experiment been tried now?  "Disliker - why did you dislike my post?"  Four more dislikes but no answer. 

The answer will never come, but the additional dislikes always will because pushing the dislike button is just a ridiculously easy way to troll someone who has chosen to make themselves the lowest-hanging fruit for a troll you can possibly imagine.  Like a well known and widely respected author who has a bit of a meltdown in public every time someone presses the "have a bit of a meltdown in public" button.  "Dance for me monkey!" says the random troll with the IQ of a grapefruit, and the guy with a brain the size of a planet obliges.

So Gordon, and all the other dislike whingers, pretty please for the sake of your own sanity, if you can't just ignore the dislikes turn them off and forget they were ever there!  (At least until the next time you're reading the text of a thread about something else entirely that gets derailed onto the most tediously repetitive topic UKC has to offer.)

2
 deepsoup 26 Jan 2021
In reply to 65:

> There has been a fake/scam Doug Scott FB thing going on for a while. I posted about it (on FB) c.1month before he died.

Did you report it?  I know Facebook are pretty useless, but they can't be expected to do anything about it if people dont.

In reply to 65:

> There has been a fake/scam Doug Scott FB thing going on for a while.

Ah, yes. I think that recollection vaguely flitted through my head as I opened the thread, but Gordon's OP displaced it...

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/off_belay/warning_-_fake_doug_scott_accou...?

 WaterMonkey 26 Jan 2021
In reply to captain paranoia:

> The buttons are not labelled, are they? They are thumbs up and thumbs down. Interpret them as 'agree' and 'disagree' if you like. That's how I generally use them.

if you were talking to a group of people and whilst talking a few put there thumbs up you’d generally take that as positive, they like what you’re saying, they agree or empathise with you. If however someone suddenly gave you a thumbs down whilst you were talking to them you wouldn’t have a clue what they didn’t like or agree with. You’d say “ what’s the thumbs down for mate?” 
 

It’s a nice human trait to not want to offend someone, so when you get a thumbs down for a very non-offensive post it’s natural to want to know what you did wrong.

Lose the dislike button but keep the like button.

Sorry to derail the thread further Gordon!

1
In reply to captain paranoia:

The creep has just sent me another message. Which I've ignored. It's a very convincing Facebook page.

Here's how it looks:

https://www.gordonstainforthbelper.co.uk/images/DougScottImpersonator2.jpg

this is his image when you click on that:

https://www.gordonstainforthbelper.co.uk/images/DougScottImpersonator3.jpg

And this was his message to me:

https://www.gordonstainforthbelper.co.uk/images/DougScottImpersonator1.jpg

2
 marsbar 26 Jan 2021
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

You see the 3 dots on the right hand side of his profile? 

Click on there and choose the option report profile.  

Then choose the appropriate option something like pretending to be someone.  

 marsbar 26 Jan 2021
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

What appears to be the real Doug Scott account on Facebook changed the picture earlier this year to that one on a black background.  

I can't find the fake one, if you copy and paste the link for the fake profile here I can report it as well if you wish. Sometimes multiple reports get dealt with quicker.

 65 26 Jan 2021
In reply to deepsoup:

I was alerted to it by a mutual friend, I didn't receive it.

Cpt. Paranoia: that looks like it refers to the same scam profile I heard about.

Post edited at 21:51
In reply to marsbar:

Sorry, I've been on the phone. Will do something about this now.

In reply to marsbar:

I can't get to his profile any longer because it now says 'This Content Isn't Available Right Now'. He's a v slippery customer I fear.

 marsbar 26 Jan 2021
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

That means someone else reported it and he has been deleted.  Good.  

 Jon Read 26 Jan 2021
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

At least Facebook has the sense to *not* have a 'thumbs down' option on posts. 

1
 marsbar 26 Jan 2021
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

In future if you think a profile may be fake, click on the "about" and see if there are any name changes.  Also click on pictures and see what previous profile photos show, sometimes quite a giveaway.  

In reply to Jon Read:

Yes, Jon )

 marsbar 26 Jan 2021
In reply to Jon Read:

Right now Facebook could do with a "wtf you crazy anti vaxx conspiracy theorist" button.  

I usually settle for the Wow.  

In reply to deepsoup:

Oh dear. I wasn't talking about the dislike button at all, I was talking about someone apparently not liking me for being offended by a Doug Scott impersonator. If they'd said it in ordinary text rather than the Dislike button, my reaction would have been just the same.

(I accept though that one of the problems with that button is its totally ambiguity in that it can mean two completely opposite things: 1. I dislike you for saying that, or 2. I agree with you that what you're telling us is awful.)

Post edited at 23:01
5
 deepsoup 27 Jan 2021
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> I accept though that one of the problems with that button is its totally ambiguity in that it can mean two completely opposite things: 1. I dislike you for saying that, or 2. I agree with you that what you're telling us is awful.

And yet you remain convinced that the 'dislike' you derailed this thread to complain about was option 1?  Why?  (Rhetorical question, I don't really want to know.)

Incidentally there is no option 1.  It is not "I dislike you for saying that", it is "I dislike what you said".  The difference is significant.  If you can't help seeing it solely as the former and then taking it as a personal slight for goodness sake stop feeding your paranoia and simply turn the buttons off.

2
Andy Gamisou 27 Jan 2021
In reply to Jon Read:

I often hear this argument, but don't understand the logic given that you can express displeasure in a greater variety of ways than on UKC.  Why is the example below better than a "thumbs down" for example?  

Edit - there's supposed to be a screen grab here of a FB post of mine with the "angry" face reaction, but munificent UKC seems to keep rejecting the image for some reason.  I'm sure you can use your imagination

Post edited at 14:22
Blanche DuBois 27 Jan 2021
In reply to deepsoup:
> ....

  > If you can't help seeing it solely as the former and then taking it as a personal slight for goodness sake stop feeding your paranoia and simply turn the buttons off.

I don't think he can.  So for as I can see, he's one of those on UKC who simply "can't" be wrong in his own mind, so the existence of a button that allows people to register their belief that he "is" wrong, and in such a way that he can't start some long justification on why he's actually right, eats him (and others of the same ilk (Offwidth comes to mind)) up.  Thus the constant bleating about it, even though 93% of UKC users don't want the "dislike" button removed (UKC figure).

1
Andy Gamisou 27 Jan 2021
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Did you accept his friend request??

Ah - I see you have.  I was going to say that you've now exposed your friend list to him (or it), but you friend list is public anyway.

Post edited at 15:02
 john arran 27 Jan 2021
In reply to Andy Gamisou:

> Edit - there's supposed to be a screen grab here of a FB post of mine with the "angry" face reaction, but munificent UKC seems to keep rejecting the image for some reason.  I'm sure you can use your imagination

Maybe UKC has seen sense and is boycotting FB too, as everyone should be doing really.

 deepsoup 27 Jan 2021
In reply to Blanche DuBois:

Well I'm never* wrong either!  But I don't imagine that everyone who pushes the 'dislike' button on one of my posts is saying they dislike me.
(*almost)

> 93% of UKC users don't want the "dislike" button removed (UKC figure).

Is that right?  I'm not certain but I think that might be the figure for people who don't want both buttons removed, and strangely a lot of the ones who most want the dislikes to go are also adamant that the likes should stay.

 Ridge 27 Jan 2021
In reply to deepsoup:

> Well I'm never* wrong either!  But I don't imagine that everyone who pushes the 'dislike' button on one of my posts is saying they dislike me.

🤔

Andy Gamisou 27 Jan 2021
In reply to john arran:

> Maybe UKC has seen sense and is boycotting FB too, as everyone should be doing really.

Tend to agree, but until everyone starts using another platform it's the only way for me to organise non-spousal related climbing partners.  And of course once everyone does start using another platform, then that platform will get delusions of adequacy (as FB has now) and the same sort of problems will arise.  The genie is out the bottle, in my opinion, so the best thing to do is manage it best one can.

 john arran 27 Jan 2021
In reply to Andy Gamisou:

The answer would be for someone to develop a social media 'standard' with all of the most popular features, then users would be able to send or read any posts using the client of their choice but no one company would have god-rights over the whole network; a kind of email for the 21st century.

 deepsoup 27 Jan 2021
In reply to Ridge:

> 🤔

What?  What does that even mean!?  How dare you!? I demand an explanation!!
etc..
🤡

1
 deepsoup 27 Jan 2021
In reply to john arran:

> a kind of email for the 21st century.

That sounds quite a lot like the newsgroups of the 20th century. 
(Well, just barely.  Did u.r.c. limp on into the 21st century a little way before it finally died?)

Post edited at 15:24
Andy Gamisou 27 Jan 2021
In reply to john arran:

> The answer would be for someone to develop a social media 'standard' with all of the most popular features, then users would be able to send or read any posts using the client of their choice but no one company would have god-rights over the whole network; a kind of email for the 21st century.

Sounds good.  FB will still have close to 3 billion regular monthly users though (including your good self I note).  Not sure how motivated FB would be to support this standard. Don't disagree in principle though.

 john arran 27 Jan 2021
In reply to Andy Gamisou:

I joined many years ago just to not appear rude in ignoring friend requests. The only thing I've ever used it for is a local Ariège climbing group and I've always tried to do that by email notifications so as not to have to login and feed the monster. Haven't even done that for ages as they keep changing the permissions so as to force you to login and I got pissed off with their underhand tactics. Probably should close the account but it's immaterial really as it's effectively dormant.

FB definitely wouldn't be interested in supporting any standard protocol because it goes against everything they have ever done, which is to lock people in wherever possible and to buy up any potentially threatening competition. The software has always been pretty ropey, considering the resources they must have had along the way to create it.

 Ridge 27 Jan 2021
In reply to deepsoup:

> What?  What does that even mean!?  How dare you!? I demand an explanation!!

> etc..

> 🤡

😃🤷‍♂️

 Offwidth 27 Jan 2021
In reply to Blanche DuBois:

I'll bite....it reminds me if the quote "I thought you would never come back to this horrible place!"

Rob said on the other thread:

"We asked about this within our last Readership Survey and the feedback was divided between people not being bothered (52%) or to leave them as they were (35%). Only 5.7% of people wanted them to be removed, which is why we added the ability to switch them on/off."

So using your rhetoric I could say only about a third of those surveyed wanted to keep them.

I don't give a toss if I'm personally disliked but I do care when people like Sav top a dislike list as I cant stand bullies.  I also believe in research based decision making and that currently says dislike buttons are bad for the sites, bad for some users (especially those with mental health difficulties) and bad for advertising revenues. That's why Facebook changed its mind. I made the point about the death penalty before: most people in the UK support that despite the evidence being massively against it for all sorts of reasons. Feel free to provide evidence about how dislike buttons are shown to be beneficial (I'm not aware of any).

Also aping your rhetoric, I could ask why a small number of regulars keep bleating about those who have a right to their opinion to dislike dislike buttons.

1

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...