|
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
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Chris,Chris Maunder wrote: 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.
My (perhaps wild) idea is that the "symbolic" cost of 1 rep-unit just might be a brake on impulsive down-voting by the not-the-OP, while ... assuming the down-votes pile-up ... the down-votes might get a message to the OP.
Also based on my perceptions of the Lounge as essentially "another planet"
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Keep vote anonymous to the users, until there is an actual issue with posting on particular articles; then use the moderators to review the voting.
Keep the upvote/like button on the forum posts.
If you want to modify this, then you will need REAL moderators and REAL curating for the articles.
I'd rather be phishing!
|
|
|
|
|
Well I'm always curios to know about who up/down voted my posts.
And if I up/down vote someone else's post and he/she asked me the reason behind my vote, I'm always ready to explain the the reason.
And I think making votes non-anonymous would make people more responsible and think before carelessly down-voting other people's posts.
|
|
|
|
|
Against. As other people have pointed out, there're plenty of idiots who'd go on a revenge voting spree. We don't need that.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
But if they did, and weren't anonymous, then maybe it would hold them back from such a spree?
PooperPig - Coming Soon
|
|
|
|
|
I'm going to echo the people who say that we should leave voting anonymous. We already have enough people who seem to down-vote simply because they don't like someone. I'd rather avoid some special snowflake deciding that I'm the target of their wrath this week all because I bruised their fragile ego by saying that I don't think their genius idea is actually that good.
Worst case, require a reason why you are down-voting but don't display it. Heck, require a reason for up-voting as well. Make it fair and apply to everyone. I really dislike seeing useless articles (on this site or any other for that matter) which are voted 5 star followed by a bunch of identical "Great Article!" comments. Feels like they got their little sock puppet army to bump it up for a chance at whatever monthly gold star the site offers.
Have a process in place for people who think they were wrongfully down-voted. Have a minimum threshold (10 down-votes? 20? 50%+? Just tossing out ideas), then they can submit their reason why it needs to be examined to make sure the down-votes were legit.
|
|
|
|
|
Could you pin this post as the first Lounge post until the debate is closed (= until you think there is enough matter for you to decide) ? I think it would help for the visibility of the discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
Rage wrote: Could you pin this post as the first Lounge post until the debate is closed
Seconded. 
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
I've got the feedback I needed - it was perfect.
I'm refining now.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: it was perfect.
 I am glad you could derive something out of this overall white noise 
|
|
|
|
|
Against:
Anonymous voting encourages peer review (i.e. rating articles). Peer reviewed articles are one of the most important assets of CP. Although anonymous voting also allows abuse, the majority of votes are honest ones, causing the abuse to drop off as noise. For this reason, I urge you to continue to keep voting anonymous.
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
So what if we took the coward's approach and made only upvotes non-anonymous?
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
That won't hurt, but seems biased.
In any case, the article forums currently allow voters to leave an optional message to accompany their vote if they choose to do. The privacy (or lack thereof) of the vote is at the discretion of the voter, which seems fair. If I choose to advertise my vote, I can. If I choose to not advertise my vote, I can.
This seems to be (much as I hate to use the phrase) a "win-win proposition". Synergistic to the max, with cooperative web-readiness oozing from every pore. You get my drift.
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I'd happily vote for a system that publicly attached the name of the voter to the vote. It needn't be shown by default - ajaxing the list for those curious enough works perfectly fine in other places I visit.
While it does open the door to a vendetta, it also enables one to quickly ascertain whether or not to place any importance on it. All this has been said before.
I've found it works quite well in conjunction with a system that allows for users to block one another - a safeguard against troll-voting if you like. Irritate someone too many times by voting in such a fashion and they simply block you. This means you can't see or respond to anything they've written while logged-in as yourself. The block however is a two-way street. If you block someone, not only are your posts hidden to them, but their posts are hidden to you - this naturally enough provides a disincentive to vindictive blocking.
CodeProject's members are far more mature and educated than those of some other places I frequent. They are filled with all kinds of oddballs - as I jokingly say, everything from puppy-dogs to serial killers. Yet even in these places the system appears to function just fine.
The only 1 thing that I feel would be better is if the blocks were automatically cleared at a fixed interval. Perhaps quarterly or biannually would be a good interval, with the option to also clear them at will. If someone still presents a problem, you can simply block them again. On the other hand, if one or both of you were just having a bad day then what may otherwise be forgotten can be cleared and a chance for each to start anew is automatically afforded.
Being blocked by someone whose opinion you value tends to make people pull their head-in in my experience and can allow a forum to operate almost entirely without moderation.
I recall declaring some time back that I'd leave if down-voting in the lounge was removed, that obviously didn't happen - CP is simply too good. I shall continue to enjoy it regardless of the decision made, but will happily declare my preference for non-anonymous votes, which, I feel would be an experiment worth conducting. (Based of course, on the assumption that the coding effort to implement such a pair of features as blocks and named votes would be fairly or entirely trivial to implement)
"When I was 5 years old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down 'happy'. They told me I didn't understand the assignment, and I told them they didn't understand life." - John Lennon
|
|
|
|
|
After giving it quite some thought, I have decided that I don't really care that much!
My feeling is that, if you introduce it then it should be across the board, no exceptions - everyone can see a list of who voted what.
New members should not be allowed to vote up or down at all until they have reached a certain level of time/usage of the system.
Abuse of either upvoting or downvoting should be punishable by the removal to do either, and (preferably) the removal of those votes. (this would also help prevent puppet accounts being created to upvote one's own articles).
Keep the stats of each user's voting - number of UPs vs Number of Downs and perhaps publish them, too - that will be an interesting stat! And reduce the effectiveness of a vote compared to the number of items read / the number of up or down votes.
e.g. If I read x articles and down vote them all, the 'points lost multiplier' should be reduced - so the 'grumpy old git' gets less effective over time if they don't find something to be happy about.
Flag a warning if a user consistently differs from the herd in their voting (especially down votes)
Publish the data as raw data (via an API would be lovely) and have a competition to make best use out of it.
I;m thinking of a "who hates me" app and a "Ohhhh! is he your girlfriend" app.
PooperPig - Coming Soon
|
|
|
|
|
Have a slightly unbalanced upvote from me.
|
|
|
|
|
_Maxxx_ wrote: I have decided that I don't really care that much!
I came to that conclusion too, but I believe that any of us "regulars" could live with whatever solution is implemented...
|
|
|
|
|
great - en-masse debating . just what we need
B
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
