|
Define "target". If you mean "remove accounts", "remove spurious votes", or "have a heart to heart with a long standing member who has an issue and resolve it sensibly", or any combination thereof, then I'd say we're covered.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris, let's say you have the occasional black sheep covered, then everyone should be fine and there should be no voting problem for most. But since the topic comes up again and again and angers members... I am asking myself if there is something left to be improved (such as a faster admin response time or more tools for peer review)? I'd say you are not covered, the occasional univoter trolls are still able to cause trouble. Luckily I miss most of the voting trouble, because I am rarely posting in the Lounge. 
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: ...or you could stop giving the person the attention they crave.
+1.
Anyone giving the univoter what he/she needs (attention) is as bad as the univoter.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, to stop some abusive users, why the whole site has to be abusive to new users. I also though about this kind of rule, because it was not going to affect me. you need to think from every single user's perspective.
|
|
|
|
|
Why does it worry you so much?
The uni-voters aren't doing any harm in fact there giving you more rep points since in every case over the past week every time the uni-voter strikes multiple other people balance the 1 vote out, people with higher reputations and thus more weight in the voting.
So after 15 min or so your reputation actually went up instead of down and the posts are colored in blue (maybe even in red).
|
|
|
|
|
It is the Abuse that I object to.
------------------------------------
I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
CCC League Table Link
CCC Link[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
I can see that that would annoy you but still the argument stands, the 1 votes get more than balanced out by the regular members and eventually the forum goes back to normal.
What I object to however is the accusing people from being uni-voters while having no hard evidence of it (this has happened several times now in the past week by several people).
The only people who can determine that are the CP admins and the rest of us should just let them deal with it the way they see fit and not going around accusing people just because we feel / think it's them.
|
|
|
|
|
Tom Deketelaere wrote: The uni-voters aren't doing any harm in fact there giving you more rep points since in every case over the past week every time the uni-voter strikes multiple other people balance the 1 vote out, people with higher reputations and thus more weight in the voting.
So after 15 min or so your reputation actually went up instead of down and the posts are colored in blue (maybe even in red).
Yes, you typically end up with 1 downvote, and on average at least 3-4 upvotes, which gives you a substantial reputation boost.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I think we all (at least should) recognize that we're just looking the other way regaerding the unacceptable behavior.
I kinda like the idea not allowing down-voting (2 or lower) priviledges until the userID has achieved a certain reputation level in Debator and Participant as well as a certain tenure (30 days may not be enough, but I'm agreeable to that number to see if it helps). I think that's a very reasonable idea.
Before anyone suggests that this could artificially skew answer ratings in the programming forums, I think sufficiently rated members would just naturally take care of that without even being asked. Such a system would still allow the new user to mark an answer as "good" or "accepted", so I see no harm in at least giving it a try.
IMHO, enough people (highly rep'd, long-standing, and steady contributers) have expressed a certain level of annoyance with the univoters that CP has a responsibility to address the issue.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: IMHO, enough people (highly rep'd, long-standing, and steady contributers) have expressed a certain level of annoyance with the univoters that CP has a responsibility to address the issue.
Absolutely, but I need to address the actual, not perceived issue. The issue isn't sock puppets or new members.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: The issue isn't sock puppets
Really? At one point the whole front page of the Lounge was grey and the majority of these posts had three 1-votes. Are you saying that three individual members took it upon themselves to carpet bomb the lounge at the exact same time? The thread in question was fat_boys GW one but even the replys from other members had the multiple one votes.
|
|
|
|
|
PompeyBoy3 wrote: Really? At one point the whole front page of the Lounge was grey and the majority of these posts had three 1-votes. Are you saying that three individual members took it upon themselves to carpet bomb the lounge at the exact same time? The thread in question was fat_boys GW one but even the replys from other members had the multiple one votes.
You cannot cast multiple votes, even from different accounts, from the same IP address. While it's technically possible for someone to simultaneously maintain 3 IP addresses and vote from all 3 of them using multiple accounts, it's far far more likely that the multiple votes came from different members (and based on what Chris said, none of them are newbies, and may in fact be Gold or Silver status members here).
|
|
|
|
|
Nishant Sivakumar wrote: You cannot cast multiple votes, even from different accounts, from the same IP address
Learnt my something new for today. Which suggests this wasn't abuse but more people showing their disproval of the GW subject matter then.
If it was abuse then I would love Chris to name and shame them on this occasion, although I appreciate why this will never happen.
|
|
|
|
|
Im voting this suggestion 5, its a bit of a sledgehammer, but achieves the goal in a fair and meaningful way IMO.
Voting shouldn't be a right, it should be a privilige (again, IMO).
|
|
|
|
|
J4amieC wrote: Voting shouldn't be a right, it should be a privilige
I totally disagree. Every member of the site has the right to express their opinion. The issue here is that "expressing your opinion" can turn into "abusing the site" for an extremely small number of members. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I think a variant of SO's implementation would help here. I know you don't want new users to be unable to vote so setting the minimum threshhold at 100 isn't an option. But if you allowed rep to go negative and disabling voting rights at say -10 or so, a 1 point reduction in rep for down voting would still allow new users to cast votes but would make running sock puppets much more inconvenient since the abusers would have to keep creating new ones every few minutes.
3x12=36
2x12=24
1x12=12
0x12=18
|
|
|
|
|
So, as you downvote you lose rep, and negative rep is the limit to allow you to vote?
Interesting.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah. It's basically the SO system except with the thresholds shifted so that new users can vote immediately. It would cripple sock puppets; but if the trouble is coming from a few high rep individuals it might not be enough to squish them; depends how many stupid votes they've cast relative to legit rep they've earned; and you're the only person who can look at that stat.
3x12=36
2x12=24
1x12=12
0x12=18
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: Every member of the site has the right to express their opinion.
People who have just registered are not members of this community, they're glorified lurkers until they've proven otherwise with either a) tenure or b) participation.
Again, just my humble opinion. In the immortal works of Vince Larkin Cameron Poe "Cyrus, this is your barbecue, man, and it tastes good"
Edit: I should know the bloody character names if im gonna quote a movie.
|
|
|
|
|
An option that Hans (and I'm sure others - forgive my poor memory) has suggested is a massive simplification of the current system. Luc Pattyn (and, again, others) are extremely opposed, but it's an idea that can at least stir debate.
Instead of having a 1-5 voting, we have a simple +1. Nothing else. You give a thumbs-up or nothing.
To provide a mechanism for reporting abusive articles, messages, answers - whatever - we provide a "Report this" link. When a certain number of reports are reached the item gets manually investigated.
It's just an idea. Debate away.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
It would eliminate the "who gave that single 4 vote to this masterpiece" problem, and still allow new authors to improve their articles through comments which are just as important to some authors as negative votes
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
The Code Project
|
|
|
|
|
Disagree (sorry  )
It's not because you vote it a 1 that you want it reported.
The message / answer / article / ... can be of little value but still within the boundaries of the site's rule's. Then one could vote down.
It would solve the issue of the uni-voters but I think it would just render the whole voting useless, so you might as well just ditch it and allow no voting for anyone.
I think the voting as we have it now isn't all that bad, it just needs some fine tuning.
|
|
|
|
|
Of course, you could choose not to vote for the article. Effectively, it's a tri-state system; like it - give it a thumbs up; don't like it - don't vote; think it's offensive - report it.
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, you beat me to it.
Like it or not, I think one of the important things for authors is the voting system. We all know how tough it can be when someone strikes with an unreasonable low vote. Most of the time the low-voting is an attempt to shift the rating of an article to what the user thinks it should be.
I rather like the idea of having just a 'Like' option and a 'Don't Like' option (with a comment). Likes and unlikes would be weighted according to user level, just like in the existing system. The challenge with any new voting system is to integrate with the existing data. Not easy. I think though, that if ever the system was going to be overhauled, this would be the way to go.
I think that no matter what restrictions are placed on a out-of-five voting system, it's all relative. If a message is required for less than a 4, then authors end up having higher ratings overall, due to the reluctance of users to comment. Therefore, the perception of what marks a good rating, increases. The more we constrain users, the more the ratings become skewed toward the top end.
This also means that older articles, that were written before the rules were introduced, have lower ratings.
I agree with Chris though. It's important for the site to allow new users to vote because often this is a prime motivator for joining. Maybe bronze level voting influence should be decreased.
Cheers,
Daniel
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: Instead of having a 1-5 voting, we have a simple +1. Nothing else. You give a thumbs-up or nothing.
I've always seconded this idea. 
A variation would be two buttons:
(1) Vote-Up button
(2) Mark as abuse button - this should not count as a 1-vote and should be used purely to get a post auto-removed.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
![Java | [Coffee]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/coffee.gif)
