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
After giving it quite some thought, I have decided that I don't really care that much! My feeling is that, if you introduce it then it should be across the board, no exceptions - everyone can see a list of who voted what. New members should not be allowed to vote up or down at all until they have reached a certain level of time/usage of the system. Abuse of either upvoting or downvoting should be punishable by the removal to do either, and (preferably) the removal of those votes. (this would also help prevent puppet accounts being created to upvote one's own articles). Keep the stats of each user's voting - number of UPs vs Number of Downs and perhaps publish them, too - that will be an interesting stat! And reduce the effectiveness of a vote compared to the number of items read / the number of up or down votes. e.g. If I read x articles and down vote them all, the 'points lost multiplier' should be reduced - so the 'grumpy old git' gets less effective over time if they don't find something to be happy about. Flag a warning if a user consistently differs from the herd in their voting (especially down votes) Publish the data as raw data (via an API would be lovely) and have a competition to make best use out of it. I;m thinking of a "who hates me" app and a "Ohhhh! is he your girlfriend" app.
PooperPig - Coming Soon
-
After giving it quite some thought, I have decided that I don't really care that much! My feeling is that, if you introduce it then it should be across the board, no exceptions - everyone can see a list of who voted what. New members should not be allowed to vote up or down at all until they have reached a certain level of time/usage of the system. Abuse of either upvoting or downvoting should be punishable by the removal to do either, and (preferably) the removal of those votes. (this would also help prevent puppet accounts being created to upvote one's own articles). Keep the stats of each user's voting - number of UPs vs Number of Downs and perhaps publish them, too - that will be an interesting stat! And reduce the effectiveness of a vote compared to the number of items read / the number of up or down votes. e.g. If I read x articles and down vote them all, the 'points lost multiplier' should be reduced - so the 'grumpy old git' gets less effective over time if they don't find something to be happy about. Flag a warning if a user consistently differs from the herd in their voting (especially down votes) Publish the data as raw data (via an API would be lovely) and have a competition to make best use out of it. I;m thinking of a "who hates me" app and a "Ohhhh! is he your girlfriend" app.
PooperPig - Coming Soon
Have a slightly unbalanced upvote from me. :)
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
-
Jörgen Andersson wrote:
Would it work having both likes and votes?
It would, actually. If done properly.
Jörgen Andersson wrote:
First, my very own personal opinion. I want complete transparency! [...] Do I believe it would work? Well not really
I'm not sure I agree. I get the feeling everyone's focussing on the minority, not the general majority.
cheers Chris Maunder
Chris Maunder wrote:
I get the feeling everyone's focussing on the minority, not the general majority.
Which majority are you thinking about? The 80000 users online or the 500? active users? (What is that number actually?) I think the active majority would stop downvoting if we have complete transparency. So the choice ends up being between transparency and a functional rating system, and while transparency is (should be) more important for the active users, a functional rating system is more important for the silent majority I believe. So here's the twist, while a functional rating system is important for the silent majority, having a happy active user group is important for having an actual functional rating system.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
-
After giving it quite some thought, I have decided that I don't really care that much! My feeling is that, if you introduce it then it should be across the board, no exceptions - everyone can see a list of who voted what. New members should not be allowed to vote up or down at all until they have reached a certain level of time/usage of the system. Abuse of either upvoting or downvoting should be punishable by the removal to do either, and (preferably) the removal of those votes. (this would also help prevent puppet accounts being created to upvote one's own articles). Keep the stats of each user's voting - number of UPs vs Number of Downs and perhaps publish them, too - that will be an interesting stat! And reduce the effectiveness of a vote compared to the number of items read / the number of up or down votes. e.g. If I read x articles and down vote them all, the 'points lost multiplier' should be reduced - so the 'grumpy old git' gets less effective over time if they don't find something to be happy about. Flag a warning if a user consistently differs from the herd in their voting (especially down votes) Publish the data as raw data (via an API would be lovely) and have a competition to make best use out of it. I;m thinking of a "who hates me" app and a "Ohhhh! is he your girlfriend" app.
PooperPig - Coming Soon
_Maxxx_ wrote:
I have decided that I don't really care that much!
I came to that conclusion too, but I believe that any of us "regulars" could live with whatever solution is implemented...
-
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 would like votes to be anonymous and here are the reasons: 1. People may or may not voice their true opinions if their identities are revealed. 2. Even if we make putting an explanation mandatory, there will be instances where people would post unrelated or inappropriate comments like, "I don't like you". This could well lead to YouTube like comment trails. 3. Yes, there will be people who will put relevant comments, but if someone really wants to share the view, they any ways do it.
I agree with you regarding anonymous voting. Besides, if it were non-anonymous, who can be sure that false identities are not being used?
The difficult may take time, the impossible a little longer.
-
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
-
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
Hi! I haven't read all the replies yet. However, here is my opinion: 1) Personal (i.e. not anonymous vote) may actually be a good thing. 2) Nobody mentioned this, but a middle ground could be that you need to provide reasons for your downvote. This should be a dialog with a large listbox at the top and an auto-complete combo at the bottom, so that common down vote reasons would come up immediately(sorted by popularity, i.e. if many people put in the same reason...). 3) Anonymous voting makes the creation of claques a lot easier, running the risk of heightening the popularity of someone who does not necessarily deserves it. The other side has merit, too: anonymizing the vote means that I feel more free to vote as I please instead of having to defend my reasons. I am hence much more favourable to non-anonymous votes. A
The old developer from Hell.
-
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 a long-time CP member. Back when we had the 1-5 voting scheme, I voted on posts a lot. I eventually realized I was using net anonymity as an excuse for bad behavior. My New Years resolution that year was to never vote on a post again. If I like what someone says, I comment on it. If I disagree, I comment on it. No anonymity, and much less bad behavior on my part. I feel like my karma has improved somewhat.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
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
No. People who want non-anonymous voting in any arena are always those who seeks to control the outcome. If you cannot handle the critics and the trolls then do not put yourself out there for them to come at you... this is not complicated stuff.
-
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 would suggest two separate voting systems: one anonymous, fast, without any comments, and a more complete option, like a review, with the score plus suggestions/criticism.
-
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
I agree, if someone really feels strongly about something (positive or negative), they can leave a comment. In fact, I don't pay much attention to the votes at all. I find that if someone doesn't actually take the time to write even a quick response to what they disagree with, then it's likely not that important anyway; and they just need a hug. Same goes with an upvote, they just seem like a "Hey, hi five Bro", and my sister does that to my nephew when he uses the "potty".
-
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
Perhaps there's a new category. What's called up/down votes today becomes something more like opinions, which are public and must be backed up with some explanatory text. (Maybe only for downs, what didn't you like?). Then, a simple like/dislike category for those who have only a nebulous feeling, or don't want to get into the muck of the why they feel some way. That might give an overall measure of popularity, plus some details for those who are inclined to provide them.
-
No. People who want non-anonymous voting in any arena are always those who seeks to control the outcome. If you cannot handle the critics and the trolls then do not put yourself out there for them to come at you... this is not complicated stuff.
Rowdy Raider wrote:
People who want non-anonymous voting in any arena are always those who seeks to control the outcome
I disagree with that generalised statement completely. Some do, some don't. Read the comments of others.
cheers Chris Maunder
-
I'm a long-time CP member. Back when we had the 1-5 voting scheme, I voted on posts a lot. I eventually realized I was using net anonymity as an excuse for bad behavior. My New Years resolution that year was to never vote on a post again. If I like what someone says, I comment on it. If I disagree, I comment on it. No anonymity, and much less bad behavior on my part. I feel like my karma has improved somewhat.
Software Zen:
delete this;You're a good man, Gary.
cheers Chris Maunder
-
You're a good man, Gary.
cheers Chris Maunder
Thanks, Chris :-\ .
Software Zen:
delete this; -
_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.
