A debate: making votes non-anonymous
-
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.
-
Personally I don't mind revealing how I vote, and I don't mind knowing who votes me up or down, but this isn't about me is it? What do you want the vote to measure, quality or popularity? If you show who's voting the downvotes will disappear and the rating will lose all meaning, just like it did for the articles. And just like it is for the Lounge. Is it just me that thinks the Lounge was a lot more interesting in the old times before it was filled with daily whatever, or is it my memory that's playing tricks on me.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
Actually it's precisely about you. And about everyone using the forums. I want your opinion, not what you think someone else's opinion is.
Jörgen Andersson wrote:
What do you want the vote to measure, quality or popularity?
And again this is really about you: what do uou vote for when you vote for a forum message? Quality of the post, a reaction to the topic, or (say) a thumbs-up to the poster for posting what what posted?
Jörgen Andersson wrote:
it just me that thinks the Lounge was a lot more interesting in the old times
Everything was better in the old times. The air, the water, the ice cream from down the street. The conversations in the lounge. Especially the ones about "the lounge was so much better when..." that are over 10 years old ;) I don't actually see that downvoting will make conversations more interesting. Disagreeing and posting your opinion makes lounge discussions more interesting.
cheers Chris Maunder
-
Chris, an idea: I respect that you want to have opinions as well, but why not make this a yes/no option poll and have people opinionate in the comments? Just to get an overall idea... :cool: Just out of curiosity: What suddenly made you take up this debate again? anything happen? :confused:
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 timeBecause I want a discussion unbiased by poll results. Discuss, then vote if necessary.
cheers Chris Maunder
-
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)
Duncan Edwards Jones wrote:
I say this as a barely functional psychopath myself
And that doesn't make you immediately want to try this out? For shame!
cheers Chris Maunder
