|
AspDotNetDev wrote: Member views by members who are not you:
|
|
|
|
|
1,2,3 are already non-anonymous. So those votes are very rare (unless the article totally sucks). So it's mostly 4s and 5s these days. And a 4 is very often cast when an article features in the top-5 on the front page. Making 4 votes non-anonymous would be awesome!
Not that I can't take low-votes (taken 100s in my life, can take several 100s more before I am down). But I feel that this would make things better.
I bet many other regular authors here would agree with me.
|
|
|
|
|
I had a suggestion for you, Nish, but I can't remember it now. 
|
|
|
|
|
Huh? 
|
|
|
|
|
Nishant Sivakumar wrote: I bet many other regular authors here would agree with me
I think Hans had a suggestion for you... Maybe he's forgotten 
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: I think Hans had a suggestion for you... Maybe he's forgotten
thatraja
My Tip/Tricks
My Dad had a Heart Attack on this day so don't...
All these are my opinions. Different people. different way of thinking. I am no one to judge others - Chandru
|
|
|
|
|
Seriously though, what's the thinking behind this? If 1, 2, and 3 are non-anonymous, why not 4?
|
|
|
|
|
It's nice getting a 4. I want to encourage members to give 4 (and 5!) for great articles. If an article is poor then it helps those looking to sort the wheat from the chaff to get a lower vote (since it means we can provide a x/5 score, instead of just a # upvotes, which is impossible to compare relatively). However, downvotes mean something's wrong, and the entire purpose of CodeProject is to help devs learn, so by forcing a comment on a downvote you are helping explain the issue. Saying something's great doesn't require an explanation.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: Saying something's great doesn't require an explanation.
Yeah I wasn't looking for one. You already automate a comment for 1-3 votes (My vote of x). I was hoping something similar for 4 votes as well. This way anyone voting a 4 will not be inconvenienced at all (except that a comment would be auto-posted under his name revealing his name and vote).
|
|
|
|
|
I'm with Nish on this. 4 has become the new 1, and isn't being used to say an article is great - it's just there to get stuff off the top of the "latest best picks" list, which is counter productive. If an article is great, then a comment saying why you think it's not quite worthy of a 5 should be the least you can do.
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting. I shall tinker.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Awesome! 
|
|
|
|
|
Awesome mate. Simply awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: I'm with Nish on this. 4 has become the new 1
Thank you. 4 is indeed the new 1. And 4s are most often cast by *gasp* Platinum authors.
|
|
|
|
|
IMO article votes should always be non-anonymous and invite to comment. That is the way to provide an honnest voting system; as long as voting different scores takes different amounts of effort, or has different side-effects, the voting system is biasing the results; which obviously it shouldn't.
Now if 4 were non-anonymous and 5 were still anonymous, we would probably see fewer 4's and more 5's for the same article, effectively compressing the scale even further than it is already. A very bad idea.
I never understood why anonymous article votes should be possible; is there anything wrong in saying you liked or disliked an article? If we can store all the rep stuff, adding one message (if there isn't one already) to each article vote won't swamp the disks, will it?
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: IMO article votes should always be non-anonymous
That's basically what I am suggesting here. wasn't that clear from the original message?
|
|
|
|
|
Nishant Sivakumar wrote: wasn't that clear from the original message?
No it wasn't, at least not to me. The subject line says 4, not 4 and 5. So does the message.
Changing how 4 works without changing 5 would be very bad, changing both to mimic the behavior of the system when voting 1,2, or 3 would be good.
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: No it wasn't, at least not to me. The subject line says 4, not 4 and 5. So does
the message.
Well everyone who votes 5 makes it a point to say so
If Chris makes 4 non-anonymous I bet he'd also make 5 non-anonymous.
BTW I am a little annoyed that my OP got voted down. 
|
|
|
|
|
You realise this will result in a dramatic drop in up-votes, right?
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: You realise this will result in a dramatic drop in up-votes, right?
How so? Why would anyone be embarrassed to cast an up-vote and have the world know that he did so? Personally I make it a point to explicitly tell people that I voted their article a 5 and that it deserved it.
He need not post a comment. Since you automatically post a My vote of X message when a vote is cast.
|
|
|
|
|
I down-voted your message, as I completely disagreed. If it were advocating non-annonymous 4's AND 5's I would have agreed and would have upvoted. Isn't that what the voting system is for, to express appreciation and/or agreement?
|
|
|
|
|
I upvoted you for that. But I'm not leaving a comment.
Oh, hang on... 
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Nice going Chris. Encourage him the one time he agrees with your point of view. 
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: I down-voted your message, as I completely disagreed.
If you disagree with what I said, reply to me explaining why. I take your down-voting my post as a personal insult.
If we were debating about something in real life (face to face), would you resort to punching me in the face if I said something you do not agree with? That's how I see your down-vote here.
I don't care about most down-votes normally but I do care when it's people like you who I hoped would be more mature about it.
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry Nish, be assured it wasn't my intent to insult anyone, all I did was join the thread late, read all of it, add my view at the then bottom, and down-vote the message I disagreed with most, and that was the top message, which happened to be yours. I didn't want to post the same thing twice, and replying to you directly rather than at the bottom, could have split the thread in two subthreads for no good reason IMO. But you're right, maybe I should have anyway. To relieve the situation a bit, I'm going to change my vote from 1 to 3, as long as you understand I don't agree with the words you wrote and, in my view, did not express well what you intended.
![Rose | [Rose]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/rose.gif)
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
