A debate: making votes non-anonymous
-
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
-
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
GuyThiebaut wrote:
I think basing a decision, that affects the majority, on the behaviour of a small minority is never a good move.
I totally agree. Understand that malicious downvotes and tit-for-tat voting is the minority. The majority of good contributors here get upvotes.
cheers Chris Maunder
-
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)Downvote reputation won't actually work for a couple of reasons. 1. Sock puppets and trolls don't care. It's pointless 2. We have members who do us a huge service in downvoting (and hence sorting) poor quality material. They should be rewarded, not reprimanded.
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".
Rage wrote:
We do not need votes: - To express an opinion about the content or about someone.
Except we do in the Lounge. No, we're not Facebook, but Facebook has trained everyone to "Like" things (without allowing them to Loathe things). When someone posts something interesting, amusing, entertaining, or just plain nails a comment then it's nice to give them an upvote.
Rage wrote:
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".
It would actually also limit downvoting in general: and that's bad.
cheers Chris Maunder
-
Name and shame the downvoters I say, on every post.
Ah, the moderate voice of reason. Why name and shame? What's the benefit in your mind?
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.
BillWoodruff wrote:
And, I'd like to see the down-voter on a Lounge post also "pay" one point
I'm not sure how that would affect anything. It's a minor cost that trolls wouldn't mind paying. It's also a cost that those who are downvoting the truly awful shouldn't have to pay.
cheers Chris Maunder
-
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
Establish veneer of respectability then commit heinous acts..t'is the psychopath credo.
-
Rage wrote:
We do not need votes: - To express an opinion about the content or about someone.
Except we do in the Lounge. No, we're not Facebook, but Facebook has trained everyone to "Like" things (without allowing them to Loathe things). When someone posts something interesting, amusing, entertaining, or just plain nails a comment then it's nice to give them an upvote.
Rage wrote:
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".
It would actually also limit downvoting in general: and that's bad.
cheers Chris Maunder
Chris Maunder wrote:
When someone posts something interesting, amusing, entertaining, or just plain nails a comment then it's nice to give them an upvote.
But here you are describing about 80% of the Lounge content : If too much is upvoted, then upvote does not make sense. Of course it is nice to signal someone the post was good, but it serves no real purpose : it is not needed.
Chris Maunder wrote:
but Facebook has trained everyone to "Like" things
Well, I do not think bringing Facebook to CP is a good thing, even if people are brainwashed (or trained, call it whatever you want) by Facebook, it still does not make sense to copy the way Facebook works.
Chris Maunder wrote:
It would actually also limit downvoting in general: and that's bad
I honestly do not see why this would be so -> people who downvote articles for good reason also stand to their vote, and have no problem arguing. Would we really miss the fire&forget downvoters ? I seriously doubt so.
-
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
Could you pin this post as the first Lounge post until the debate is closed (= until you think there is enough matter for you to decide) ? I think it would help for the visibility of the discussion.
-
Ah, the moderate voice of reason. Why name and shame? What's the benefit in your mind?
cheers Chris Maunder
V: Tell me... what do you do with witches? P3: Burn'em! Burn them up! (burn burn burn)
