|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Will you need iTunes to vote? Then it's broken by default.
|
|
|
|
|
Jörgen Andersson wrote: Then it's broken by default.
The default is 3, so it's not very broken.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
I presume that wasn't a reference to iTunes.
|
|
|
|
|
Of course not!
itunes isn't broken. Looking pretty is its only function, and it does that adequately.
If you want to use it for anything else, that's your lookout.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Kenneth Haugland wrote: After all you might know how to weight the votes, but a stranger might not.
I think this pertains to an important difference - the unnamed site is for entertainment/information, while CP is one for professionals, hobbyists and those aspiring to be professionals. As such, the content of a user is assessed by a prospective employer quite often, I suspect.
I'd be wary of the potential for the requirement of a reason to reduce the frequency of voting. But would vote in a heartbeat for a system that allowed outsiders to assess the usefulness of any/all votes.
Requiring a reason could be one method, using a weighting formula could be another.
The other site allows one to click on the post/comment score before sending off an AJAX request to retrieve more detailed info. It would be a trivial exercise to trial a number of different techniques, simply returning different info to be displayed in a pop-up.
"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
|
|
|
|
|
There is something I have seen it happen a little too often; An article (horrible/Bad) has gotten hundreds of votes, and people now start do duplicate that work instead of reading an article tat is better but has lower votes. So I guess my beef with the voting system is who gets to vote? Should there be a pre-qualification of voters?
What I get out of an article with votes is a quick review so I can decide to read it or not. This is mostly helpful for unknown authors, as the one I know about, I'd read anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
That another great point you make.
In fact, at the other site one needs to attain 20 points before being allowed to vote. Since each vote is worth 0.1, that's some 200 up-votes received before voting rights are granted - it seems to cull an awful lot of chaff.
"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
|
|
|
|
|
Kenneth Haugland wrote: I still favor the other approach where you have to clarify all your votes
There will be plethora of "Reason for my vote of 5 - Nice"
|
|
|
|
|
Being a suck poppet is not a reason 
Well, not a good reason anyway. 
|
|
|
|
|
This is something we've tossed around a few times: totally open voting.
It's actually my preference, regardless of the potential for flame wars. Identifying trolls and malicious voters is the trick, and can't always be done automatically. We have members who mostly only downvote - but they downvote for good reasons. They shouldn't be penalised.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that an automated system to designate someone as a troll would be trouble-some, especially for the case you present - someone the legitimately and consistently down-votes.
With my curiosity piqued, I searched a little deeper and found a message from the admin that explains the process. The place has far, far fewer users than CP - but I also imagine it quite possible to have a greater number of er, 'unhelpful' members than there are here.
For reference, here's the statement. (To readers, yes of course I realize redacting the site name doesn't offer any anonymity. If you're curious, search away. It's incredibly NSFW, probably just NS altogether, to be honest! - You've been warned. Don't blame me.)
"Trolling is certainly nothing new to ********, those internet citizens dedicated to stirring the pot with a wooden spoon as often as possible and who add precious little beyond the occasional chuckle. Well, we've decided to be a little more pro-active about our trolls on ******** and we've created a new user group especially for those folks. Before we get to that we realised we had to define as to what constitutes a troll on ** and we chose the following:
An individual who posts only to disrupt a comment section and often used wildly off topic comments and / or ad hominem attacks to do so.
One we were reasonably happy with that we decided to create an all new user group especially for those folks we find indulging in this behaviour. This isn't a group people can vote you into or anything like that because actual trolls are rarer than people being called trolls simply for having a different opinion so an admin will look at your posting history should you come to their attention and they will make a decision based on that.
What happens once you're in the troll user group? Well, at this stage we haven't placed any restrictions on the user group but that doesn't mean we won't be doing so in the near future (in fact you can pretty much guarantee we will do so). Obviously if you don't actually belong in the group or you start acting all grown up all of a sudden we'll take you back out of the group.
Will this stop trolling on **? Of course not, people are far too excited by the prospect of being an ass on the internet while enjoying anonymity for that and to be fair many trolls are simply amusing. The reasons behind it will become clearer as we go along."
"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
|
|
|
|
|
Quote of the day: people are far too excited by the prospect of being an ass on the internet while enjoying anonymity
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
The only thing I can say is that I often don't downvote articles because I don't want to write an essay about what's wrong with that. And it is unfair that anyone can upvote without giving any reason but not downvote, the only result is having ALL the articles on 4-5 stars, that renders the vote useless.
If you require reasons for all the votes though almost nobody would upvote except the rep farmers, and we'd end up with most of the articles unvoted and only the plagiarised crap with many stars. That is worst than useless.
The way which the votes are filtered is good enough to resist to a few stray votes, and there is nothing that resists to heavy abuse - any system can be abused.
Geek code v 3.12
GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- r++>+++ y+++*
Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
Think it's a
"Right your all sensible adults, so I'm going to treat you that way and trust you won't abuse it" kind of a move.
Once we inevitably prove that the we are all "sensible adults" was a foolish assumption, voting on articles will be made public so you can see who downvoted it.
|
|
|
|
|
And then we can form a mob an lynch them with....
downvotes? 
|
|
|
|
|
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: I remain to be convinced that this is a step forwards.
But now we know how you really feel.
Seriously, I kind of agree with you on this. I think you should provide a reason for the down-vote; especially if people put a lot of time into their article.
|
|
|
|
|
Slacker007 wrote: especially if people put a lot of time into their article
Are there any other kind?
No, don't answer that, it was merely wishful thinking. 
|
|
|
|
|
I still think the article voting system should be changed to a simple "Is Useful" system, with no way to down-vote at all. This would give us the ability to a) see who thought the code was useful, and b) to gauge relevance within the real-world coding community. If you find an article useful, you simply mark it as such. It would also be easy for other people to see what articles you find useful.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: I still think the article voting system should be changed to a simple "Is Useful" system,
This is what it currently is. Downvotes have become marginalised in places they shouldn't be, so all we have is "how many upvotes can you get".
So then you have an article posted 2 years ago with 100 upvotes, and a new article with 10 upvotes. Which one is more useful?
Further, this does nothing to combat the issue of members having friends and family massively upvote them. Specifically we need a solution to have poor articles clearly marked as poor. Having a poor article with 20 "useful" votes isn't very useful.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe that system was already in place.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
