|
Personally I don't mind revealing how I vote, and I don't mind knowing who votes me up or down, but this isn't about me is it?
What do you want the vote to measure, quality or popularity?
If you show who's voting the downvotes will disappear and the rating will lose all meaning, just like it did for the articles. And just like it is for the Lounge.
Is it just me that thinks the Lounge was a lot more interesting in the old times before it was filled with daily whatever, or is it my memory that's playing tricks on me.
|
|
|
|
|
Actually it's precisely about you. And about everyone using the forums. I want your opinion, not what you think someone else's opinion is.
Jörgen Andersson wrote: What do you want the vote to measure, quality or popularity?
And again this is really about you: what do uou vote for when you vote for a forum message? Quality of the post, a reaction to the topic, or (say) a thumbs-up to the poster for posting what what posted?
Jörgen Andersson wrote: it just me that thinks the Lounge was a lot more interesting in the old times
Everything was better in the old times. The air, the water, the ice cream from down the street. The conversations in the lounge. Especially the ones about "the lounge was so much better when..." that are over 10 years old 
I don't actually see that downvoting will make conversations more interesting. Disagreeing and posting your opinion makes lounge discussions more interesting.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, but you see, what I want is not what I think is best for the site/community.
But at the moment I have tp cook for the kids, and put them to bed.
I'll give you a proper answer later, reflecting both sides of my opinions.
|
|
|
|
|
Right here we go:
First, my very own personal opinion. I want complete transparency!
As simple as that.
Do I believe it would work? Well not really. People wouldn't use the downvote which would render the ratings useless.
And the rating is indeed important, not just for the articles but also the Q&A and the technical forums.
So what do I vote for. Clever solutions, being helpful above the normal, teaching something new, correcting my knowledge or simply amusing me.
On the other hand I also vote for low quality posts, that are simply erroneous, or incomplete, or someone being an arse.
You know, the normal stuff.
So as I've said before, the vote means different things in different situations. And that's why I ask, do you want to measure quality or popularity, votes or likes?
Or why not both?
Would it work having both likes and votes? I don't know.
You will always have misuse, but maybe there would be a better balance between up and downvotes, if people could like a post instead of simply upvoting.
I'm specifically thinking of one "massproducer" of articles where the articles are of a pretty low quality as such, but he gets tons of upvotes because they are in the form of a walkthrough which indeed is very helpful for people being new to a subject.
So what about the Lounge. Well I suppose I'm simply getting old. But that's another post and another subject actually.
|
|
|
|
|
Jörgen Andersson wrote: Would it work having both likes and votes?
It would, actually. If done properly.
Jörgen Andersson wrote: First, my very own personal opinion. I want complete transparency! [...] Do I believe it would work? Well not really
I'm not sure I agree.
I get the feeling everyone's focussing on the minority, not the general majority.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: I get the feeling everyone's focussing on the minority, not the general majority.
Which majority are you thinking about?
The 80000 users online or the 500? active users? (What is that number actually?)
I think the active majority would stop downvoting if we have complete transparency.
So the choice ends up being between transparency and a functional rating system, and while transparency is (should be) more important for the active users, a functional rating system is more important for the silent majority I believe.
So here's the twist, while a functional rating system is important for the silent majority, having a happy active user group is important for having an actual functional rating system.
|
|
|
|
|
Jörgen Andersson wrote: The 80000 users online or the 500? active users? (What is that number actually?)
that's what i thought; the 11.7m members or the 500(?) active users?
|
|
|
|
|
Much as I swear about people downvoting my posts and would like to know who did it - and why, I don't think revealing that is a good idea. Not without some sort of control, that is. Some people can handle it in a mature way. Others can't - heck they can't even with anonymous votes and go on a witch hunt against the person they THINK downvoted them. Imagine what those people will do if they know for sure...
So IF the anonymity is removed, there would need to be some constriction on how many of another person's posts one person can downvote.
Another thing: There is (or there should be) a difference between downvoting something and voting it as abuse/spam. Right now, in the forums where downvoting has been disabled, some people take to the abuse/spam vote instead merely because they might not like another person - or so is my general impression anyway.
That kinda undermines the meaning of abuse/spam.
I say: Bring back anonymous downvoting in all forums (perhaps with the above mentioned restriction) - and make the abuse/spam votes non-anonymous. They're much more serious, and people should be able to see/judge if someone is abusing that system.
My 5 cents, for what they're worth
Everything said: If the anonymity is completely removed, I wouldn't have a problem with that either. It's good if people (myself included) are forced to stand by their opinions.
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-
I'd just like a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.
Me, all the time
modified 9-Sep-15 2:29am.
|
|
|
|
|
Johnny J. wrote: say: Bring back anonymous downvoting in all forums (perhaps with the above mentioned restriction) - and make the abuse/spam votes non-anonymous.
Agreed.
Oh, by the way, I upvoted this.
|
|
|
|
|
An age old proverb - "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, but maybe it IS broke! Who gets to decide that? 
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-
I'd just like a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.
Me, all the time
|
|
|
|
|
Johnny J. wrote: Ah, but maybe it IS broke! Who gets to decide that?
Last I heard, it was Chris.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Chris, an idea: I respect that you want to have opinions as well, but why not make this a yes/no option poll and have people opinionate in the comments? Just to get an overall idea... 
Just out of curiosity: What suddenly made you take up this debate again? anything happen? 
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-
I'd just like a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.
Me, all the time
modified 9-Sep-15 2:27am.
|
|
|
|
|
Because I want a discussion unbiased by poll results. Discuss, then vote if necessary.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
I think the real question is: Are we mature enough (all 10+ million)?
Sorry to say, but IMHO: No!
If we were we had no problem to reveal the voter's personality, but we had no need anymore...
(Idea: You may set a property on the profile page and check after a few months how many choose to be known)
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Against - would degenerate into tit-for-tat up or down votes based on the person not the article.
(I say this as a barely functional psychopath myself and imagine I'm not alone in that)
|
|
|
|
|
Duncan Edwards Jones wrote: I say this as a barely functional psychopath myself
And that doesn't make you immediately want to try this out? For shame!
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Establish veneer of respectability then commit heinous acts..t'is the psychopath credo.
|
|
|
|
|
if you're worried about Duncan Edwards Jones wrote: tit-for-tat up or down votes based on the person not the article
then, not a psychopath. sociopath perhaps...?  (also doubtful.)
|
|
|
|
|
We can already be non-anonymous by leaving a comment, right?
I think if people wanted to be non-anonymous they'd leave a comment...
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly. 
I've upvoted you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree, if someone really feels strongly about something (positive or negative), they can leave a comment.
In fact, I don't pay much attention to the votes at all. I find that if someone doesn't actually take the time to write even a quick response to what they disagree with, then it's likely not that important anyway; and they just need a hug. Same goes with an upvote, they just seem like a "Hey, hi five Bro", and my sister does that to my nephew when he uses the "potty".
|
|
|
|
|
I am FOR showing the names of down-voters.
If they truly feel the article or topic warrants a down-vote, then they should be able to stand behind their decision, publicly. A side-effect of this that will most likely be a benefit, is that people will be more careful about publicly down-voting an article or topic, then before, because now, we all know who did it, and they better have a good reason.
Most of us are professionals here, and down-voting, when done correctly, is a form of constructive criticism. Showing the names of down-voters, helps the process be done correctly.
The only con for this, that comes to my mind, is "tit for tat", childish arguments, that may ensue for a brief period of time. You may see an increase in tattle-telling in the Bugs & Sugs, but that should die down after a while.
|
|
|
|
|
Slacker007 wrote: now, we all know who did it, and they better have a good reason.
i understand the sentiment, but THIS is why voting is private in almost all circumstances (unless you're deciding on donuts): the threat of retaliation.
in a way, we're lucky that this is a virtual world so people can speak their minds. but this discussion is conflating the physical and virtual. the virtual aspect makes it difficult; laughable in a way: what possible retaliation can there be? cyber-bullying i guess.
the need for good feedback is very real, but voting... i still lean on the side of anonymity because of the sentiment above (which we could all end up feeling at some point). as others have said, people can comment if they want. and votees can ask around.
the "best" decision can probably only come through several iterations and extensive testing (which i bet you don't want to do).
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
