|
Chris has rolled out changes that mean that downvoting articles no longer requires a reason. I remain to be convinced that this is a step forwards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's funny, but I would go to the other way - ALL voting requires a comment...
Until now the voting problem was that someone could get a 'best' award for a cr*p article with enough members enlisted, now we will have to see to vengeance too...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree, there is already enough downvoting for no reason in the other forums.
|
|
|
|
|
No one is hesitant to write "this is great" along with their name as a throw away comment. Far less are willing to say "this is not great" with their name associated with the comment. The imbalance would stay.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
I think that being caught - even by yourself - on voting 5 for a plagirised, or otherwise banned article is an embarrassing moment...I do not think someone will do it twice, even for a friend...
However, I saw you post and understand your reasoning...And I hope it will make it better  !
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
I tend to agree, a downvote is communicating something and without a comment it is difficult to know what it is about an article that has been downvoted.
In other words how can you improve, if people criticising you are not giving their reasons for criticism?
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
This was specifically the motivation for adding comments. It didn't work out in practice though: for the few articles that were actually improved, many, many more crap articles floated to the top above them.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for letting me know that.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: I remain to be convinced that this is a step forwards.
What is your reasoning behind this? (Feel free to just post a link if there's a discussion about that buried somewhere.)
Currently I think this will open the door for ill-motivated downvoting.
|
|
|
|
|
manchanx wrote: What is your reasoning behind this?
Eh? I'm confused. I have just said that I don't think this is a good idea and I haven't seen any arguments to convince me otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
Oops. disregard.. reading failure on my part 
|
|
|
|
|
It's probably at least partly my "fault".
The voting system as it were was broken.
My reasoning behind it can be seen here[^].
More on it here[^] and here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for the link, Chris! I haven't been aware of your personal forum, so that's doubly helpful 
-Sebastian
|
|
|
|
|
On another site I visit, comments are not required regardless of the direction of the vote.
However, none of the votes are anonymous. That fairly quickly allows one to determine how much weight to apportion to any given vote (which are treated equally by the system - there is no weighting)
There is also the ability to block a specific user from reading your content, and hence troll-voting or troll-commenting. Lastly, according to an algorithm I dont understand, users may get a troll badge next to their username, further allowing users unfamiliar with them to work-out how much value to give the vote.
I find that the system works quite well. The inhabitants are often fairly feral, yet still the system works. It's my belief that something along these lines would be a positive step.
By identifying the caster of all votes, any attempt at a vendetta can be nipped in the bud in no-time flat.
"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 me I didn't understand the assignment, and I told them they didn't understand life." - John Lennon
|
|
|
|
|
enhzflep wrote: However, none of the votes are anonymous.
That's the winner, right there.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Not a bad idea, but I still favor the other approach where you have to clarify all your votes. After all you might know how to weight the votes, but a stranger might not.
|
|
|
|
|
Then vote on different facets:
Usefulness 1 2 3 4 5
Clarity 1 2 3 4 5
Accuracy 1 2 3 4 5
Comedy 1 2 3 4 5
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Add Educational to the list.
|
|
|
|
|
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
You are abusing his post, I must report you....
|
|
|
|
|
But give him top marks for comedy.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
I must have the opportunity to rearrange the votes, so people might have to vote on which votes the article shall have. Codeprojects new system (the one I just explained) will be shiny and hyper fashion oriented and called iVote.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
