|
Chris at least you can disable only down-vote option for new members according to points mentioned by DD. If possible.....
|
|
|
|
|
When someone goes on a downvoting spree it's usually someone who has been around for a while. The reason they are downvoting is because they've had a long, ongoing spat with someone else.
Yes, removing their account and banning downvots for new members will solve the downvoting, but it's a very large hammer to use. A far easier solution is to stop feeding the trolls and downvoters.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I love your innocence and touching naivety. It's so sweet to see. 
|
|
|
|
|
I had to try...
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, your fact is right which i was already guessed something, that's why i leave the words "If possible" last in my message. Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree. Just pretending that a jerk isn't being a jerk works as well online as it does in real life. How the proprietors handle jerks is the difference between the nice bar you take your friends to when they come to visit and the nuisance that get shut down because they're always having the police show up.
I hate to say it, but the lack of any consequences for abusers is pushing the lounge towards the latter category.
The only thing that setting the current limits on voting rates has done is to make peer moderation nearly impossible because when a troll goes crazy only the people who hit refresh every 10 minutes can come close to casting abuse votes on all its posts. The univoting trolls meanwhile are free to just switch between thier various sock puppets and can cast abusive votes on everything.
3x12=36
2x12=24
1x12=12
0x12=18
|
|
|
|
|
Good points, Dan. Very good points.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Totally agree. I wondered for a while now why the CP admins can't just target the occasional black sheep.
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
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)
