|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
