|
This will drastically reduce the number of votes, making the system pointless. It hasn't fixed it, it's turned it off.
I hate the idea of saying to newcomers: you aren't smart enough or to be trusted enough to be eligible to vote. It's a false and insulting assumption.
The problem, for me, remains. We need something more.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: This will drastically reduce the number of votes, making the system pointless. It hasn't fixed it, it's turned it off.
Yes that's a problem, the validity goes down.
I've been thinking about this a bit and I'm more and more starting to believe that the main problem isn't just that people don't downvote because they were discouraged from it.
But rather that you're trying to squeeze several aspects into one measure.
And while it has been suggested several times that we should be allowed to vote on several different aspects such as Usefulness, Educational, Clarity, Accuracy and even Comedy. I believe that it would be to watered down and confusing, so people would just vote the same in all categories if at all.
So it has to be kept down to the two most basic aspects.
Quality and popularity (quantity).
Trying to squeeze quantity into a quality measure is a major reason for skewed results. Facebook has unfortunately twisted peoples comprehension on the purpose of voting.
I mean, just look at this[^] list. He's making the voting system into a farse, well at least if a quality measure is the goal.
So that's why I suggest that we have two systems, a like button for the popularity measure. And the good old voting system for the quality measure. And to really turn it into a quality measure, useful feedback needs to be mandatory.
Chris Maunder wrote: I hate the idea of saying to newcomers: you aren't smart enough or to be trusted enough to be eligible to vote. It's a false and insulting assumption.
I don't see that this has anything to do with being smart enough or not, trusted yes, but privileges are already implemented at a large scale on the site.
There has to be some kind of threshold for the quality voting, if nothing else just for the sake of blocking sock puppets, exactly where and how this threshold should be implemented is a different question.
And then you have another problem. How to treat the current voting results if you actually would consider this suggestion? I have to admit I haven't thought that part through properly, but one way would be to turn the upvotes of the lowest rep voters into likes. I'm seeing quite some problems with this scenario, but keeping the old skewed scores in a new system would be even worse. This would be my major argument against a change of systems.
|
|
|
|
|
So this goes back to my idea of having an "Experts Opinion" whereby we show two scores: the Popular vote, and the votes from members who have a certain reputation.
This splits the quantity vs quality if one assumes that high-rep members vote intelligently. Not a terrible assumption given that to attain high rep you need to hand around, which means you have a sense of affinity with the site and it's members and content.
We have full historical voting data (at least back to 2008) so implementing this split is trivial.
Jörgen Andersson wrote: So that's why I suggest that we have two systems, a like button for the popularity measure. And the good old voting system for the quality measure
This doesn't solve the Friends and Family issue: authors will ask F&F to Like and to upvote.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: So this goes back to my idea of having an "Experts Opinion" whereby we show two scores: the Popular vote, and the votes from members who have a certain reputation.
Yes, as I said in my first response in this thread, but also no. I don't want a distinction on who's voting, but rather the type of vote.
For this reason the different voting types need to be distinctly different to the voter, and the different purposes has to be obvious.
The only reason I suggest that there should be a threshold of say bronze for quality voting (except for the participant category), is to stop sock puppets and to a certain extent F&F. There need to be a higher threshold than just registering on the site. And I simply don't know a better method.
And if F&F should happen to be members already, then so be it. You simply can't safeproof everything.
But that's another reason I find it important to make quality voting not anonymous. It makes it easier for other users to track those kinds of voting patterns.
Not that it should be hard to make a query for that purpose, but the human brain is amazing at finding unexpected patterns in chaos if given the chance.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes it would be true. To have lots of point, you need to be serious and publish. It is when you have published once that you really understand the value of each vote.
|
|
|
|
|
This is a topic we're hotly debating this very moment.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, for considering the suggestion.
|
|
|
|
|
Message Removed
modified 27-Feb-15 16:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Message Removed
modified 27-Feb-15 16:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Message Removed
modified 27-Feb-15 9:22am.
|
|
|
|
|
I've written an "alternative article" (Really Understanding Association, Aggregation, and Composition[^]) that is criticising the original article, which is highly ranked. Now my alternative article got a "1" downvote with a heavy weight (so it's now rated as "2" and therefore no longer displayed) and without any comment explaining the downvote, so I'm assuming it may be a revenge vote by the author of the original article.
Isn't it contradicting the idea of the "alternative article" feature if the author of the original article can vote against an "alternative article"? In this way he can prevent that the criticism of his article is perceived/read by the site's readers.
modified 26-Feb-15 12:09pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Can you please send me a link to the article?
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gerd Wagner wrote: Isn't it contradicting the idea of the "alternative article" feature if the author of the original article can vote against an "alternative article"?
Of course it isn't. There's an assumption in that idea that alternatives will always be better. This isn't the case, and we shouldn't be treating it as such.
I will add that the author in question does not always react too well to critique.
modified 26-Feb-15 12:31pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Gerd Wagner wrote: In this way he can prevent that the criticism of his article is perceived/read by the site's readers
He can't - he can merely express his opinion.
Let the votes sort themselves out. You have one downvote. You have many more upvotes.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
How come there aren't any comments to go with the 1 votes? That seems a bit odd.
|
|
|
|
|
That what I don't understand ! It seems a bug
Wonde Tadesse
|
|
|
|
|
I just checked Chris's blog. Downvotes no longer require a justification.
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: Downvotes no longer require a justification
Uh oh! 
|
|
|
|
|
Yup. This is not going to end well.
|
|
|
|
|
Why should there be restrictions on who votes? Are you saying you can vote on theirs and they can't vote on yours (hypothetically)?
Is this really an "alternative" article? It seems to misrepresent itself. You have just addressed 3 points you take issue with. Many articles have comments which are just as long and give the author of the original article the opportunity to respond.
Peter Wasser
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
> Why should there be restrictions on who votes?
Because biased, purely "political" votes are of no value (that's why someone linked to the victim or the defendant cannot be a member of the jury before court).
> You have just addressed 3 points you take issue with
The article tries to explain 3 OO concepts, and I point out one serious flaw in each of these three explanations and provide alternative explanations, which are in line with the UML.
Why shouldn't providing alternative explanations make an "alternative article"?
|
|
|
|
|
All votes are biased. That is the nature and purpose of voting. What you are talking about is censorship.
Depends on your definition of article. Your "article" is in my view at best a postscript or addendum. It is not an article in it's own right even though it calls itself the alternative article. It cannot be read on its own as an article.
Peter Wasser
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
> All votes are biased. That is the nature and purpose of voting.
It's a pitty that you didn't get the point (of my comparison with jury votes).
> What you are talking about is censorship.
Come on, that's a weird allegation. You are confusing the meaning of the word "censorship", which refers to the "freedom of speech" (or article publication), but not to voting.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Gerd,
I think you have fallen into the "trap" of "playing against another golfer" rather than playing the golf-course to try to achieve your "personal best."
Naked fact: there are lots of high-voted articles on CP that are absolute crap: I have not read the article by the "other" author, so I am not making any comment on their work by saying this. The why/how of these high-voted but low technical-quality articles is something I choose not to be interested in: I prefer to focus on making my contribution to CP (a very minor one, I assure you) meet my own quality standards.
I have reported several articles here in the past years that I've read that I thought were somewhere between inappropriate (should have been at best a Tip/Trick) and hopelessly incomprehensible ... and that was when you had to "sign" the report. I've also left a lot of feedback for article authors, particularly when I saw the article was their first: in the case that I thought the article had potential to be a good article.
While there's nothing wrong with your seeing an article here, and thinking it's inaccurate technically, and deciding you can explain it better, I think publishing an article that is primarily a rebuttal of what you think is inaccurate in the other article is not serving the "greater good" of CP: we get to see only the "low-hanging fruit" of your own thoughts/vision/understanding of UML rendered in the context of .NET.
And, it may not serve you in the sense that people may react more to your criticism of the other article than to your own thoughts/vision/understanding. I wonder if the lack of comments on your article at this time means anything ? ... I'm not sure it does.
So, what if you focused on writing an article (or a series of articles) aimed at people who have probably not understood UML modeling very well (I'm sure I am in that group). Educate us, starting with the fundamentals, including what is the basic value proposition ... what you get ... from learning UML, and using it.
By the way, there is often the expectation here that articles will provide some source code; I don't particularly care if an article does not have code, but some people may care.
cheers, Bill
«I'm asked why doesn't C# implement feature X all the time. The answer's always the same: because no one ever designed, specified, implemented, tested, documented, shipped that feature. All six of those things are necessary to make a feature happen. They all cost huge amounts of time, effort and money.» Eric Lippert, Microsoft, 2009
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
