Voting rights
-
When someone goes on a downvoting spree it's usually someone who has been around for a while. The reason they are downvoting is because they've had a long, ongoing spat with someone else. Yes, removing their account and banning downvots for new members will solve the downvoting, but it's a very large hammer to use. A far easier solution is to stop feeding the trolls and downvoters.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
Yeah, your fact is right which i was already guessed something, that's why i leave the words "If possible" last in my message. Thanks
thatraja |Chennai|India|
Tips/Tricks|Brainbench certifications
Do what you want quickly because the Doomsday on 2012 :-)
-
I can see that that would annoy you but still the argument stands, the 1 votes get more than balanced out by the regular members and eventually the forum goes back to normal. What I object to however is the accusing people from being uni-voters while having no hard evidence of it (this has happened several times now in the past week by several people). The only people who can determine that are the CP admins and the rest of us should just let them deal with it the way they see fit and not going around accusing people just because we feel / think it's them.
-
When someone goes on a downvoting spree it's usually someone who has been around for a while. The reason they are downvoting is because they've had a long, ongoing spat with someone else. Yes, removing their account and banning downvots for new members will solve the downvoting, but it's a very large hammer to use. A far easier solution is to stop feeding the trolls and downvoters.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
I disagree. Just pretending that a jerk isn't being a jerk works as well online as it does in real life. How the proprietors handle jerks is the difference between the nice bar you take your friends to when they come to visit and the nuisance that get shut down because they're always having the police show up. I hate to say it, but the lack of any consequences for abusers is pushing the lounge towards the latter category. The only thing that setting the current limits on voting rates has done is to make peer moderation nearly impossible because when a troll goes crazy only the people who hit refresh every 10 minutes can come close to casting abuse votes on all its posts. The univoting trolls meanwhile are free to just switch between thier various sock puppets and can cast abusive votes on everything.
3x12=36 2x12=24 1x12=12 0x12=18
-
I disagree. Just pretending that a jerk isn't being a jerk works as well online as it does in real life. How the proprietors handle jerks is the difference between the nice bar you take your friends to when they come to visit and the nuisance that get shut down because they're always having the police show up. I hate to say it, but the lack of any consequences for abusers is pushing the lounge towards the latter category. The only thing that setting the current limits on voting rates has done is to make peer moderation nearly impossible because when a troll goes crazy only the people who hit refresh every 10 minutes can come close to casting abuse votes on all its posts. The univoting trolls meanwhile are free to just switch between thier various sock puppets and can cast abusive votes on everything.
3x12=36 2x12=24 1x12=12 0x12=18
Good points, Dan. Very good points.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
-
In order to stop the unitossers voting us into a grey universe of oneness, I would perhaps make a couple of suggestions to the CP Overlords... No voting priveledges at all until rep points > 1500 No voting Priveledges as all until Member Since > 30 days Once they have been met... Restricted voting rights (Say up to 5 Per day) until Debator Points > 1000 Restricted voting rights (No more than 5*1 Voting) until Member Since > 90 Days That would stop the multi ID Changing Unitossers.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link CCC Link[^]
An option that Hans (and I'm sure others - forgive my poor memory) has suggested is a massive simplification of the current system. Luc Pattyn (and, again, others) are extremely opposed, but it's an idea that can at least stir debate. Instead of having a 1-5 voting, we have a simple +1. Nothing else. You give a thumbs-up or nothing. To provide a mechanism for reporting abusive articles, messages, answers - whatever - we provide a "Report this" link. When a certain number of reports are reached the item gets manually investigated. It's just an idea. Debate away.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
-
I love your innocence and touching naivety. It's so sweet to see. :)
I have CDO, it's OCD with the letters in the right order; just as they ruddy well should be
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
:-D I had to try...
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
-
Im voting this suggestion 5, its a bit of a sledgehammer, but achieves the goal in a fair and meaningful way IMO. Voting shouldn't be a right, it should be a privilige (again, IMO).
J4amieC wrote:
Voting shouldn't be a right, it should be a privilige
I totally disagree. Every member of the site has the right to express their opinion. The issue here is that "expressing your opinion" can turn into "abusing the site" for an extremely small number of members. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
-
An option that Hans (and I'm sure others - forgive my poor memory) has suggested is a massive simplification of the current system. Luc Pattyn (and, again, others) are extremely opposed, but it's an idea that can at least stir debate. Instead of having a 1-5 voting, we have a simple +1. Nothing else. You give a thumbs-up or nothing. To provide a mechanism for reporting abusive articles, messages, answers - whatever - we provide a "Report this" link. When a certain number of reports are reached the item gets manually investigated. It's just an idea. Debate away.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
It would eliminate the "who gave that single 4 vote to this masterpiece" problem, and still allow new authors to improve their articles through comments which are just as important to some authors as negative votes
Thanks, Sean Ewington The Code Project
-
In order to stop the unitossers voting us into a grey universe of oneness, I would perhaps make a couple of suggestions to the CP Overlords... No voting priveledges at all until rep points > 1500 No voting Priveledges as all until Member Since > 30 days Once they have been met... Restricted voting rights (Say up to 5 Per day) until Debator Points > 1000 Restricted voting rights (No more than 5*1 Voting) until Member Since > 90 Days That would stop the multi ID Changing Unitossers.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link CCC Link[^]
I know I should bunch these all into 1 message but this morning is a write off already so I've been diving into things to see what's been happening and I hate to say it, but your suggestions would have had zero impact on what happened overnight. As is often the case, the person down-voting would have sailed through your rep checks easily and been unencumbered in their boredom. I am thinking about the snake idea, though (see the-poster-formerly-known-as-Mario's idea)
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
-
An option that Hans (and I'm sure others - forgive my poor memory) has suggested is a massive simplification of the current system. Luc Pattyn (and, again, others) are extremely opposed, but it's an idea that can at least stir debate. Instead of having a 1-5 voting, we have a simple +1. Nothing else. You give a thumbs-up or nothing. To provide a mechanism for reporting abusive articles, messages, answers - whatever - we provide a "Report this" link. When a certain number of reports are reached the item gets manually investigated. It's just an idea. Debate away.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
Disagree (sorry ;P) It's not because you vote it a 1 that you want it reported. The message / answer / article / ... can be of little value but still within the boundaries of the site's rule's. Then one could vote down. It would solve the issue of the uni-voters but I think it would just render the whole voting useless, so you might as well just ditch it and allow no voting for anyone. I think the voting as we have it now isn't all that bad, it just needs some fine tuning.
-
An option that Hans (and I'm sure others - forgive my poor memory) has suggested is a massive simplification of the current system. Luc Pattyn (and, again, others) are extremely opposed, but it's an idea that can at least stir debate. Instead of having a 1-5 voting, we have a simple +1. Nothing else. You give a thumbs-up or nothing. To provide a mechanism for reporting abusive articles, messages, answers - whatever - we provide a "Report this" link. When a certain number of reports are reached the item gets manually investigated. It's just an idea. Debate away.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
Ok, you beat me to it. Like it or not, I think one of the important things for authors is the voting system. We all know how tough it can be when someone strikes with an unreasonable low vote. Most of the time the low-voting is an attempt to shift the rating of an article to what the user thinks it should be. I rather like the idea of having just a 'Like' option and a 'Don't Like' option (with a comment). Likes and unlikes would be weighted according to user level, just like in the existing system. The challenge with any new voting system is to integrate with the existing data. Not easy. I think though, that if ever the system was going to be overhauled, this would be the way to go. I think that no matter what restrictions are placed on a out-of-five voting system, it's all relative. If a message is required for less than a 4, then authors end up having higher ratings overall, due to the reluctance of users to comment. Therefore, the perception of what marks a good rating, increases. The more we constrain users, the more the ratings become skewed toward the top end. This also means that older articles, that were written before the rules were introduced, have lower ratings. I agree with Chris though. It's important for the site to allow new users to vote because often this is a prime motivator for joining. Maybe bronze level voting influence should be decreased. Cheers, Daniel
Daniel Vaughan Twitter | Blog | Microsoft MVP | Projects: Calcium SDK, Clog | LinkedIn
-
Well, I think we all (at least should) recognize that we're just looking the other way regaerding the unacceptable behavior. I kinda like the idea not allowing down-voting (2 or lower) priviledges until the userID has achieved a certain reputation level in Debator and Participant as well as a certain tenure (30 days may not be enough, but I'm agreeable to that number to see if it helps). I think that's a very reasonable idea. Before anyone suggests that this could artificially skew answer ratings in the programming forums, I think sufficiently rated members would just naturally take care of that without even being asked. Such a system would still allow the new user to mark an answer as "good" or "accepted", so I see no harm in at least giving it a try. IMHO, enough people (highly rep'd, long-standing, and steady contributers) have expressed a certain level of annoyance with the univoters that CP has a responsibility to address the issue.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
IMHO, enough people (highly rep'd, long-standing, and steady contributers) have expressed a certain level of annoyance with the univoters that CP has a responsibility to address the issue.
Absolutely, but I need to address the actual, not perceived issue. The issue isn't sock puppets or new members.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
-
J4amieC wrote:
Voting shouldn't be a right, it should be a privilige
I totally disagree. Every member of the site has the right to express their opinion. The issue here is that "expressing your opinion" can turn into "abusing the site" for an extremely small number of members. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
I think a variant of SO's implementation would help here. I know you don't want new users to be unable to vote so setting the minimum threshhold at 100 isn't an option. But if you allowed rep to go negative and disabling voting rights at say -10 or so, a 1 point reduction in rep for down voting would still allow new users to cast votes but would make running sock puppets much more inconvenient since the abusers would have to keep creating new ones every few minutes.
3x12=36 2x12=24 1x12=12 0x12=18
-
J4amieC wrote:
Voting shouldn't be a right, it should be a privilige
I totally disagree. Every member of the site has the right to express their opinion. The issue here is that "expressing your opinion" can turn into "abusing the site" for an extremely small number of members. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
Chris Maunder wrote:
Every member of the site has the right to express their opinion.
People who have just registered are not members of this community, they're glorified lurkers until they've proven otherwise with either a) tenure or b) participation. Again, just my humble opinion. In the immortal works of Vince Larkin Cameron Poe "Cyrus, this is your barbecue, man, and it tastes good" Edit: I should know the bloody character names if im gonna quote a movie.
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
IMHO, enough people (highly rep'd, long-standing, and steady contributers) have expressed a certain level of annoyance with the univoters that CP has a responsibility to address the issue.
Absolutely, but I need to address the actual, not perceived issue. The issue isn't sock puppets or new members.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
Chris Maunder wrote:
The issue isn't sock puppets
Really? At one point the whole front page of the Lounge was grey and the majority of these posts had three 1-votes. Are you saying that three individual members took it upon themselves to carpet bomb the lounge at the exact same time? The thread in question was fat_boys GW one but even the replys from other members had the multiple one votes.
-
An option that Hans (and I'm sure others - forgive my poor memory) has suggested is a massive simplification of the current system. Luc Pattyn (and, again, others) are extremely opposed, but it's an idea that can at least stir debate. Instead of having a 1-5 voting, we have a simple +1. Nothing else. You give a thumbs-up or nothing. To provide a mechanism for reporting abusive articles, messages, answers - whatever - we provide a "Report this" link. When a certain number of reports are reached the item gets manually investigated. It's just an idea. Debate away.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
Chris Maunder wrote:
Instead of having a 1-5 voting, we have a simple +1. Nothing else. You give a thumbs-up or nothing.
I've always seconded this idea. :thumbsup: A variation would be two buttons: (1) Vote-Up button (2) Mark as abuse button - this should not count as a 1-vote and should be used purely to get a post auto-removed.
Regards, Nish
My technology blog: voidnish.wordpress.com Code Project Forums : New Posts Monitor This application monitors for new posts in the Code Project forums.
-
Disagree (sorry ;P) It's not because you vote it a 1 that you want it reported. The message / answer / article / ... can be of little value but still within the boundaries of the site's rule's. Then one could vote down. It would solve the issue of the uni-voters but I think it would just render the whole voting useless, so you might as well just ditch it and allow no voting for anyone. I think the voting as we have it now isn't all that bad, it just needs some fine tuning.
Of course, you could choose not to vote for the article. Effectively, it's a tri-state system; like it - give it a thumbs up; don't like it - don't vote; think it's offensive - report it.
I have CDO, it's OCD with the letters in the right order; just as they ruddy well should be
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
-
An option that Hans (and I'm sure others - forgive my poor memory) has suggested is a massive simplification of the current system. Luc Pattyn (and, again, others) are extremely opposed, but it's an idea that can at least stir debate. Instead of having a 1-5 voting, we have a simple +1. Nothing else. You give a thumbs-up or nothing. To provide a mechanism for reporting abusive articles, messages, answers - whatever - we provide a "Report this" link. When a certain number of reports are reached the item gets manually investigated. It's just an idea. Debate away.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
As you know, I was originally opposed to this idea - I seem to remember getting into a fairly heated debate with Hans over it, but now I like it.
I have CDO, it's OCD with the letters in the right order; just as they ruddy well should be
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
-
Chris Maunder wrote:
The issue isn't sock puppets
Really? At one point the whole front page of the Lounge was grey and the majority of these posts had three 1-votes. Are you saying that three individual members took it upon themselves to carpet bomb the lounge at the exact same time? The thread in question was fat_boys GW one but even the replys from other members had the multiple one votes.
PompeyBoy3 wrote:
Really? At one point the whole front page of the Lounge was grey and the majority of these posts had three 1-votes. Are you saying that three individual members took it upon themselves to carpet bomb the lounge at the exact same time? The thread in question was fat_boys GW one but even the replys from other members had the multiple one votes.
You cannot cast multiple votes, even from different accounts, from the same IP address. While it's technically possible for someone to simultaneously maintain 3 IP addresses and vote from all 3 of them using multiple accounts, it's far far more likely that the multiple votes came from different members (and based on what Chris said, none of them are newbies, and may in fact be Gold or Silver status members here).
Regards, Nish
My technology blog: voidnish.wordpress.com Code Project Forums : New Posts Monitor This application monitors for new posts in the Code Project forums.
-
PompeyBoy3 wrote:
Really? At one point the whole front page of the Lounge was grey and the majority of these posts had three 1-votes. Are you saying that three individual members took it upon themselves to carpet bomb the lounge at the exact same time? The thread in question was fat_boys GW one but even the replys from other members had the multiple one votes.
You cannot cast multiple votes, even from different accounts, from the same IP address. While it's technically possible for someone to simultaneously maintain 3 IP addresses and vote from all 3 of them using multiple accounts, it's far far more likely that the multiple votes came from different members (and based on what Chris said, none of them are newbies, and may in fact be Gold or Silver status members here).
Regards, Nish
My technology blog: voidnish.wordpress.com Code Project Forums : New Posts Monitor This application monitors for new posts in the Code Project forums.
Nishant Sivakumar wrote:
You cannot cast multiple votes, even from different accounts, from the same IP address
Learnt my something new for today. Which suggests this wasn't abuse but more people showing their disproval of the GW subject matter then. If it was abuse then I would love Chris to name and shame them on this occasion, although I appreciate why this will never happen.