Time to list who votes.
-
Enough: it's time to list voters. There is no reason not to do this. It'll quickly stop drive-by-voting and ensure that people vote more sensibly. It would also show if you are being targeted by someone. I don't mind the vote itself especially where I know I'm being a little troll-like but for ordinary posts? Ridiculous. See how long it takes this to get downvoted.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
Enough: it's time to list voters. There is no reason not to do this. It'll quickly stop drive-by-voting and ensure that people vote more sensibly. It would also show if you are being targeted by someone. I don't mind the vote itself especially where I know I'm being a little troll-like but for ordinary posts? Ridiculous. See how long it takes this to get downvoted.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
And what do you do about sock puppets?
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
-
And what do you do about sock puppets?
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
Wouldn't they just be reported/removed because we can see them being created just for the down votes? That would probably reduce the amount of sock puppets created as well...
-
Wouldn't they just be reported/removed because we can see them being created just for the down votes? That would probably reduce the amount of sock puppets created as well...
We're going to go around in circles here, but how do you define an account as a true sock puppet (ie an existing member playing silly buggers) vs a genuine member who has signed up and legitimately wants to down-vote?
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
-
And what do you do about sock puppets?
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
I would imagine that also being fairly obvious. Or perhaps change the rules so that users must first earn a certain number of rep points before they can vote or you have to have been live for a certain length of time before being given voting priviliges.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
We're going to go around in circles here, but how do you define an account as a true sock puppet (ie an existing member playing silly buggers) vs a genuine member who has signed up and legitimately wants to down-vote?
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
The same way you define a spam account, I guess. I'm probably overlooking the problem, I'm sure you've given it more thought than I did.
-
The same way you define a spam account, I guess. I'm probably overlooking the problem, I'm sure you've given it more thought than I did.
They are very different. A spammer posts ads for Nike shoes. A member may downvote a message they don't like. Or 10 messages they don't like. They are entitled to their opinion. A sock puppet, in the worst sense, creates an account specifically to downvote (or upvote) messages to sway scores. How do you differentiate between someone's legitimate opinion and someone just trying to screw with the votes? Further, how would knowing the member who downvoted you help, other than giving you a target from which you, too, can downvote simply to make the point?
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
-
They are very different. A spammer posts ads for Nike shoes. A member may downvote a message they don't like. Or 10 messages they don't like. They are entitled to their opinion. A sock puppet, in the worst sense, creates an account specifically to downvote (or upvote) messages to sway scores. How do you differentiate between someone's legitimate opinion and someone just trying to screw with the votes? Further, how would knowing the member who downvoted you help, other than giving you a target from which you, too, can downvote simply to make the point?
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
Chris Maunder wrote:
They are entitled to their opinion.
That's the problem: most often they don't offer an opinion, just the downvote. So you post something inconsequential and it gets downvoted. That's not an opinion: you're a target. Needs dealing with. Knowing who it is allows you to spot a pattern of voting. If the same person hits you 5 or 6 times you know they are not offering an opinion. At present it's dealt with by CP making a summary decision: you can see who it is - we can't. Where's the transparency?
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
Enough: it's time to list voters. There is no reason not to do this. It'll quickly stop drive-by-voting and ensure that people vote more sensibly. It would also show if you are being targeted by someone. I don't mind the vote itself especially where I know I'm being a little troll-like but for ordinary posts? Ridiculous. See how long it takes this to get downvoted.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
You being targetted again mate? I'm curious as to who goes around voting 2 on everything. It's an odd vote to cast.
*pre-emptive celebratory nipple tassle jiggle* - Sean Ewington
"Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
-
You being targetted again mate? I'm curious as to who goes around voting 2 on everything. It's an odd vote to cast.
*pre-emptive celebratory nipple tassle jiggle* - Sean Ewington
"Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
Who knows what goes through people's minds? Not me, that's for sure! There do seem to be a few people that get hit form time to time. I think there is an easy way to stop it (see other posts).
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
Enough: it's time to list voters. There is no reason not to do this. It'll quickly stop drive-by-voting and ensure that people vote more sensibly. It would also show if you are being targeted by someone. I don't mind the vote itself especially where I know I'm being a little troll-like but for ordinary posts? Ridiculous. See how long it takes this to get downvoted.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
1 hour and 2 minutes. Darned! I'll have to get faster at this downvoting thing. ;P
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine."
Ross Callon, The Twelve Networking Truths, RFC1925
-
1 hour and 2 minutes. Darned! I'll have to get faster at this downvoting thing. ;P
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine."
Ross Callon, The Twelve Networking Truths, RFC1925
Gets my 5 though should have taken 1 off for tardiness. :)
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
Gets my 5 though should have taken 1 off for tardiness. :)
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
I shall be more vigilant next time. Cheers! ;)
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine."
Ross Callon, The Twelve Networking Truths, RFC1925
-
And what do you do about sock puppets?
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
Doesn't the weighting account for that? I mean sure some would have them, but in the larger scheme of things their would be minimal as a sock puppet would not likely have good rep. In fact if the community thought an account was a sock puppet they might start blasting their rep to ensure they could do no further rep damage. I saw someone say have voting be a privalage. I would not go that far. But you could completely break the effect of voting for them (underwater results in no effect but they can still vote... CLICKY CLICKY YEay I voted :P). So I guess what I am saying is if the voters were listed, sock puppets would have no power so long as you keep weighing the votes by rep. And with that I think the community would quickly find sock puppets and devistate their rep to the point of them being un-usable. As sock puppets would either not post (resulting in no rep from their votes) or would be used to troll which would make their rep even worse. Seems like those using them would eventually realize it is pointless. Maybe I am missing something though.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
Doesn't the weighting account for that? I mean sure some would have them, but in the larger scheme of things their would be minimal as a sock puppet would not likely have good rep. In fact if the community thought an account was a sock puppet they might start blasting their rep to ensure they could do no further rep damage. I saw someone say have voting be a privalage. I would not go that far. But you could completely break the effect of voting for them (underwater results in no effect but they can still vote... CLICKY CLICKY YEay I voted :P). So I guess what I am saying is if the voters were listed, sock puppets would have no power so long as you keep weighing the votes by rep. And with that I think the community would quickly find sock puppets and devistate their rep to the point of them being un-usable. As sock puppets would either not post (resulting in no rep from their votes) or would be used to troll which would make their rep even worse. Seems like those using them would eventually realize it is pointless. Maybe I am missing something though.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
What are people worried about? A vote of 1? Having a message's vote average lowered? Or losing rep points? If it were 2 or 3 then it's not a huge issue because low rep votes do not weigh highly. However, I suspect it's box 1 that is the annoying factor. It's an insult when someone votes you down, and that is (to me) the main issue here. The two options I see are: 1. Open it up. This will cause voting wars, but I've been knocking around a few ideas on this that may help 2. Lock it down to high rep members. This won't work because more often than not it's members with decent rep that cause the problem, and it also means new members can't participate. This is unfair.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
-
What are people worried about? A vote of 1? Having a message's vote average lowered? Or losing rep points? If it were 2 or 3 then it's not a huge issue because low rep votes do not weigh highly. However, I suspect it's box 1 that is the annoying factor. It's an insult when someone votes you down, and that is (to me) the main issue here. The two options I see are: 1. Open it up. This will cause voting wars, but I've been knocking around a few ideas on this that may help 2. Lock it down to high rep members. This won't work because more often than not it's members with decent rep that cause the problem, and it also means new members can't participate. This is unfair.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
The issue is that the uni-voters flood the account. They hit your messages arbitrarily and uni-vote them day in day out with out reading them. I don't care about a couple uni-votes. But I can clearly see some days someone simply had it 'out for me' and I take a hit on rep, on the message, and it is annoying. So to answer it is all of the above. And the anonomous tactic allows it to happen on numerous messages with no reguard to content. Not sure what you mean by "Open it up", but interested to hear what ideas you are working on. I dont think locking it down makes sence either. BUT the damage should be minimal from low rep accounts. As you said it is not necessarily the low accounts but would not listing the voters solve some of that. If the reasoning for not listing the votes is because of sock puppets those account wont matter. It is highly unlikely that a member will dedicate much time to a sock puppet account. And if they do, I would argue that is not a sock puppet account. That is a person with multiple personalities. [Edit] Never mind, I know what you mean by open it up. Not sure about that. Social networks allow the visibility of it however they do not have the downvote available. I often wish they did though... And not for a trade in of anominimity. It seems if you want the public to know something is 'good' or 'bad' you should yourself publicly state it is you that thinks it is 'good' or 'bad' otherwise dont't say anything.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
Chris Maunder wrote:
They are entitled to their opinion.
That's the problem: most often they don't offer an opinion, just the downvote. So you post something inconsequential and it gets downvoted. That's not an opinion: you're a target. Needs dealing with. Knowing who it is allows you to spot a pattern of voting. If the same person hits you 5 or 6 times you know they are not offering an opinion. At present it's dealt with by CP making a summary decision: you can see who it is - we can't. Where's the transparency?
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
OK, so you see that someone has downvoted you 5 times in a row. You see the account is from someone you don't know. What good will it do you? If you say "it will allow me to spot a pattern" then what you're also asking for is to see every vote that person made. I don't agree with that in the current form. But assuming you did: you see this person has voted 5's for some, 1's for others. They just happen to have voted 5 of your messages down. Out of 100 random votes this person has made, only 5 are recent downvotes. What then would you do?
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
-
OK, so you see that someone has downvoted you 5 times in a row. You see the account is from someone you don't know. What good will it do you? If you say "it will allow me to spot a pattern" then what you're also asking for is to see every vote that person made. I don't agree with that in the current form. But assuming you did: you see this person has voted 5's for some, 1's for others. They just happen to have voted 5 of your messages down. Out of 100 random votes this person has made, only 5 are recent downvotes. What then would you do?
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
I didn't say it would do me any good but it would give me the opportunity to ask them why they've done that. In any case, if someone knows that you can see how they've voted they may be less likely to do so for frivolous reasons or be more likely to justify it with a comment. No, I'm only interested in posts against my account that they make. If I can see that someone is down voting me for no reason then I can bring it to your attention more easily than at present. It also means that if I have been down voted on several posts but by different people then I probably haven't got a leg to stand on. However, if each of those was a new account then I'm pretty sure we can agree I'm being targeted. Right now I'm getting a large number of negative votes - some I get (they really disagree or are being mischievous because I said the post would generate down votes), others make no sense. It is the votes that make no sense that are so frustrating. I can't believe you don't see that: enough people have mentioned it over the years. It really is time to address this and make it fair for everyone: at the moment if someone down votes a bunch of posts that's it: I have no recourse, no way of determining why they would do that. Maybe they do genuinely have an issue with the post: well then, say so. As I said the solution is simple: all votes display the user who made them and n00bs can't vote for the first 6 months or until they accumulate a minimum number of points. I would bet that targeted down voting stops almost immediately.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
I didn't say it would do me any good but it would give me the opportunity to ask them why they've done that. In any case, if someone knows that you can see how they've voted they may be less likely to do so for frivolous reasons or be more likely to justify it with a comment. No, I'm only interested in posts against my account that they make. If I can see that someone is down voting me for no reason then I can bring it to your attention more easily than at present. It also means that if I have been down voted on several posts but by different people then I probably haven't got a leg to stand on. However, if each of those was a new account then I'm pretty sure we can agree I'm being targeted. Right now I'm getting a large number of negative votes - some I get (they really disagree or are being mischievous because I said the post would generate down votes), others make no sense. It is the votes that make no sense that are so frustrating. I can't believe you don't see that: enough people have mentioned it over the years. It really is time to address this and make it fair for everyone: at the moment if someone down votes a bunch of posts that's it: I have no recourse, no way of determining why they would do that. Maybe they do genuinely have an issue with the post: well then, say so. As I said the solution is simple: all votes display the user who made them and n00bs can't vote for the first 6 months or until they accumulate a minimum number of points. I would bet that targeted down voting stops almost immediately.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
mark merrens wrote:
I can't believe you don't see that
I have said repeatedly that I understand the frustration in this.
mark merrens wrote:
As I said the solution is simple: all votes display the user who made them
As I've also said this isn't a simple solution for all the reasons stated before. You're going the wrong way about this. You keep saying you want to know why but you must know that if someone goes on a childish downvoting spree the chances of getting a sensible 'why' is about zero, and knowing who downvoted you still doesn't allow you to effectively engage in a discussion on why they voted: Where would you start the conversation? Hopefully not on the Lounge? What motivation would that person have in answering a "why did you downvote me?" question in the first place? If you want the "why" of why a message was voted down (and I assume messages are the only thing you're talking about here) then why not suggest we include a "add a comment when voting feature"? This will give you the "why" and also, most likely, put a quick stop to downvote sprees. Or, as I'm guessing would happen, you'd get lots of "asdf".
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
-
mark merrens wrote:
I can't believe you don't see that
I have said repeatedly that I understand the frustration in this.
mark merrens wrote:
As I said the solution is simple: all votes display the user who made them
As I've also said this isn't a simple solution for all the reasons stated before. You're going the wrong way about this. You keep saying you want to know why but you must know that if someone goes on a childish downvoting spree the chances of getting a sensible 'why' is about zero, and knowing who downvoted you still doesn't allow you to effectively engage in a discussion on why they voted: Where would you start the conversation? Hopefully not on the Lounge? What motivation would that person have in answering a "why did you downvote me?" question in the first place? If you want the "why" of why a message was voted down (and I assume messages are the only thing you're talking about here) then why not suggest we include a "add a comment when voting feature"? This will give you the "why" and also, most likely, put a quick stop to downvote sprees. Or, as I'm guessing would happen, you'd get lots of "asdf".
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
Chris Maunder wrote:
Or, as I'm guessing would happen, you'd get lots of "asdf".
I'm not saying this is an easy issue to address but out of the bag it will ceratinly make it easier for a user to determine if they are being targeted if we can see who is slamming us. I'm not saying I'd bother confronting them (what would be the point?) but, at the very least, I'd be better armed when having a moan at you about said behavior and be able to press you harder to do something about it. I still feel that not allowing anyone to vote with less than 6 months membership would stop sock-puppets and knowing that they are no longer anonymous will stop people randomly one voting cos something I said to them or somebody else has pissed them off. Let's be honest, who can be bothered to contribute if every time you say something you have it in the back of your mind that some little oik is going to get the hump and go on a down voting spree? It gets very wearing - who can be bothered?
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me