A debate: making votes non-anonymous
-
When someone upvotes a message or article I wrote it's nice seeing who it was how voted. Really nice. Conversely when someone downvotes you there's often a "who on Earth would downvote that?" We've talked about this a lot and so I bring this up as something that's already been brought up, but times change as do opinions. So onto the debate: Whereas knowing your admirers and foes brings either a warm fuzzy feeling or concrete contact to discuss improvements, be it resolved that showing names next to votes is a Good Thing. Those debating for the motion please state their case, and those debating against provide their counter-arguments.
cheers Chris Maunder
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.
-
When someone upvotes a message or article I wrote it's nice seeing who it was how voted. Really nice. Conversely when someone downvotes you there's often a "who on Earth would downvote that?" We've talked about this a lot and so I bring this up as something that's already been brought up, but times change as do opinions. So onto the debate: Whereas knowing your admirers and foes brings either a warm fuzzy feeling or concrete contact to discuss improvements, be it resolved that showing names next to votes is a Good Thing. Those debating for the motion please state their case, and those debating against provide their counter-arguments.
cheers Chris Maunder
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
-
When someone upvotes a message or article I wrote it's nice seeing who it was how voted. Really nice. Conversely when someone downvotes you there's often a "who on Earth would downvote that?" We've talked about this a lot and so I bring this up as something that's already been brought up, but times change as do opinions. So onto the debate: Whereas knowing your admirers and foes brings either a warm fuzzy feeling or concrete contact to discuss improvements, be it resolved that showing names next to votes is a Good Thing. Those debating for the motion please state their case, and those debating against provide their counter-arguments.
cheers Chris Maunder
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".
-
When someone upvotes a message or article I wrote it's nice seeing who it was how voted. Really nice. Conversely when someone downvotes you there's often a "who on Earth would downvote that?" We've talked about this a lot and so I bring this up as something that's already been brought up, but times change as do opinions. So onto the debate: Whereas knowing your admirers and foes brings either a warm fuzzy feeling or concrete contact to discuss improvements, be it resolved that showing names next to votes is a Good Thing. Those debating for the motion please state their case, and those debating against provide their counter-arguments.
cheers Chris Maunder
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.
-
When someone upvotes a message or article I wrote it's nice seeing who it was how voted. Really nice. Conversely when someone downvotes you there's often a "who on Earth would downvote that?" We've talked about this a lot and so I bring this up as something that's already been brought up, but times change as do opinions. So onto the debate: Whereas knowing your admirers and foes brings either a warm fuzzy feeling or concrete contact to discuss improvements, be it resolved that showing names next to votes is a Good Thing. Those debating for the motion please state their case, and those debating against provide their counter-arguments.
cheers Chris Maunder
Name and shame the downvoters I say, on every post.
-
Name and shame the downvoters I say, on every post.
Is that just because you face them a lot? :laugh:
You have just been Sharapova'd.
-
Ah, but maybe it IS broke! Who gets to decide that? ;)
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-----
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-----
I'd just like a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.
Me, all the timeJohnny 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
-
When someone upvotes a message or article I wrote it's nice seeing who it was how voted. Really nice. Conversely when someone downvotes you there's often a "who on Earth would downvote that?" We've talked about this a lot and so I bring this up as something that's already been brought up, but times change as do opinions. So onto the debate: Whereas knowing your admirers and foes brings either a warm fuzzy feeling or concrete contact to discuss improvements, be it resolved that showing names next to votes is a Good Thing. Those debating for the motion please state their case, and those debating against provide their counter-arguments.
cheers Chris Maunder
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...
-
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.
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
-
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)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
-
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...
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
-
When someone upvotes a message or article I wrote it's nice seeing who it was how voted. Really nice. Conversely when someone downvotes you there's often a "who on Earth would downvote that?" We've talked about this a lot and so I bring this up as something that's already been brought up, but times change as do opinions. So onto the debate: Whereas knowing your admirers and foes brings either a warm fuzzy feeling or concrete contact to discuss improvements, be it resolved that showing names next to votes is a Good Thing. Those debating for the motion please state their case, and those debating against provide their counter-arguments.
cheers Chris Maunder
-
When someone upvotes a message or article I wrote it's nice seeing who it was how voted. Really nice. Conversely when someone downvotes you there's often a "who on Earth would downvote that?" We've talked about this a lot and so I bring this up as something that's already been brought up, but times change as do opinions. So onto the debate: Whereas knowing your admirers and foes brings either a warm fuzzy feeling or concrete contact to discuss improvements, be it resolved that showing names next to votes is a Good Thing. Those debating for the motion please state their case, and those debating against provide their counter-arguments.
cheers Chris Maunder
I prefer things stay the way they are with one exception: on the Lounge, I'd like anonymous down-voting back. But, I'd like to see the "rep cost" of a Lounge post down-vote (to the poster) be exactly 1 point, with no "weighting" by CP status. And, I'd like to see the down-voter on a Lounge post also "pay" one point. cheers, Bill
«I want to stay as close to the edge as I can without going over. Out on the edge you see all kinds of things you can't see from the center» Kurt Vonnegut.
-
Is that just because you face them a lot? :laugh:
You have just been Sharapova'd.
Yes. :sigh:
-
When someone upvotes a message or article I wrote it's nice seeing who it was how voted. Really nice. Conversely when someone downvotes you there's often a "who on Earth would downvote that?" We've talked about this a lot and so I bring this up as something that's already been brought up, but times change as do opinions. So onto the debate: Whereas knowing your admirers and foes brings either a warm fuzzy feeling or concrete contact to discuss improvements, be it resolved that showing names next to votes is a Good Thing. Those debating for the motion please state their case, and those debating against provide their counter-arguments.
cheers Chris Maunder
Keep vote anonymous to the users, until there is an actual issue with posting on particular articles; then use the moderators to review the voting. Keep the upvote/like button on the forum posts. If you want to modify this, then you will need REAL moderators and REAL curating for the articles.
I'd rather be phishing!
-
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.
-
When someone upvotes a message or article I wrote it's nice seeing who it was how voted. Really nice. Conversely when someone downvotes you there's often a "who on Earth would downvote that?" We've talked about this a lot and so I bring this up as something that's already been brought up, but times change as do opinions. So onto the debate: Whereas knowing your admirers and foes brings either a warm fuzzy feeling or concrete contact to discuss improvements, be it resolved that showing names next to votes is a Good Thing. Those debating for the motion please state their case, and those debating against provide their counter-arguments.
cheers Chris Maunder
Well I'm always curios to know about who up/down voted my posts. And if I up/down vote someone else's post and he/she asked me the reason behind my vote, I'm always ready to explain the the reason. And I think making votes non-anonymous would make people more responsible and think before carelessly down-voting other people's posts.
-
Why not? My down vote may have much merit, but I don't have the time/inclination to enter a debate about it.
PooperPig - Coming Soon
_Maxxx_ wrote:
My down vote may have much merit, but I don't have the time/inclination to enter a debate about it.
Then it has no merit, and serves no constructive purpose. The user knows that someone didn't like something, but has no recourse to find out what it was, or to engage in conversation to fix it or discuss it. Your down vote without accountability, satisfies your ego, but nothing else.
-
_Maxxx_ wrote:
My down vote may have much merit, but I don't have the time/inclination to enter a debate about it.
Then it has no merit, and serves no constructive purpose. The user knows that someone didn't like something, but has no recourse to find out what it was, or to engage in conversation to fix it or discuss it. Your down vote without accountability, satisfies your ego, but nothing else.
Slacker007 wrote:
serves no constructive purpose
Not so. Voting for something gives a measure of popularity (if nothing else) of the entity in question. With many, many articles on the same subject, how is the user to determine which are the best? By having votes. The reasons for those votes, while they may be interesting to the author, are of much less import to the user - especially the casual user who is just looking for info on how to do something. You seem to be looking at everything from one single author's perspective rather than from that of the other 9,999,999 users who just want to find the best article.
PooperPig - Coming Soon
-
Slacker007 wrote:
serves no constructive purpose
Not so. Voting for something gives a measure of popularity (if nothing else) of the entity in question. With many, many articles on the same subject, how is the user to determine which are the best? By having votes. The reasons for those votes, while they may be interesting to the author, are of much less import to the user - especially the casual user who is just looking for info on how to do something. You seem to be looking at everything from one single author's perspective rather than from that of the other 9,999,999 users who just want to find the best article.
PooperPig - Coming Soon
If everyone felt the way you did, then Chris would not be having a debate about it. I disagree with your points. Any further discussion would not be productive, IMHO. Cheers. ;)
