Non-anonymity:Opening that can of worms
-
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
-
according to his profile he's not an a-hole he's a CEO :-D
Steve _________________ I C(++) therefore I am
Steve Mayfield wrote:
he's a CEO
Certified Extraneous 'Ole?
Henry Minute Girl: (staring) "Why do you need an icy cucumber?" “I want to report a fraud. The government is lying to us all.” I wouldn't let CG touch my Abacus! When you're wrestling a gorilla, you don't stop when you're tired, you stop when the gorilla is. Cogito ergo thumb - Sucking my thumb helps me to think.
-
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 used to be part of my sig but got relegated:
Once you open a can of worms any solution must involve a larger can.
You are opening a can of worms here, IMO.
Henry Minute Girl: (staring) "Why do you need an icy cucumber?" “I want to report a fraud. The government is lying to us all.” I wouldn't let CG touch my Abacus! When you're wrestling a gorilla, you don't stop when you're tired, you stop when the gorilla is. Cogito ergo thumb - Sucking my thumb helps me to think.
-
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.
Now this suggestion I like. I'd vote for it, but I haven't opted in yet.
*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
So, a senior a-hole then.
*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
-
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 think that all voting should be anonymous, but that people who have been members longer than 12 years should be able to view who posted any vote on any post. :-D
Will Rogers never met me.
-
I think that all voting should be anonymous, but that people who have been members longer than 12 years should be able to view who posted any vote on any post. :-D
Will Rogers never met me.
-
according to his profile he's not an a-hole he's a CEO :-D
Steve _________________ I C(++) therefore I am
-
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 wouldn't opt in: the current system is imperfect, but then, there isn't a perfect one. A bit like Churchill on democracy. If you were to implement this they'd be a flamewar within minutes in my opinion, and it would raise the levels of aggro & ire without really benefitting anyone that much. I also think that the sorts of people who switch this on will also tend to be the same ones who will kick off when they are downvoted (and also, tend to be those who are downvoted). Image the resident periodic troll <whipsers-ever-so-quiet>Teh Programmer</whipsers-ever-so-quiet> knowing who is reacting to them. He/she/it would have a field day, and he cause enough stink last time you banned him. On a final note, this could reduce the anonymity of those who don't not opt-in :confused:. Lets say Pete, Me and FrankDerbbin are having a heated discussion, FrankDerbbin and Pete have opted in, I haven't. Lets say FrankDrebbin has claimed something Pete votes 5 for, and I vote 1. FrankDrebbin knows Pete Voted him a 5, he also knows he has two votes, if no-one else is involved he will guess I've the univoter. Not only that, a troll to use this to his/her/its advantage.
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^] -
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:
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.
That description isn't clear to me. Can someone still vote anonymously? If yes then perhaps that should only be a feature that one earns (based on some criteria) after a while. Other than that I have no problem voting without anonymity and I would like to see who voted for me.
-
I think that all voting should be anonymous, but that people who have been members longer than 12 years should be able to view who posted any vote on any post. :-D
Will Rogers never met me.
4944 Members on the first day of CP. I wonder how the server coped?
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^] -
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.
-
4944 Members on the first day of CP. I wonder how the server coped?
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^]Very, very slowly... The site used to crash completely when we had more than a thousand online. But Chris got more iPods and more jumper wires, and the bandwidth grew. It really got moving once he introduced the hamsters to Jolt Cola and methamphetamine.
Will Rogers never met me.
-
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 suggest that CP's major "structural components" are: 1. The Lounge Within the Lounge I believe there are certain voting criteria that may be relevant, frequently, that are not addressed by the available options now: such as: a. content that really is a specific technical or programming question, that belongs on technical forum #xxxxx.imho,right now, there is quite a varying standard for these types of posts: some are tolerated, even highly up-voted, particularly if from "old timers," and, at times, "newbies" are crucified for such postings, and heavily down-voted. I'd be happy to see high-rep CP'rs have the freedom to go ahead and move those posts ... that fit the very specifically technical question profile ... to the appropriate forums. More member responsibility, less work for staff ? Note: I carefully distinguish very specifically technical posts/questions from broader questions that do involve technological news and developments as it impinges on our collective identity as programmers, and our professional futures: so, for me, a discussion following Pete O'Hanlon's post on a possible surge in C++ following Win8, on today's Lounge page (which I'm not sure, yet, if he means seriously, or in jest), I would see as totally appropriate to the Lounge. b. content, such as frequent discussions of guns, weaponry, bragging about cars, or other high-tech gear which does not relate to programming, possibly inflammatory posts about controversial social issues, posts which border on issues of race, religion, or political ranting, which should go to the Soapbox (?). I'd be happy to see high-rep CP'rs have the freedom to go ahead and move those posts to the Soapbox. Again, within this category I'd distinguish between some of the great "reportorial" Lounge posts that reveal, articulately, some of the members' fascinating real-world occupations and issues (Roger Wright's posts come to my mind, instantly). More member responsibility, less work for staff ? c. the staggering number of lame jokes posted on the Lounge seems to be metastasizing: couldn't there be a separate "jokes" forum. Note: I distinguish interesting non-fiction articles about contemporary strange, weird, and funny things that happen with real people, or in scientific experiments, or in programming companies, from "jokes." d. I'd love to see a special "joys of alcohol" forum where all exchanges regarding being drunk, getting drunk, and long threads where one or more parties who are drunk are posting drool and drivel of their ine
