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
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
-
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 a non-issue for me. My New Year's resolution, which I've kept pretty faithfully, is to no longer use the forum post voting system. If I like a post, I reply and say so. If I dislike a post, I reply and say so. Both of these responses are non-anonymous, obviously. The anonymity of the voting system let me behave poorly without consequence. I still vote for articles, but I try to always leave a constructive comment either way.
Chris Maunder wrote:
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"?
Welcome to the club :sigh:. I ran the Flying Pig Marathon on Sunday, and as per usual, I now have my post-marathon cold. I've used 4,371 4,372 4,376 a crapload of tissues today and the surface of my nose feels like someone took a belt grinder to it.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
I think a certain elitist pride in our survival to a ripe old middle age is reasonable.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
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.
Remember the HP iPaq server farm?
Software Zen:
delete this; -
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, It has been my experience that "A can of worms, once opened, requires a much larger can to re-contain). Dave.
-
Chris, It has been my experience that "A can of worms, once opened, requires a much larger can to re-contain). Dave.
Wise words.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
-
Wise words.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
Can I give you an anonymous 1 in your suggestion? Dave.
-
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.
-
Remember the HP iPaq server farm?
Software Zen:
delete this;Absolutely! I'm surprised that Chris let it go...
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
IMHO, it would hinder rather than help. A review by one's peers provides very high value, and despite the odd univoter or irate member, the majority public opinion wins in the end. This is EXTREMELY valuable (gosh, I shouted!) and serves to keep CP be the bastion of quality articles. Non-anonymous voting would likely reduce the number of ratings and lead to a LinkedIn Recommendation like environment. A publicly recommends B. B publicly recommends A. I can't help but discount that rec even if it may be valid. You've just created noise when there was none. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. It ain't broke. /ravi
My new year resolution: 2048 x 1536 Home | Articles | My .NET bits | Freeware ravib(at)ravib(dot)com
-
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.
Roger Wright wrote:
but that people who have been members longer than 12 years should be able to view who posted any vote on any post.
I think that's unfair. The only people who should be able to do that should be members whose first name begins with R. ;P /ravi
My new year resolution: 2048 x 1536 Home | Articles | My .NET bits | Freeware ravib(at)ravib(dot)com
-
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.
Roger Wright wrote:
Chris got more iPods
I think you mean iPaqs?
Signature construction in progress. Sorry for the inconvenience.
-
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
What happened to this[^] ? :) Personally, I don't care. I vote rarely and am bothered even less about the votes I get. But I know some people's lives revolve around their rep points. And yeah, it'll increase sockpuppet accounts like wizardzz says.
Chris Maunder wrote:
how many would opt in?
I most likely wouldn't, for reasons stated above.
Cheers, विक्रम "We have already been through this, I am not going to repeat myself." - fat_boy, in a global warming thread :doh:
-
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 Sitehave a non-anonymous 5
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
-
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
As big as they get :-D
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
