I like the way CP is dealing with compulsive downvoters
-
Edbert P wrote:
A 3 is not likely to be vandalizing attempt.
Depends. It used to be that a vote of 1 or 2 required the voter to post a reason for their downvote (3-5 didn't). Not sure how that works now, but for a time at least this was reason enough for people to vote 3 rather than 1 or 2 (to hide the fact that they were maliciously downvoting an article).
Driven to the ARMs by x86.
Agreed. I remember the time when the 3 became the new 1 :)
Take a look at Html5 Snooker Club here in The Code Project.
-
Edbert P wrote:
A 3 is not likely to be vandalizing attempt.
Depends. It used to be that a vote of 1 or 2 required the voter to post a reason for their downvote (3-5 didn't). Not sure how that works now, but for a time at least this was reason enough for people to vote 3 rather than 1 or 2 (to hide the fact that they were maliciously downvoting an article).
Driven to the ARMs by x86.
How do you know they just plain didn't like the article?
MVVM# - See how I did MVVM my way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
-
Okay; who is Mr. Universe[^]?
Software Zen:
delete this; -
How do you know they just plain didn't like the article?
MVVM# - See how I did MVVM my way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
I'm certain I never mentioned certainty.
Driven to the ARMs by x86.
-
It seems it happened with Sacha's latest article: Html5 WebWorkers experiment[^] Someone voted 3, but that vote was removed. Obviously it was due to some new rule preventing vandalization of articles that received many excellent votes. well done, guys :thumbsup:
Take a look at Html5 Snooker Club here in The Code Project.
Hi, I personally do not like the idea of erasing the opinion of a site member. Sure it will prevent malevolent article votes but at what cost? Take a look at the article: Head-to-head benchmark: C++ vs .NET[^] The original article was so controversial that it was the topic of discussion all over the internet[^] including some large corporate mailing lists. For the record... I changed my vote from a 1 to a 5 over a week ago because the author put so much time and effort into the article. But 13.4% of the votes have been removed. Do you *really* think that 23 members constituting 13.4% of the votes are intentional vandalization of the article? Removing the opinions of dozens of members because a few members might cast a low vote just seems wrong to me. Best Wishes, -David Delaune
-
Hi, I personally do not like the idea of erasing the opinion of a site member. Sure it will prevent malevolent article votes but at what cost? Take a look at the article: Head-to-head benchmark: C++ vs .NET[^] The original article was so controversial that it was the topic of discussion all over the internet[^] including some large corporate mailing lists. For the record... I changed my vote from a 1 to a 5 over a week ago because the author put so much time and effort into the article. But 13.4% of the votes have been removed. Do you *really* think that 23 members constituting 13.4% of the votes are intentional vandalization of the article? Removing the opinions of dozens of members because a few members might cast a low vote just seems wrong to me. Best Wishes, -David Delaune
Agree.:thumbsup:
Wonde Tadesse MCTS
-
I'm certain I never mentioned certainty.
Driven to the ARMs by x86.
I know I mentioned only knowledge - certainly not certainty
MVVM# - See how I did MVVM my way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
-
It seems it happened with Sacha's latest article: Html5 WebWorkers experiment[^] Someone voted 3, but that vote was removed. Obviously it was due to some new rule preventing vandalization of articles that received many excellent votes. well done, guys :thumbsup:
Take a look at Html5 Snooker Club here in The Code Project.
-
Hi, I personally do not like the idea of erasing the opinion of a site member. Sure it will prevent malevolent article votes but at what cost? Take a look at the article: Head-to-head benchmark: C++ vs .NET[^] The original article was so controversial that it was the topic of discussion all over the internet[^] including some large corporate mailing lists. For the record... I changed my vote from a 1 to a 5 over a week ago because the author put so much time and effort into the article. But 13.4% of the votes have been removed. Do you *really* think that 23 members constituting 13.4% of the votes are intentional vandalization of the article? Removing the opinions of dozens of members because a few members might cast a low vote just seems wrong to me. Best Wishes, -David Delaune
Hi David, I understand your point, but I still think it's just a question of noise filtering. According to CP rules: Code Project Rating and Reputation FAQ[^] 4. Why do I sometimes see a message in the ratings histogram saying some votes were removed? Why do I sometimes see a message in the ratings histogram saying some votes were removed? If an awesome article gets 50 "5" votes and then a single "1" vote our thinking is "something's wrong". Not all members play nice so we filter out spurious or malicious votes that are further than a certain deviations from the weighted raw score. The final score displayed is the weighted score using only unfiltered votes. The actual acceptable deviation from the mean that is used to filter votes is calculated as 1.75 x the standard deviation, and then increased to ensure that voting values on either side of the mean can still be voted. Filtering only kicks in once there are 10 votes to an article, and due to historical reasons not all ratings can be treated accurately due to our systems only having full rating data since 2003. Note that filtering of votes only affects the score and popularity. All reputation points awarded (and lost!) through votes still apply, regardless of whether a vote is filtered from the score or not. Also remember that each time you vote the mean and deviation are recalculated and will change. A set of false 1 votes on an article that deserves a 5 will initially have the first few (correcting) 5 votes filtered out, but soon enough when sufficient 5 votes are posted, or members with high enough reputation post a 5 vote, the mean will be corrected and the initial spurious 1 votes will be filtered out in turn. The calculated mean and accepted deviation are displayed in the rating histogram as μ and σa. You're completely right when you say we can't say that all of those 23 votes are malicious ones. But I still think that the damage can be much greater for the author than for the voter. If you vote 1 and that vote is removed, nothing happens to your reputation. But if you post an excellent article and it gets a few "1" votes, it's enough to ruin a work of many days, while nothing happens to the downvoter, who usually spent merely 2 minutes to vote. It really sucks, because it doesn't give the author a chance to impro
-
One has to deal with uppers and downers. I have had a downer for several years. On t'other hand, it really isnt important. One has to learn to live with such things. Status comes from ones peers respect, not ones value as adjudged by a voting system.
------------------------------------ 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 Link[^] Trolls[^]
-
Hmmm how odd. If I vote a 3, why is it deemed any less relevant just because it doesn't follow the majority?
I feel the system has been introduced to deal with the spammers. If 50 people up-vote the article thinking that it is an excellent article and one guy down-votes it, the logic says that this guy IS a spammer. If you still have a very valid reason why the article should be down-voted, we have a forum where you can report it. And I must tell you that CP admins listen to each and every request and they do have the powers to revert your vote back to a valid vote. The important point here is deciding the "majority". If that is done well, the logic is correct 99.99% of the times. I hope that makes some sense. :)
..Go Green..
-
You do know that Sacha is really a bot.
Software Zen:
delete this;Buzz whir click
Sacha Barber
- Microsoft Visual C# MVP 2008-2011
- Codeproject MVP 2008-2011
Open Source Projects
Cinch SL/WPF MVVM
Your best friend is you. I'm my best friend too. We share the same views, and hardly ever argue My Blog : sachabarber.net -
Lover lover
Sacha Barber
- Microsoft Visual C# MVP 2008-2011
- Codeproject MVP 2008-2011
Open Source Projects
Cinch SL/WPF MVVM
Your best friend is you. I'm my best friend too. We share the same views, and hardly ever argue My Blog : sachabarber.net -
Lover lover
Sacha Barber
- Microsoft Visual C# MVP 2008-2011
- Codeproject MVP 2008-2011
Open Source Projects
Cinch SL/WPF MVVM
Your best friend is you. I'm my best friend too. We share the same views, and hardly ever argue My Blog : sachabarber.netMr Boombastic
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
-
It seems it happened with Sacha's latest article: Html5 WebWorkers experiment[^] Someone voted 3, but that vote was removed. Obviously it was due to some new rule preventing vandalization of articles that received many excellent votes. well done, guys :thumbsup:
Take a look at Html5 Snooker Club here in The Code Project.
I don't really think that 3s can be considered a 'downvote' or 'vandalisation', though I do like the system in principle. It could also have some unintended consequences, like articles which get rated 4 by everyone being safe (low SD) but articles with a spread of 3-4-5 being vulnerable to 1s.
-
One has to deal with uppers and downers. I have had a downer for several years. On t'other hand, it really isnt important. One has to learn to live with such things. Status comes from ones peers respect, not ones value as adjudged by a voting system.
------------------------------------ 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 Link[^] Trolls[^]
-
I know I mentioned only knowledge - certainly not certainty
MVVM# - See how I did MVVM my way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
You two certainly seem knowledgable about arguing the certainty of certain knowledge. :laugh:
-
One has to deal with uppers and downers. I have had a downer for several years. On t'other hand, it really isnt important. One has to learn to live with such things. Status comes from ones peers respect, not ones value as adjudged by a voting system.
------------------------------------ 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 Link[^] Trolls[^]
-
You two certainly seem knowledgable about arguing the certainty of certain knowledge. :laugh:
Are you sure?
MVVM# - See how I did MVVM my way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
-
Are you sure?
MVVM# - See how I did MVVM my way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
I can't say for certain whether I know if I'm sure. I certainly suspect I have the knowledge though. :)