A debate: making votes non-anonymous
-
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)
-
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
Ah, but you see, what I want is not what I think is best for the site/community. But at the moment I have tp cook for the kids, and put them to bed. I'll give you a proper answer later, reflecting both sides of my opinions.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
-
Ah, the moderate voice of reason. Why name and shame? What's the benefit in your mind?
cheers Chris Maunder
Chris Maunder wrote:
Ah, the moderate voice of reason.
Hey, you know me! :) Its like this. People should be held to account for downvoting, and justify their actions. As it is people can do it for revenge, or any other trivial reason, and walk away. If they know they will be publicly known as the downvoter, they will judge their decision more carefully.
-
Chris Maunder wrote:
Ah, the moderate voice of reason.
Hey, you know me! :) Its like this. People should be held to account for downvoting, and justify their actions. As it is people can do it for revenge, or any other trivial reason, and walk away. If they know they will be publicly known as the downvoter, they will judge their decision more carefully.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
If they know they will be publicly known as the downvoter, they will judge their decision more carefully
Well, two problems with this 1. Some people don't care if people know they are a downvoter. Especially if it's a sock-puppet account. 2. Some people never learn.
cheers Chris Maunder
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
If they know they will be publicly known as the downvoter, they will judge their decision more carefully
Well, two problems with this 1. Some people don't care if people know they are a downvoter. Especially if it's a sock-puppet account. 2. Some people never learn.
cheers Chris Maunder
Do sock puppet accounts have down voting capability? Surely they are too temporary to have that. As for the latter, well, then they become known as grouchy old gits and ignored. :)
-
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: Anonymous voting encourages peer review (i.e. rating articles). Peer reviewed articles are one of the most important assets of CP. Although anonymous voting also allows abuse, the majority of votes are honest ones, causing the abuse to drop off as noise. For this reason, I urge you to continue to keep voting anonymous. /ravi
My new year resolution: 2048 x 1536 Home | Articles | My .NET bits | Freeware ravib(at)ravib(dot)com
-
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.
Rage wrote:
Could you pin this post as the first Lounge post until the debate is closed
Seconded. :thumbsup: /ravi
My new year resolution: 2048 x 1536 Home | Articles | My .NET bits | Freeware ravib(at)ravib(dot)com
-
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
Right here we go: First, my very own personal opinion. I want complete transparency! As simple as that. Do I believe it would work? Well not really. People wouldn't use the downvote which would render the ratings useless. And the rating is indeed important, not just for the articles but also the Q&A and the technical forums. So what do I vote for. Clever solutions, being helpful above the normal, teaching something new, correcting my knowledge or simply amusing me. On the other hand I also vote for low quality posts, that are simply erroneous, or incomplete, or someone being an arse. You know, the normal stuff. So as I've said before, the vote means different things in different situations. And that's why I ask, do you want to measure quality or popularity, votes or likes? Or why not both? Would it work having both likes and votes? I don't know. You will always have misuse, but maybe there would be a better balance between up and downvotes, if people could like a post instead of simply upvoting. I'm specifically thinking of one "massproducer" of articles where the articles are of a pretty low quality as such, but he gets tons of upvotes because they are in the form of a walkthrough which indeed is very helpful for people being new to a subject. So what about the Lounge. Well I suppose I'm simply getting old. But that's another post and another subject actually.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
-
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'd happily vote for a system that publicly attached the name of the voter to the vote. It needn't be shown by default - ajaxing the list for those curious enough works perfectly fine in other places I visit. While it does open the door to a vendetta, it also enables one to quickly ascertain whether or not to place any importance on it. All this has been said before. I've found it works quite well in conjunction with a system that allows for users to block one another - a safeguard against troll-voting if you like. Irritate someone too many times by voting in such a fashion and they simply block you. This means you can't see or respond to anything they've written while logged-in as yourself. The block however is a two-way street. If you block someone, not only are your posts hidden to them, but their posts are hidden to you - this naturally enough provides a disincentive to vindictive blocking. CodeProject's members are far more mature and educated than those of some other places I frequent. They are filled with all kinds of oddballs - as I jokingly say, everything from puppy-dogs to serial killers. Yet even in these places the system appears to function just fine. The only 1 thing that I feel would be better is if the blocks were automatically cleared at a fixed interval. Perhaps quarterly or biannually would be a good interval, with the option to also clear them at will. If someone still presents a problem, you can simply block them again. On the other hand, if one or both of you were just having a bad day then what may otherwise be forgotten can be cleared and a chance for each to start anew is automatically afforded. Being blocked by someone whose opinion you value tends to make people pull their head-in in my experience and can allow a forum to operate almost entirely without moderation. I recall declaring some time back that I'd leave if down-voting in the lounge was removed, that obviously didn't happen - CP is simply too good. I shall continue to enjoy it regardless of the decision made, but will happily declare my preference for non-anonymous votes, which, I feel would be an experiment worth conducting. (Based of course, on the assumption that the coding effort to implement such a pair of features as blocks and named votes would be fairly or entirely trivial to implement)
"When I was 5 years old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down 'happy'. They told
