Non-anonymity:Opening that can of worms
-
It's spring in Canada which means I have another cold, and while I'm sniffling away I thought to myself "what could be more painful that blocked sinuses and a raging headache"? and I came up with the answer: A discussion on anonymity and voting. One of the things I've been thinking about is a setting in your profile that makes all your votes non-anonymous. That is, when you vote, the votee gets to see that it was you who voted regardless of whether you've added a voting comment. The catch, though, is that to see non-anonymous votes you, yourself, would have to opt in to have your votes non-anonymous. A further catch is you only get to see votes that occurred since the last time you opted in to un-anonymise yourself, in order to stop people turning it on, peeking, then turning it off again. The thing that's stopped me, however, is a question as to how many would opt in? My overriding feeling is that knowing who voted for you will either give you a warm fuzzy feeling ('Hey - Pete gave me a 5'), or it will dampen contributions ('Damn - Pete gave me a 1. I suck. I'm going back and finishing that Liberal Arts degree'), or it will merely be obscure ('That heathen pete_32453, who's been a member for 3 years with not a single post, gave me a 1. That's it, where's my flamethrower?') However, I wanted to ask you, the intelligentsia, whether an opt-in to non-anonymity (we'll think of a better name one day) would help, hinder, or merely be trivia.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
-
It's spring in Canada which means I have another cold, and while I'm sniffling away I thought to myself "what could be more painful that blocked sinuses and a raging headache"? and I came up with the answer: A discussion on anonymity and voting. One of the things I've been thinking about is a setting in your profile that makes all your votes non-anonymous. That is, when you vote, the votee gets to see that it was you who voted regardless of whether you've added a voting comment. The catch, though, is that to see non-anonymous votes you, yourself, would have to opt in to have your votes non-anonymous. A further catch is you only get to see votes that occurred since the last time you opted in to un-anonymise yourself, in order to stop people turning it on, peeking, then turning it off again. The thing that's stopped me, however, is a question as to how many would opt in? My overriding feeling is that knowing who voted for you will either give you a warm fuzzy feeling ('Hey - Pete gave me a 5'), or it will dampen contributions ('Damn - Pete gave me a 1. I suck. I'm going back and finishing that Liberal Arts degree'), or it will merely be obscure ('That heathen pete_32453, who's been a member for 3 years with not a single post, gave me a 1. That's it, where's my flamethrower?') However, I wanted to ask you, the intelligentsia, whether an opt-in to non-anonymity (we'll think of a better name one day) would help, hinder, or merely be trivia.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
I would be non-anonymous. I think the whole anonymous thing (which I see in many other venues) is diluting responsibility, accountability, and having deeper conversation on issues (and I'm talking about things that have nothing to with CP). So, that's my stance. Marc
My Blog
The Relationship Oriented Programming IDE
Melody's Amazon Herb Site -
if i did opt-in, i'd probably stop giving low votes to assholes, because the last thing i want to deal with is a spiteful asshole seeking revenge. and that would be a tragedy, because let's face it, assholes need low votes.
This is precisely another fear of mine: that those items that deserve to downvoted won't be. I know other (*cough* Nish *cough*) are dead against downvoting but life doesn't work that way. We're not all happy all the time, and I will never stoop to the modern day PC "deferred success" instead of outright "not good enough". If we were all told we were always "good enough", or worse, never given feedback at all, how on Earth do we improve? So yes: some stuff needs to be marked "don't go there". Simply not upvoting it doesn't work.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
-
I dunno, I like it the way it is. I do think, in general it would lower 1 votes and increase sock puppet accounts. I don't think this would solve whatever problem you are trying to solve.
I don't see it would add sock-puppet accounts because people would simply not opt-in. A sock puppet account won't let you see who voted your main account down. Email verification (or some other form of "I'm a real, contactable person") would also have to be a necessary part of this.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
-
It would became standard practice to re-anonymise just to vote, then quickly un-anonymise again to see other votes. If you can just keep switching like that, which is how I interpreted your post. And there would cause a huge (or even bigger, if you can't keep switching the anonymous setting) wave of sock-puppets set up so people can have both without having to go into the settings every time.
no he said that you would only see the votes that were made AFTER you opted in. no on and off crap.. I read it as. your opted out, you cant see votes, you are opted in, you can see votes made only while you are opted in. hence, if you opt in and out, you would only see those votes made while you are opted in and the ones made while you were out, would be nunya..
Common sense is not a gift it's a curse. Those of us who have it have to deal with those that don't.... Be careful which toes you step on today, they might be connected to the foot that kicks your butt tomorrow. You can't scare me, I have children.
-
no he said that you would only see the votes that were made AFTER you opted in. no on and off crap.. I read it as. your opted out, you cant see votes, you are opted in, you can see votes made only while you are opted in. hence, if you opt in and out, you would only see those votes made while you are opted in and the ones made while you were out, would be nunya..
Common sense is not a gift it's a curse. Those of us who have it have to deal with those that don't.... Be careful which toes you step on today, they might be connected to the foot that kicks your butt tomorrow. You can't scare me, I have children.
-
It's spring in Canada which means I have another cold, and while I'm sniffling away I thought to myself "what could be more painful that blocked sinuses and a raging headache"? and I came up with the answer: A discussion on anonymity and voting. One of the things I've been thinking about is a setting in your profile that makes all your votes non-anonymous. That is, when you vote, the votee gets to see that it was you who voted regardless of whether you've added a voting comment. The catch, though, is that to see non-anonymous votes you, yourself, would have to opt in to have your votes non-anonymous. A further catch is you only get to see votes that occurred since the last time you opted in to un-anonymise yourself, in order to stop people turning it on, peeking, then turning it off again. The thing that's stopped me, however, is a question as to how many would opt in? My overriding feeling is that knowing who voted for you will either give you a warm fuzzy feeling ('Hey - Pete gave me a 5'), or it will dampen contributions ('Damn - Pete gave me a 1. I suck. I'm going back and finishing that Liberal Arts degree'), or it will merely be obscure ('That heathen pete_32453, who's been a member for 3 years with not a single post, gave me a 1. That's it, where's my flamethrower?') However, I wanted to ask you, the intelligentsia, whether an opt-in to non-anonymity (we'll think of a better name one day) would help, hinder, or merely be trivia.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
I would opt in, but I dont contribute anything here but BS anyway :-D My opinion maybe should not count as much as say, JSOP or Pete's..
Common sense is not a gift it's a curse. Those of us who have it have to deal with those that don't.... Be careful which toes you step on today, they might be connected to the foot that kicks your butt tomorrow. You can't scare me, I have children.
-
Well he wrote "votes that occurred since the last time you opted in", to me that implies you can do it multiple times.
maybe, but you would still only see the ones made while you were "in". the ones made while you were "out" would still not be visible even if they were in between your "ins" and "outs". At least that was my take, I could be full of it..
Common sense is not a gift it's a curse. Those of us who have it have to deal with those that don't.... Be careful which toes you step on today, they might be connected to the foot that kicks your butt tomorrow. You can't scare me, I have children.
-
This is precisely another fear of mine: that those items that deserve to downvoted won't be. I know other (*cough* Nish *cough*) are dead against downvoting but life doesn't work that way. We're not all happy all the time, and I will never stoop to the modern day PC "deferred success" instead of outright "not good enough". If we were all told we were always "good enough", or worse, never given feedback at all, how on Earth do we improve? So yes: some stuff needs to be marked "don't go there". Simply not upvoting it doesn't work.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
That's one reason there's no "dislike" on facebook, either you upvote or you just ignore.
Watched code never compiles.
-
maybe, but you would still only see the ones made while you were "in". the ones made while you were "out" would still not be visible even if they were in between your "ins" and "outs". At least that was my take, I could be full of it..
Common sense is not a gift it's a curse. Those of us who have it have to deal with those that don't.... Be careful which toes you step on today, they might be connected to the foot that kicks your butt tomorrow. You can't scare me, I have children.
That's how I read it too, but that's hardly a problem is it? You'd be "in" almost all the time, except during a minute or so when you want to vote. So you'd see essentially all votes (might miss a couple, but the chance is not too high), but all your votes would still be anonymous (or you'd just vote with the sockpuppet).
-
I would opt in, but I dont contribute anything here but BS anyway :-D My opinion maybe should not count as much as say, JSOP or Pete's..
Common sense is not a gift it's a curse. Those of us who have it have to deal with those that don't.... Be careful which toes you step on today, they might be connected to the foot that kicks your butt tomorrow. You can't scare me, I have children.
Who is this Pete person that people keep going on about? Surely it can't be that a-hole Pete O'Hanlon?
*pre-emptive celebratory nipple tassle jiggle* - Sean Ewington
"Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos
CodeStash - Online Snippet Management | My blog | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier
-
I don't see it would add sock-puppet accounts because people would simply not opt-in. A sock puppet account won't let you see who voted your main account down. Email verification (or some other form of "I'm a real, contactable person") would also have to be a necessary part of this.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
-
It's spring in Canada which means I have another cold, and while I'm sniffling away I thought to myself "what could be more painful that blocked sinuses and a raging headache"? and I came up with the answer: A discussion on anonymity and voting. One of the things I've been thinking about is a setting in your profile that makes all your votes non-anonymous. That is, when you vote, the votee gets to see that it was you who voted regardless of whether you've added a voting comment. The catch, though, is that to see non-anonymous votes you, yourself, would have to opt in to have your votes non-anonymous. A further catch is you only get to see votes that occurred since the last time you opted in to un-anonymise yourself, in order to stop people turning it on, peeking, then turning it off again. The thing that's stopped me, however, is a question as to how many would opt in? My overriding feeling is that knowing who voted for you will either give you a warm fuzzy feeling ('Hey - Pete gave me a 5'), or it will dampen contributions ('Damn - Pete gave me a 1. I suck. I'm going back and finishing that Liberal Arts degree'), or it will merely be obscure ('That heathen pete_32453, who's been a member for 3 years with not a single post, gave me a 1. That's it, where's my flamethrower?') However, I wanted to ask you, the intelligentsia, whether an opt-in to non-anonymity (we'll think of a better name one day) would help, hinder, or merely be trivia.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
Or you could just make a graph on everyones profile showing the statistics of the votes they dole out. Maybe break it down by day giving only relatively anonymity. Then break it down by region : )
Need custom software developed? I do custom programming based primarily on MS tools with an emphasis on C# development and consulting. I also do Android Programming as I find it a refreshing break from the MS. "And they, since they Were not the one dead, turned to their affairs" -- Robert Frost
-
That's how I read it too, but that's hardly a problem is it? You'd be "in" almost all the time, except during a minute or so when you want to vote. So you'd see essentially all votes (might miss a couple, but the chance is not too high), but all your votes would still be anonymous (or you'd just vote with the sockpuppet).
Maybe opt-out takes a day or two to go into effect? So anytime you opt-in, the decision to opt-out will take some time and will prevent one from immediately voting and then opting back in. And maybe opt-in takes a day as well. Or even better, repeated opt-ins and opt-outs lead the opt-in and opt-out time to increase.
-
Who is this Pete person that people keep going on about? Surely it can't be that a-hole Pete O'Hanlon?
*pre-emptive celebratory nipple tassle jiggle* - Sean Ewington
"Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos
CodeStash - Online Snippet Management | My blog | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier
according to his profile he's not an a-hole he's a CEO :-D
Steve _________________ I C(++) therefore I am
-
That's one reason there's no "dislike" on facebook, either you upvote or you just ignore.
Watched code never compiles.
which makes for some awkward moments, because there's no way to distinguish between a "thanks for the link!" Like and a "i like that!" Like.
-
It's spring in Canada which means I have another cold, and while I'm sniffling away I thought to myself "what could be more painful that blocked sinuses and a raging headache"? and I came up with the answer: A discussion on anonymity and voting. One of the things I've been thinking about is a setting in your profile that makes all your votes non-anonymous. That is, when you vote, the votee gets to see that it was you who voted regardless of whether you've added a voting comment. The catch, though, is that to see non-anonymous votes you, yourself, would have to opt in to have your votes non-anonymous. A further catch is you only get to see votes that occurred since the last time you opted in to un-anonymise yourself, in order to stop people turning it on, peeking, then turning it off again. The thing that's stopped me, however, is a question as to how many would opt in? My overriding feeling is that knowing who voted for you will either give you a warm fuzzy feeling ('Hey - Pete gave me a 5'), or it will dampen contributions ('Damn - Pete gave me a 1. I suck. I'm going back and finishing that Liberal Arts degree'), or it will merely be obscure ('That heathen pete_32453, who's been a member for 3 years with not a single post, gave me a 1. That's it, where's my flamethrower?') However, I wanted to ask you, the intelligentsia, whether an opt-in to non-anonymity (we'll think of a better name one day) would help, hinder, or merely be trivia.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
Chris Maunder wrote:
blocked sinuses and a raging headache
Perhaps you should add "fever" to your list of symptoms. This sounds like a lot more trouble than it's worth. You may be moving from "can of worms" to "Pandora's box." Drink plenty of fluids and get some rest. :)
BDF I often make very large prints from unexposed film, and every one of them turns out to be a picture of myself as I once dreamed I would be. -- BillWoodruff
-
It's spring in Canada which means I have another cold, and while I'm sniffling away I thought to myself "what could be more painful that blocked sinuses and a raging headache"? and I came up with the answer: A discussion on anonymity and voting. One of the things I've been thinking about is a setting in your profile that makes all your votes non-anonymous. That is, when you vote, the votee gets to see that it was you who voted regardless of whether you've added a voting comment. The catch, though, is that to see non-anonymous votes you, yourself, would have to opt in to have your votes non-anonymous. A further catch is you only get to see votes that occurred since the last time you opted in to un-anonymise yourself, in order to stop people turning it on, peeking, then turning it off again. The thing that's stopped me, however, is a question as to how many would opt in? My overriding feeling is that knowing who voted for you will either give you a warm fuzzy feeling ('Hey - Pete gave me a 5'), or it will dampen contributions ('Damn - Pete gave me a 1. I suck. I'm going back and finishing that Liberal Arts degree'), or it will merely be obscure ('That heathen pete_32453, who's been a member for 3 years with not a single post, gave me a 1. That's it, where's my flamethrower?') However, I wanted to ask you, the intelligentsia, whether an opt-in to non-anonymity (we'll think of a better name one day) would help, hinder, or merely be trivia.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
Leave the ability to opt-out but also remove the ability to vote when one does so. If you want the right to vote, then accept the responsibility to be accountable for it.
Failure is not an option; it's the default selection.
-
which makes for some awkward moments, because there's no way to distinguish between a "thanks for the link!" Like and a "i like that!" Like.
Well, if I like a post on CP, I might simply upvote it leaving no comment, and if I like it and want to "lol" it, I will add a comment in addition to the vote. Same thing on facebook, sometimes I will just "like" something, sometime I will add a comment, sometimes both. and in both cases, if I don't like something, 2 choices, just let it go or write a non-anonymous comment.
Watched code never compiles.
-
It's spring in Canada which means I have another cold, and while I'm sniffling away I thought to myself "what could be more painful that blocked sinuses and a raging headache"? and I came up with the answer: A discussion on anonymity and voting. One of the things I've been thinking about is a setting in your profile that makes all your votes non-anonymous. That is, when you vote, the votee gets to see that it was you who voted regardless of whether you've added a voting comment. The catch, though, is that to see non-anonymous votes you, yourself, would have to opt in to have your votes non-anonymous. A further catch is you only get to see votes that occurred since the last time you opted in to un-anonymise yourself, in order to stop people turning it on, peeking, then turning it off again. The thing that's stopped me, however, is a question as to how many would opt in? My overriding feeling is that knowing who voted for you will either give you a warm fuzzy feeling ('Hey - Pete gave me a 5'), or it will dampen contributions ('Damn - Pete gave me a 1. I suck. I'm going back and finishing that Liberal Arts degree'), or it will merely be obscure ('That heathen pete_32453, who's been a member for 3 years with not a single post, gave me a 1. That's it, where's my flamethrower?') However, I wanted to ask you, the intelligentsia, whether an opt-in to non-anonymity (we'll think of a better name one day) would help, hinder, or merely be trivia.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
I'm for this but, if you must use opt-in/out, I'd like to see that users below a certain threshold of some kind can't opt out: perhaps if a member less than a year or too few rep points. In any case I think it should be mandatory rather than opt-in/opt-out. Yes, you'll get the odd crazy taking revenge whereas the vast majority will pop you a mail to say that member999999999 had just flamed 10 of my posts - please adjust.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me