|
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. 
|
|
|
|
|
A "downvote reputation" is an interesting idea. One problem I see with it is that those who are more involved with the site tend to downvote (or mark as spam/abuse) more often.
I suggest that the "downvote reputation" increment be weighted as follows:
- If no-one else downvotes the message, the "downvote reputation" receive a full increment.
- If others downvote it, a partial increment.
- If the message reaches a certain threshold of downvoters, no increment is given.
The downvote increment should also be weighted in similar fashion to the upvote increment - with great power comes great responsibility.
I'm not quite sure how this can be efficiently implemented. Perhaps someone can come up with a more efficient variant.
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
|
|
|
|
|
Downvote reputation won't actually work for a couple of reasons.
1. Sock puppets and trolls don't care. It's pointless
2. We have members who do us a huge service in downvoting (and hence sorting) poor quality material. They should be rewarded, not reprimanded.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
This could lead to 'revenge' downvoting?
|
|
|
|
|
As others have said, I am in favor of leaving things as they are.
For me, knowing who upvoted me doesn't matter much. And for the downvoters, if they didn't care to state why they downvoted, I do not give a damn about their opinion.
For me, it's as simple as that.
You have just been Sharapova'd.
|
|
|
|
|
I'd say yes.
If you want to downvote you have to say it publicly; if someone get offended and try to childish counterattack (instead of asking for explanation) would have to do it publicly too; if the thing becomes to much flaming, one or both could be judged as abuse/spam.
Maybe one could see the names of the voters only if he has reached a certain amount of reputation on that specific branch (articles, answers, discussions ...) hoping this to be a "grown up" index
|
|
|
|
|
I think the real question here is : what is the requirement, e.g. why is voting needed ?
We need votes:
- In articles, since the mass effect brings good (=useful) articles on the top of all others, hence helping the community.
- In Q&A and programming forums, to signal a good solution or a good proposition that leads to a solution.
We do not need votes:
- To express an opinion about the content or about someone. As someone already stated : this is not facebook.
Therefore, my proposition:
- No voting in non programming related forums -> there is simply no point.
- Voting with indication of who voted for articles and questions : this would limit voting to the scope of technical content, and would probably also discourage practices like "univoting" or "voting for my friend because he is my friend".
|
|
|
|
|
Rage wrote: We do not need votes:
- To express an opinion about the content or about someone.
Except we do in the Lounge.
No, we're not Facebook, but Facebook has trained everyone to "Like" things (without allowing them to Loathe things). When someone posts something interesting, amusing, entertaining, or just plain nails a comment then it's nice to give them an upvote.
Rage wrote: Voting with indication of who voted for articles and questions : this would limit voting to the scope of technical content, and would probably also discourage practices like "univoting" or "voting for my friend because he is my friend".
It would actually also limit downvoting in general: and that's bad.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: When someone posts something interesting, amusing, entertaining, or just plain nails a comment then it's nice to give them an upvote.
But here you are describing about 80% of the Lounge content : If too much is upvoted, then upvote does not make sense.
Of course it is nice to signal someone the post was good, but it serves no real purpose : it is not needed.
Chris Maunder wrote: but Facebook has trained everyone to "Like" things
Well, I do not think bringing Facebook to CP is a good thing, even if people are brainwashed (or trained, call it whatever you want) by Facebook, it still does not make sense to copy the way Facebook works.
Chris Maunder wrote: It would actually also limit downvoting in general: and that's bad
I honestly do not see why this would be so -> people who downvote articles for good reason also stand to their vote, and have no problem arguing. Would we really miss the fire&forget downvoters ? I seriously doubt so.
|
|
|
|
|
I'd say no. I don't want to know who down voted me as the temptation to descend into petty revenge behaviour would be too tempting. If you show who voted, I predict two things:
1. An increase in fake accounts just for voting.
2. A dramatic fall off in the number of people actively using the site.
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: 1. An increase in fake accounts just for voting.
Thats always a problem and to fix it there should be a reputation limit. That can only be achieved when you have posted something good enough.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: 2. A dramatic fall off in the number of people actively using the site.
So people would leave just because they cant down vote. I think it would be better without them.
TVMU^P[[IGIOQHG^JSH A#@RFJ\c^JPL>;"[, /|+&WLEZGc
AFXc!L<br />
%^]*IRXD#@GKCQ R\^SF_WcHbORY87֦ʻ6ϣN8ȤBcRAV\Z^&SU~%CSWQ@#2
W_ADEPABIKRDFVS)EVLQK)JKQUFK[MUKs$GwU#QDXBER@CBN%
R0~53%eYrd8mt^7Z6]iTF+(EWfJ9zaK-iTV.C\y<pjxsg-b$f4ia> -----------------------------------------------
128 bit encrypted signature, crack if you can
|
|
|
|
|
Name and shame the downvoters I say, on every post.
|
|
|
|
|
Is that just because you face them a lot? 
You have just been Sharapova'd.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes. 
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, the moderate voice of reason.
Why name and shame? What's the benefit in your mind?
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
V: Tell me... what do you do with witches?
P3: Burn'em! Burn them up! (burn burn burn)
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: Ah, the moderate voice of reason.
Hey, you know me!
Its like this. People should be held to account for downvoting, and justify their actions. As it is people can do it for revenge, or any other trivial reason, and walk away. If they know they will be publicly known as the downvoter, they will judge their decision more carefully.
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: If they know they will be publicly known as the downvoter, they will judge their decision more carefully
Well, two problems with this
1. Some people don't care if people know they are a downvoter. Especially if it's a sock-puppet account.
2. Some people never learn.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Do sock puppet accounts have down voting capability? Surely they are too temporary to have that.
As for the latter, well, then they become known as grouchy old gits and ignored.
|
|
|
|
|
For me, this is a difficult question.
I'm against "authority without responsibility" and at present we have that: anonymous downvotes (or abuse votes) promote "bullying" tactics, because there is no penalty that can be applied to deliberately trying to hurt someone (even if only their feelings). So the less mature and more childish members do what they want, safe in the knowledge that nobody knows and there can be no retaliation.
But...
Named downvotes? They encourage revenge, which it's easy to see descend into a tit-for-tat smacking session.
Named upvotes? Nice feelings are good, but I can't see the value without named downvotes at the same time.
Perhaps what we need is a cost associated with downvotes: perhaps if you downvote the same number of points are deducted from your account? Mind you, you'd hear the screams of some members even if you were deaf!
For me, I'm happy either way: You can attach my name to my up and downvotes with no problem.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Perhaps what we need is a cost associated with downvotes: perhaps if you downvote the same number of points are deducted from your account?
If the amount of points deducted were also weighted by the number of people agreeing with you (also downvoting the message), you might have something. My problem is that I'm not sure that the accounting involved would be worth the effort.
Perhaps something like this would work:
- You downvote a message.
- Your downvote (including your name) is displayed immediately for all to see.
- The points to be deducted are calculated 24 hours after the first downvote for the message.
- The points to be deducted are calculated on a scale based on the number of people who agree with you, and weighted by your reputation (with great power comes great responsibility).
- Any downvotes that occur more than 24 hours after the first downvote are neither displayed nor accounted for in the points calculation.
Comments?
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
|
|
|
|
|
It's a shame you don't have some method of organising some sort of pole to count people's votes. 
My vote goes for I don't care.
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
|
|
|
|
|
I know - if only we had a survey system 
(What I want is the debate, not the vote)
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
I prefer things stay the way they are with one exception: on the Lounge, I'd like anonymous down-voting back. But, I'd like to see the "rep cost" of a Lounge post down-vote (to the poster) be exactly 1 point, with no "weighting" by CP status.
And, I'd like to see the down-voter on a Lounge post also "pay" one point.
cheers, Bill
«I want to stay as close to the edge as I can without going over. Out on the edge you see all kinds of things you can't see from the center» Kurt Vonnegut.
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: And, I'd like to see the down-voter on a Lounge post also "pay" one point
I'm not sure how that would affect anything. It's a minor cost that trolls wouldn't mind paying. It's also a cost that those who are downvoting the truly awful shouldn't have to pay.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
