I wouldn't call it that. A damned good thrashing, that's what he got!
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done.
Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H
OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DDEthel Crudacre
I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer
Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
I think we have four quite different "issues of structure" re CP voting in different facilities within the overall site: Article, and Tip/Trick,voting; Lounge voting; Q&A voting; and, voting in specific technical fora, like C#. I consider the current expanded "Report flag" facility adequate, now, for all cases, in all these areas.
Here's my own personal preferences for what they're worth: (I'll spare you what I consider my rationale for these preferences: imho, my various "rationales" on these issues have already been posted, here on this forum, thoroughly, over the last eighteen-months.
0. Article and Tip/Trick rating: this seems fine to me the way it is. An up-or-down vote on comments on Articles and Tip/Tricks, worth one, or minus-one point, would, imho, be a good feature.
1. Lounge: I favor a simple up or down vote for OP's and responses worth one, or minus-one, point, per vote. I have been much more satisfied with the Lounge "experience," recently, while voting has been "off."
2. Q&A: first CP needs to recognize there is a problem there that has resulted in several contributors, like our own, highly esteemed, mentor, and guiding-light of CP, Pete O'Hanlon, withdrawing from being active in Q&A.
For a few, answering tons of Lounge questions with half-thought through, and obfuscating, digressive, answers, has become, obviously, an obsession. Compared to StackOverFlow, the general quality of CP Q&A, imho, is a joke. That is tragic. There's no incentive, on Q&A, to give a well-thought out, robust, answers, with tested code, careful citations, etc., that could, over time, contribute to the total quality of CP.
I no longer feel, as I once did, that having a Platinum rep as Authority, based on Q&A activity, has any real value, and is something I should be proud of: that's a shame.
imho Q&A now demonstrates a type of group-dynamics (I speak here as someone who once was a highly trained social-scientist, whose area of research was social dynamics of groups, both work-groups, and "affinal" groups) associated with "cults."
3. Specific technical forums, like C#: I am in favor of voting the old way. The issues for such forums are, I think, the appearance of questions there that really should be posted in Q&A, often questions that are asked by complete newcomers without a clue, technically, and/or the usual help-with-homework, and "gimmez" set. In this area I would favor a rated voting system for top-level responses to the OP, but a +1 or -1 vote for comments on top-level posts.
There, that's my thunking, although I doubt there's much value in expressing it here.
On the "big picture" level, I see CP's current structural problems around voting (far transcended by the continuing great value of the site-as-a-whole), as reflecting a problem of CP's size and volume reaching such an order of magnitude that its early structure (more centralized, say, in comparison to StackOverFlow).
And I continue to be an "ardent fan" of CP, which has given me, I think, so much more than I have ever given to it.
"So long as … social condemnation, which, in the face of civilization, artificially creates hells on earth, and complicates divine destiny, with human fatality … so long as three problems of the age: degradation of man by poverty; ruin of women by starvation; dwarfing of childhood by physical and spiritual night: are not solved: so long as social asphyxia shall be possible … so long as ignorance and misery remain on earth, books like this cannot be useless." Victor Hugo, "Les Misérables," 1862
Well said Bill (on all of your post)!
It's been much better in the Lounge since the voting has been turned off. Things are quieter, but there isn't the constant noise of jokes posted and there seem to be fewer flame-wars and smart-ass points scoring. I also find it ridiculous that my rep is as high as it is - largely built up in the lounge by, erm, jokes and smart ass comments.I used to be proud that my "hard" points (those built up by technical contribution) were higher than the social ones. This hasn't been the case for a while, in part due to my withdrawal from Q&A. The only thing I miss about the voting is that it did tend to highlight interesting threads and lowlight those I might enjoy being outraged at.
I'm not sure building authority rep in Q&A is such a bad thing, but I do think the points awarded are too high skewing it against those who think the fora are a better place to work. It's been interesting watching the groupthink build up in there.
I used to be proud that my "hard" points (those built up by technical contribution) were higher than the social ones. This hasn't been the case for a while, in part due to my withdrawal from Q&A. The only thing I miss about the voting is that it did tend to highlight interesting threads and lowlight those I might enjoy being outraged at.
Well, it gives me no pleasure that you, like I, experience a loss of perceived value of our "hard point" reputation status based on technical answers (Authority), and a loss of motivation to continue contributing to Q&A.
Just to clarify my comments: I agree with you (if I interpret your remarks correcty), that on Q&A fora, the original question asked, and any solutions submitted, should be voted-on using the existing scale-based system.
For comments on a Q&A question: I personally favor a simple "like/don't-like" vote. But, I would like to see for comments on Q&A questions, the "expanded" set of options on the "Report Flag," that you now see on Lounge posts. I say that realizing that may be impractical because it may generate too much "low-level" traffic for CP staff to deal with.
I have expressed the idea, here, on this forum, before, that when a Q&A question is extremely ambiguous, not tagged, perhaps reflects the struggle to write clearly of a non-native English-language speaker, that people with Platinum Authority reps be able to "freeze" the question (block any posting of solutions, but allow other comments) until the OP responds to comments that, in specific detail, asks them to clarify the question, and gives them explicit clues on how to do so. That is: until the OP, perhaps with the help of editors, as well as their own efforts, gets the question in understandable form, with appropriate flags.
I hypothesize that suggestion didn't "fly" because (assuming anyone read it ): 1. it might generate too much flak for CP staff ?; and/or, 2. it ignores the fact that some people answering Q&A questions ... OriginalGriff comes to mind, immediately ... are so damn astute, and technically keen, they can, and do, see, intuitively, what's being asked, and, they can just "nail" the question: wouldn't want to put a hurdle between anyone's savvy intuition, and being able to respond !
But, it still bothers me to see a half-assed vague, untagged, question being responded to with "solutions" that could just as well be based on tarot-deck readings, as on clearly understanding whatever the ambiguous question really asked
A dis-incentive for me in continuing to reply on Q&A is when I go to the trouble of posting a detailed comment on the OP, suggesting quite specifically what needs to be clarified, for an answer to be given, and then: solutions are quickly posted which are way off-base, and. sometimes. even accepted by the OP This is what I call the "junkpile effect."
And, I'd go so far as to have a "deep freeze," where all untagged questions on Q&A go, until the OP gives a damn enough, or is informed enough, to tag them appropriately ... with a nice, polite, auto-generated e-mail to the OP, about the importance of tagging questions, and how to go about it. I've even proposed in this forum, in the past, that there be a "submission form" for Q&A questions, that will <i>not allow you</i> to post an untagged question.
<blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">Keith Barrow wrote:</div>I'm not sure building authority rep in Q&A is such a bad thing, but I do think the points awarded are too high skewing it against those who think the fora are a better place to work. It's been interesting watching the groupthink build up in there.</blockquote>I think hard-work on Q&A, or specific technical fora, is a completely appropriate way to <i>earn</i> a CP reputation.
I think the "structural tension," as I perceive it, that exists now: similar questions: some going to Q&A; some into specific forums, like the C# forum: and, being handled differently in Q&A than in (again, for example: the C# forum) in technical discussion forums ... Well, I think that's, in terms of social dynamics, an interesting kettle-o'fish.
I'm not sure there are any clear guidelines, as to what the discriminating factors should be for what is an <i>appropriate</i> question for a forum like the C# forum, and, what is <i>not</i>.
<i>If there were clear guidelines</i>, then I would favor CP giving Platinum rep Authority figures the ability to move questions to Q&A, if they don't measure-up to the GuideLines.
As a former social scientist, still very interested in how groups behave, and develop "dynamics" (what Homans called "emergent behavior" in his classic studies of work-groups), I have often thought about the differences in response to CP Q&A compared to responses to questions on StackOverFlow.
My tentative conclusion is that StackOverFlow has somehow "mobilized" a significantly large segment of its membership to be highly proactive in answering questions, and highly proactive in editing, clarifying, or getting-rid-of, questions that are not clear. In my view, it is near impossible to "game the system" on StackOverFlow.
There would be zero-tolerance on StackOverFlow for the massive spew of the kinds of digressive off-topic comments, often self-glorifying, often mocking the OP, or other commentors, so often made in response to CP Q&A questions, by relatively few invididuals.
In contrast, imho, CP has not mobilized a significant segment of its 9+ million members to proactively participate in Q&A, and pursuit of "reputation," as an end in itself, has come to the fore on CP Q&A, for some ... but not all ! ... regular responders.
Those are hypothetical conclusions based on observations of behaviors; of course, they are not "scientifically sound," not based on systematic survey of large sample-groups, etc. You should certainly question both the hypotheses, and the <i>bona fides</i> of the person positing them !
And, these hypotheses about <i>behavior</i> are <i>not</i> hypotheses about the <i>causes</i> of differences in behavior (assuming you do: accept the hypotheses about behavior).
Well, that's enough thunking for one day, right there !
But, I would like to finish this "epistle" with the statement that: none of my remarks in this response, or in my previous response on this thread, are meant, in any way, to express a "negative intention" (or any state of "inner bitterness," anger, or frustration, with CP) towards CP, and its very hard working staff !
For me, the CP "glass" is always much more than "half-full," and I am quite happy to be an older asteroid, put-out-to-pasture in the Oordt cloud, technically, in the vast 9+ million entity cosmos of CP. That's why I hang out here
To say certain things can be better, is not, I believe, to say one is dis-satisfied with the whole (writing that reminds of arguments I had with my first wife !).
"What do humans depend on: words ! We're suspended in language: we can never say what's up: or, down.
We must communicate experience and ideas, but in ways that do not become ambiguous, and lose objectivity.
For parallels in human ideas to quantum theory: we must turn to psychology, or to the paradoxes of being thinkers like Buddha and Lao Tzu illuminated, when trying to grasp reality, as both observer, and actor, in human life's small-scale micro-cosmic drama."
It's this one[^] I believe. The downloads work for me, although I have gotten (Gotcha) the error message in the OP before, just waiting for a few minutes worked. I guess it is some kind of server load/timing error.