|
Wouldn't they just be reported/removed because we can see them being created just for the down votes? That would probably reduce the amount of sock puppets created as well...
|
|
|
|
|
We're going to go around in circles here, but how do you define an account as a true sock puppet (ie an existing member playing silly buggers) vs a genuine member who has signed up and legitimately wants to down-vote?
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
The same way you define a spam account, I guess.
I'm probably overlooking the problem, I'm sure you've given it more thought than I did.
|
|
|
|
|
They are very different.
A spammer posts ads for Nike shoes.
A member may downvote a message they don't like. Or 10 messages they don't like. They are entitled to their opinion.
A sock puppet, in the worst sense, creates an account specifically to downvote (or upvote) messages to sway scores.
How do you differentiate between someone's legitimate opinion and someone just trying to screw with the votes? Further, how would knowing the member who downvoted you help, other than giving you a target from which you, too, can downvote simply to make the point?
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: They are entitled to their opinion.
That's the problem: most often they don't offer an opinion, just the downvote. So you post something inconsequential and it gets downvoted. That's not an opinion: you're a target. Needs dealing with.
Knowing who it is allows you to spot a pattern of voting. If the same person hits you 5 or 6 times you know they are not offering an opinion. At present it's dealt with by CP making a summary decision: you can see who it is - we can't. Where's the transparency?
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
|
|
|
|
|
OK, so you see that someone has downvoted you 5 times in a row. You see the account is from someone you don't know.
What good will it do you?
If you say "it will allow me to spot a pattern" then what you're also asking for is to see every vote that person made. I don't agree with that in the current form. But assuming you did: you see this person has voted 5's for some, 1's for others. They just happen to have voted 5 of your messages down. Out of 100 random votes this person has made, only 5 are recent downvotes.
What then would you do?
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't say it would do me any good but it would give me the opportunity to ask them why they've done that. In any case, if someone knows that you can see how they've voted they may be less likely to do so for frivolous reasons or be more likely to justify it with a comment.
No, I'm only interested in posts against my account that they make. If I can see that someone is down voting me for no reason then I can bring it to your attention more easily than at present. It also means that if I have been down voted on several posts but by different people then I probably haven't got a leg to stand on. However, if each of those was a new account then I'm pretty sure we can agree I'm being targeted.
Right now I'm getting a large number of negative votes - some I get (they really disagree or are being mischievous because I said the post would generate down votes), others make no sense. It is the votes that make no sense that are so frustrating. I can't believe you don't see that: enough people have mentioned it over the years.
It really is time to address this and make it fair for everyone: at the moment if someone down votes a bunch of posts that's it: I have no recourse, no way of determining why they would do that. Maybe they do genuinely have an issue with the post: well then, say so.
As I said the solution is simple: all votes display the user who made them and n00bs can't vote for the first 6 months or until they accumulate a minimum number of points. I would bet that targeted down voting stops almost immediately.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
|
|
|
|
|
mark merrens wrote: I can't believe you don't see that
I have said repeatedly that I understand the frustration in this.
mark merrens wrote: As I said the solution is simple: all votes display the user who made them
As I've also said this isn't a simple solution for all the reasons stated before. You're going the wrong way about this. You keep saying you want to know why but you must know that if someone goes on a childish downvoting spree the chances of getting a sensible 'why' is about zero, and knowing who downvoted you still doesn't allow you to effectively engage in a discussion on why they voted: Where would you start the conversation? Hopefully not on the Lounge? What motivation would that person have in answering a "why did you downvote me?" question in the first place?
If you want the "why" of why a message was voted down (and I assume messages are the only thing you're talking about here) then why not suggest we include a "add a comment when voting feature"? This will give you the "why" and also, most likely, put a quick stop to downvote sprees. Or, as I'm guessing would happen, you'd get lots of "asdf".
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: Or, as I'm guessing would happen, you'd get lots of "asdf".
I'm not saying this is an easy issue to address but out of the bag it will ceratinly make it easier for a user to determine if they are being targeted if we can see who is slamming us. I'm not saying I'd bother confronting them (what would be the point?) but, at the very least, I'd be better armed when having a moan at you about said behavior and be able to press you harder to do something about it.
I still feel that not allowing anyone to vote with less than 6 months membership would stop sock-puppets and knowing that they are no longer anonymous will stop people randomly one voting cos something I said to them or somebody else has pissed them off.
Let's be honest, who can be bothered to contribute if every time you say something you have it in the back of your mind that some little oik is going to get the hump and go on a down voting spree? It gets very wearing - who can be bothered?
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
|
|
|
|
|
It's not an easy issue, but I'm not willing to make it worse than it is and open Pandoras box (showing who voted) in order to attend to a problem that I honestly feel would not give you the relief from the ungratefuls that you want. I predict you'd actually be more frustrated since you wouldn't get the answers you wanted, and worse, there would be an instant obsession with everyone focused solely on watching the downvotes (not that there isn't already an unhealthy obsession now)
What do you think about "provide a comment to downvote?"?
I'm not a fan of banning new members from expressing an opinion. That's very discouraging. I'd be willing to entertain the idea of allowing newbies up-votes only, and then when they have enough points, they get downvote ability too.
And again, I know you're frustrated, but I have to look at long term effects and look for a solution, not for triggers that will cause bigger problems.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: What do you think about "provide a comment to downvote?"?
I think it's a step in the right direction though, as you said, we'll get a lot of 'asdf'. Still...
Chris Maunder wrote: I'd be willing to entertain the idea of allowing newbies up-votes only, and then when they have enough points, they get downvote ability too.
Personally can't see the problem with having a probationary period where a n00b can comment but not vote: that way we'd get to know them as well. Having the ability to come on, vote and run off is detrimental to everyone.
Chris Maunder wrote: And again, I know you're frustrated, but I have to look at long term effects and look for a solution, not for triggers that will cause bigger problems.
I appreciate that but if I said nothing at all you'd be none the wiser and nothing would get discussed and nothing would change. You (and the team) have built a fantastic community which I very much enjoy but that enjoyment is being spoilt by a few childish people. I know that not everyone will like or agree with what I say and will downvote me. That is okay. What is disheartening is to make a decent post and then get shot down because someone doesn't like you or you have disagreed with them in the past. That's childish behavior which needs to be dealt with.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: Where would you start the conversation?
Can we have a new forum, FlameWars - just you me and the sock puppets.
While I like the idea of exposed voting I can see your point. Another idea - on the listing of voters add the ability to ask the question and post that on the profile forum. Seems a lot of work though.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: Or, as I'm guessing would happen, you'd get lots of "asdf"
I guess that would make easier to spot the bad users from ligitime ones.
Only my 5 cent, just a thought without wanting to initiate another front in this debate.
Just for the record... I am not concerned about the downvotes. They are annoying, yes, sometimes frustrating, yes.
But reputation of good members are in the articles, answers, participation, usefull tips and things like that. And any person that stays a while in the CP comunnity can differenciate who is who.
Personally, if I don't like the thematic of a thread, I switch to the next one. And I think that most of "normal" users do the same without downvoting.
Regards.
--------
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpfull answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
I would imagine that also being fairly obvious. Or perhaps change the rules so that users must first earn a certain number of rep points before they can vote or you have to have been live for a certain length of time before being given voting priviliges.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
|
|
|
|
|
|
What are people worried about? A vote of 1? Having a message's vote average lowered? Or losing rep points?
If it were 2 or 3 then it's not a huge issue because low rep votes do not weigh highly. However, I suspect it's box 1 that is the annoying factor. It's an insult when someone votes you down, and that is (to me) the main issue here.
The two options I see are:
1. Open it up. This will cause voting wars, but I've been knocking around a few ideas on this that may help
2. Lock it down to high rep members. This won't work because more often than not it's members with decent rep that cause the problem, and it also means new members can't participate. This is unfair.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
You being targetted again mate? I'm curious as to who goes around voting 2 on everything. It's an odd vote to cast.
|
|
|
|
|
Who knows what goes through people's minds? Not me, that's for sure! There do seem to be a few people that get hit form time to time. I think there is an easy way to stop it (see other posts).
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
|
|
|
|
|
1 and 5 are boring, vote 2 and 4 it screws with CMs mind.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
1 hour and 2 minutes.
Darned! I'll have to get faster at this downvoting thing. 
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine."
Ross Callon, The Twelve Networking Truths, RFC1925
|
|
|
|
|
Gets my 5 though should have taken 1 off for tardiness. 
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
|
|
|
|
|
I shall be more vigilant next time.
Cheers!
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine."
Ross Callon, The Twelve Networking Truths, RFC1925
|
|
|
|
|
...it is driving me round the twist.
Every time you paste into existing text, any characters after the entry point become HTML safe.
Try this:
Start a reply to this message.
Highlight this text and use the "Quote Selected Text" feature.
Copy a word from the quoted text, then paste it in the quoted area, so it is within the blockquote tags.
Look what happened to the closing tag.
<blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">OriginalGriff wrote:</div>Quoted -pasted text- text & amp;lt;/blockquote& amp;gt;
It's not so bad when it's a reply-and-quote, but it also happens when I paste formatted tag code from my supply of standard replies, or pre-prepared links, etc.
Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting! This happens when the Stip HTML, Encode HTML or Codeblock is chosen.
I'll fix.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Most of the time, I don't get a choice!
I know the box you mean (to the right of the entry textbox) - I see it every once in a blue moon - but most of the time I have no options at all.
Chrome 17.0.963.66, CTRL-F5 makes no difference.
Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
