|
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. 
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
