|
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).
|
|
|
|
|
I'd say no. There are pretty nasty people, event between those with high reputation, that are perfectly capable of downvoting each and every message, article and whatsoever for a single downvote.
Of course that would count as abuse I hope and expose this adorable guys. Maybe putting in again the downvote on the lounge...
Geek code v 3.12 {
GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- r++>+++ y+++*
Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
}
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP. -- TNCaver
|
|
|
|
|
I think basing a decision, that affects the majority, on the behaviour of a small minority is never a good move.
There will always be outliers in terms of acceptable behaviour and even in this case if non-anonymous voting is bought in - all that will happen is that those people with a downvoting agenda will merely create anonymous user accounts again and again in order to perpetuate their campaign of downvoting.
Leave things as they are and the majority of upvoters, where justified, will drown the voice of the sociopathic downvoters where they exist.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
GuyThiebaut wrote: I think basing a decision, that affects the majority, on the behaviour of a small minority is never a good move.
I totally agree.
Understand that malicious downvotes and tit-for-tat voting is the minority.
The majority of good contributors here get upvotes.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Aaaah the long-lost debate.
I used to be in favor for knowing who voted what. Nowadays I care less, but it is useful to know why someone up/downvoted something.
That said, perhaps another mechanism can be put in place. Especially for downvotes, you get a "downvote reputation", the higher that "reputation", the less the downvote is weighed (and is counted as minus on your reputation). Upvotes counter the downvote reputation. That way univoters can downvote what they like, it won't be counted anymore after a while.
A similar thing could "show" the name of the downvoter when the "downvote reputation" reaches a treshold and of course you can see that reputation on the profile at any time.
Just an idea. 
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
