|
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)
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: be assured it wasn't my intent to insult anyone,
Yes, I was aware of that. I reckon we just see the voting system differently.
Luc Pattyn wrote: 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.
Well you are right. I did not ever say make 5 votes non-anonymous too. Since I was specifically focusing on the 4 votes (the new 1s as Pete said above). But I would assume that if Chris does make 4 votes result in an automatic comment, he may do that for 5 votes too.
It would be interesting to see how that affects voting patterns here.
|
|
|
|
|
Nishant Sivakumar wrote: I reckon we just see the voting system differently.
It seems so. I tend not to attach emotion to votes, giving nor receiving. Down-votes are a fact of life when active on a forum such as this one; and I appreciate the voting system that allows both down- and up-votes, as the resulting score is the best possible reflection of what readers think IMO. Getting a down-vote often makes me think again about what I wrote, but it doesn't cause extra blood pressure, nor should it.
Now let's see how the CP voting systems evolve...
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: Now let's see how the CP voting systems evolve...
I wanted to keep this as a surprise, but because there seems to be such interest in it, here's next=gen voting UI[^].
Remember: it's still beta, but we're always open for comments and suggestions.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
That might not scale well.
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: Isn't that what the voting system is for, to express appreciation and/or
agreement?
Down-voting in my opinion is usually to mark a post as spam/troll/abuse or to insult someone. It's the online equivalent of spitting in someone's face.
|
|
|
|
|
Those are all valid reasons for down votes. Do you consider it unreasonable then that other people have additional reasons for down voting. Such as indicating disagreement with a post. Especially when you consider jokes that offend one group of people, but is considered humourous by another group. Down voting provides many with a way to express their displeasure whether they post or not.
Chris Meech
I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar]
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra]
posting about Crystal Reports here is like discussing gay marriage on a catholic church’s website.[Nishant Sivakumar]
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Meech wrote: Especially when you consider jokes that offend one group of people, but is
considered humourous by another group. Down voting provides many with a way to
express their displeasure whether they post or not.
Jokes are a different animal (an exception I guess). When you post a joke, it's like posting an article. You gotta expect to be hit with votes (good or bad).
Here we have a more serious discussion going on. We are discussing/suggesting potential functionality that may help improve CP.
|
|
|
|
|
Nishant Sivakumar wrote: Down-voting in my opinion is usually to mark a post as spam/troll/abuse or to insult someone
When you submitted a essay or test in school and you received a red cross saying it was wrong, did you take that as a personal insult?
The Nish I remember, way, way back when you were BusterBoy and first started posting, posted articles and was down-voted heavily. That Nish then posted more articles, was downvoted, posted more articles, was downvoted less and soon enough posted articles that were almost automatically upvoted and ranked among the best. I refuse to believe that you you took those down votes as personal insults yet came back. From what I saw and know of you, you took those downvotes to mean you had to work on your content, which you did, and did admirably.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: When you submitted a essay or test in school and you received a red cross saying
it was wrong, did you take that as a personal insult?
My original post in this thread was about articles. And yes, when I submit an article I am fine with being "rated" - whether with up-votes or with down-votes (except I wish it was done non-anonymously).
When I replied to Luc, I was referring to forum posts (not articles). For someone like Luc to vote a post 1 because my view differs from his, I do take it as a slap on the face. Specially because it's from a guy I respect.
Chris Maunder wrote: The Nish I remember, way, way back when you were BusterBoy and first started
posting, posted articles and was down-voted heavily. That Nish then posted more
articles, was downvoted, posted more articles, was downvoted less and soon
enough posted articles that were almost automatically upvoted and ranked among
the best. I refuse to believe that you you took those down votes as personal
insults yet came back. From what I saw and know of you, you took those downvotes
to mean you had to work on your content, which you did, and did admirably.
That was different. I was writing technical articles. People were hard on me. I took the feedback and wrote more articles (and even re-edited and re-worked all my initial articles an year later). That helped me improve - both technically and the way I wrote.
But here I am talking about forum posts. Luc down-voted me because his views differed from mine. In what way am I supposed to "improve" myself to change that? I am not going to change my opinions/arguments for Luc. I just expect him (and other senior members here) to use the forum-voting-system in a civil manner.
BTW in case it's not clear I am not complaining about down votes in general. In a forum with so many members, anyone who posts frequently will be hit with down votes. My points were specific to how I take down-votes on forum posts from people like Luc or Hans or Pete. Their down votes do matter to me!
|
|
|
|
|
Nishant Sivakumar wrote: people like Luc or Hans or Pete
See, that sounds properly Star Wars. Luc (Luke), Hans (Han Solo) and Pete (Yoda). 
And just to clarify - I voted 5.
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: See, that sounds properly Star Wars. Luc (Luke), Hans (Han Solo) and Pete
(Yoda).
Ok, that was coincidental
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
