A debate: making votes non-anonymous

Duncan Edwards Jones

Against - would degenerate into tit-for-tat up or down votes based on the person not the article. (I say this as a barely functional psychopath myself and imagine I'm not alone in that)

Sander Rossel

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...

Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need. Or read my articles at my CodeProject profile.

Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. — Edsger W. Dijkstra

Regards, Sander

Slacker007

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.

den2k88

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

Slacker007

PIEBALDconsult wrote:

I'd stop voting.

Exactly. If your down votes had any merit, and you could back them up, then you would still down-vote. That is the whole point. You should not be able to down-vote unless you can publicly back it up.

CPallini

Exactly. :thumbsup: I've upvoted you.

GuyThiebaut

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

V 0

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. :-)

V.
(MQOTD rules and previous solutions)

Wastedtalent

This could lead to 'revenge' downvoting?

Agent__007

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.

5imone

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

Rage

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".

Do not escape reality : improve reality !

Pete OHanlon

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.

Munchies_Matt

Name and shame the downvoters I say, on every post.

Agent__007

Is that just because you face them a lot? :laugh:

You have just been Sharapova'd.

Daniel Pfeffer

Johnny J. wrote:

Ah, but maybe it IS broke! Who gets to decide that?

Last I heard, it was Chris.

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

OriginalGriff

For me, this is a difficult question. I'm against "authority without responsibility" and at present we have that: anonymous downvotes (or abuse votes) promote "bullying" tactics, because there is no penalty that can be applied to deliberately trying to hurt someone (even if only their feelings). So the less mature and more childish members do what they want, safe in the knowledge that nobody knows and there can be no retaliation. But... Named downvotes? They encourage revenge, which it's easy to see descend into a tit-for-tat smacking session. Named upvotes? Nice feelings are good, but I can't see the value without named downvotes at the same time. Perhaps what we need is a cost associated with downvotes: perhaps if you downvote the same number of points are deducted from your account? Mind you, you'd hear the screams of some members even if you were deaf! :laugh: For me, I'm happy either way: You can attach my name to my up and downvotes with no problem.

Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...

Xmen Real

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 %^]*IRXD#@GKCQ`R\^SF_WcHbORY87֦ʻ6ϣN8ȤBcRAV\Z^&SU~%CSWQ@#2 W_AD`EPABIKRDFVS)EVLQK)JKQUFK[M`UKs*$GwU#QDXBER@CBN% R0~53%eYrd8mt^7Z6]iTF+(EWfJ9zaK-iTV.C\y<pjxsg-b$f4ia>

----------------------------------------------- 128 bit encrypted signature, crack if you can

Daniel Pfeffer

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: 1. If no-one else downvotes the message, the "downvote reputation" receive a full increment. 2. If others downvote it, a partial increment. 3. 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

Daniel Pfeffer

OriginalGriff wrote:

Perhaps what we need is a cost associated with downvotes: perhaps if you downvote the same number of points are deducted from your account?

If the amount of points deducted were also weighted by the number of people agreeing with you (also downvoting the message), you might have something. My problem is that I'm not sure that the accounting involved would be worth the effort. Perhaps something like this would work: 1. You downvote a message. 2. Your downvote (including your name) is displayed immediately for all to see. 3. The points to be deducted are calculated 24 hours after the first downvote for the message. 4. The points to be deducted are calculated on a scale based on the number of people who agree with you, and weighted by your reputation (with great power comes great responsibility). 5. Any downvotes that occur more than 24 hours after the first downvote are neither displayed nor accounted for in the points calculation. Comments?

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