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
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. ;)
-
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. ;)
-
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
Against. As other people have pointed out, there're plenty of idiots who'd go on a revenge voting spree. We don't need that.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason? Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful? --Zachris Topelius Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies. -- Sarah Hoyt
-
_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:
it has no merit
You don't get to decide that.
-
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
Hear! Hear!
-
I do not have a problem exposing my vote(s). On the other hand, I don't give much thought to who up/down votes me. In fact, I prefer not to know. The change to eliminate down voting has made the Lounge a rather moribund place. It may be best to leave well enough alone.
What we got here is a failure to communicate
Ah - but with non-anonymous voting we can bring back down voting. Just to stir things up
cheers Chris Maunder
-
It's a shame you don't have some method of organising some sort of pole to count people's votes. ;P My vote goes for I don't care.
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
I know - if only we had a survey system ;) (What I want is the debate, not the vote)
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'm going to echo the people who say that we should leave voting anonymous. We already have enough people who seem to down-vote simply because they don't like someone. I'd rather avoid some special snowflake deciding that I'm the target of their wrath this week all because I bruised their fragile ego by saying that I don't think their genius idea is actually that good. Worst case, require a reason why you are down-voting but don't display it. Heck, require a reason for up-voting as well. Make it fair and apply to everyone. I really dislike seeing useless articles (on this site or any other for that matter) which are voted 5 star followed by a bunch of identical "Great Article!" comments. Feels like they got their little sock puppet army to bump it up for a chance at whatever monthly gold star the site offers. Have a process in place for people who think they were wrongfully down-voted. Have a minimum threshold (10 down-votes? 20? 50%+? Just tossing out ideas), then they can submit their reason why it needs to be examined to make sure the down-votes were legit.
