|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
As you know, I was originally opposed to this idea - I seem to remember getting into a fairly heated debate with Hans over it, but now I like it.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm still debating internally with myself. It's getting a little heated.
What I dislike about this is there's no way to push down the awful but not-quite-offensive stuff.
Although the other argument is: make it easier to vote (or "Like") and more people will do it. If you get close to a 100% voting rate on articles (ie everything has at least a vote) then it should be safe to assume the truly awful will have no votes, and the mildly awful low votes, and the creme de la creme a bucket load.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
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 think this is an awesome idea for the Lounge. IMHO, I think voting in the Lounge/BackRoom/Soapbox is absolutely pointless...it serves no purpose whatsoever other than pissing people off or filling their already inflated egos.
** Flame away **
modified on Tuesday, October 19, 2010 11:40 AM
|
|
|
|
|
This is essentially what we have in the programming forums (Good question / bad question).
It's an easy enough change to make...
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
How about this suggestion:
Leave the voting as it is but instead of coloring the subject gray / blue / red why not just put a small icon next to the subject (left or right) indicating the vote status (thumbs down / nothing / thumbs up)
Reason:
I think the main incentive there uni-voters have is the "satisfaction" of coloring the whole forum grey.
And the main annoyance the other people have is the coloring of the whole forum gray.
Like this the forum color stays consistent and we still can see if a post is downvoted or upvoted.
Don't know if it's any good but was just a thought I had on the way home 
|
|
|
|
|
That defeats the purpose of the voting system. It's meant to be obvious as to which messages are good and which are to be ignored.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Well it would still be obvious just not that obvious, the small icon would indicate which are good and which are not.
But the overall look of the forum would remain the same, lowering the annoyance of the regulars who don't like to see all that gray
It is of course just a suggestion, and yours to do with what you want
|
|
|
|
|
I know I should bunch these all into 1 message but this morning is a write off already so I've been diving into things to see what's been happening and I hate to say it, but your suggestions would have had zero impact on what happened overnight.
As is often the case, the person down-voting would have sailed through your rep checks easily and been unencumbered in their boredom.
I am thinking about the snake idea, though (see the-poster-formerly-known-as-Mario's idea)
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote:
As is often the case, the person down-voting would have sailed through your rep checks easily and been unencumbered in their boredom.
I can't say I'm overly surprised, although I am disappointed. I've seen enough inexplicable univotes only go to 2.3(?) after I countervoted that I knew at least some of the stupid was by long term users...
Chris Maunder wrote: I am thinking about the snake idea, though (see the-poster-formerly-known-as-Mario's idea)
who?
3x12=36
2x12=24
1x12=12
0x12=18
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Neely wrote: I can't say I'm overly surprised, although I am disappointed.
Yeah same here. It's been obvious for a while now that most of the crazy-1-voting sprees have been by Gold or higher level members.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
