|
Dr Schrodinger owns the cat - although I haven't seen it for a while. I wonder if it's OK?
|
|
|
|
|
Well I can't tell anything about Dr Schrodinger, but Einstein himself was one of the five house owners who used to drink milk I guess. Pertaining to his geniusness 
|
|
|
|
|
A person who lives in Green house owns fish...
DVL
|
|
|
|
|
A person who lives in a greenhouse is too busy not throwing stones to own fish. Your answer does not compute. Danger, Will Robinson, danger!
|
|
|
|
|
Well that's easy...
V. wrote: The question is: Who owns the fish?
Answer: None of them.
One has dogs, one has birds, one has cats, one has horses, and the fifth? None of those hints said anything about fish, so for all we know, he has gerbils.
And that took about ten seconds 
|
|
|
|
|
Would your beer spill moving that fast?
|
|
|
|
|
When someone upvotes a message or article I wrote it's nice seeing who it was how voted. Really nice.
Conversely when someone downvotes you there's often a "who on Earth would downvote that?"
We've talked about this a lot and so I bring this up as something that's already been brought up, but times change as do opinions.
So onto the debate:
Whereas knowing your admirers and foes brings either a warm fuzzy feeling or concrete contact to discuss improvements, be it resolved that showing names next to votes is a Good Thing.
Those debating for the motion please state their case, and those debating against provide their counter-arguments.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Putting a name to a vote may make people think a little more carefully before down voting. It would also give the person being downvoted the ability to ask the voter what the rationale for the downvote was.
|
|
|
|
|
No.
Look at it this way; everyone who wants non-anonymous votes always seems to want it on other people's votes, but they never seem to say they want their own votes to be non-anonymous. How's about an experiment -- allow members to make their own votes non-anonymous and see how many actually do.
I am against non-anonymous votes. I'd stop voting.
This isn't Facebook.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: I'd stop voting.
Exactly. If your down votes had any merit, and you could back them up, then you would still down-vote. That is the whole point. You should not be able to down-vote unless you can publicly back it up.
|
|
|
|
|
Why not? My down vote may have much merit, but I don't have the time/inclination to enter a debate about it.
PooperPig - Coming Soon
|
|
|
|
|
_Maxxx_ wrote: My down vote may have much merit, but I don't have the time/inclination to enter a debate about it.
Then it has no merit, and serves no constructive purpose. The user knows that someone didn't like something, but has no recourse to find out what it was, or to engage in conversation to fix it or discuss it.
Your down vote without accountability, satisfies your ego, but nothing else.
|
|
|
|
|
Slacker007 wrote: serves no constructive purpose
Not so. Voting for something gives a measure of popularity (if nothing else) of the entity in question.
With many, many articles on the same subject, how is the user to determine which are the best?
By having votes.
The reasons for those votes, while they may be interesting to the author, are of much less import to the user - especially the casual user who is just looking for info on how to do something.
You seem to be looking at everything from one single author's perspective rather than from that of the other 9,999,999 users who just want to find the best article.
PooperPig - Coming Soon
|
|
|
|
|
If everyone felt the way you did, then Chris would not be having a debate about it.
I disagree with your points. Any further discussion would not be productive, IMHO.
Cheers. 
|
|
|
|
|
Slacker007 wrote: f everyone felt the way you did, then Chris would not be having a debate about it
If he didn't have a debate about it, how would he know what everybody thought? 
PooperPig - Coming Soon
|
|
|
|
|
Slacker007 wrote: it has no merit
You don't get to decide that.
|
|
|
|
|
Slacker007 wrote: has no recourse to find out what it was, or to engage in conversation to fix it or discuss it.
also false.
Slacker007 wrote: Your down vote without accountability, satisfies your ego, but nothing else.
also false.
|
|
|
|
|
I do not have a problem exposing my vote(s).
On the other hand, I don't give much thought to who up/down votes me. In fact, I prefer not to know.
The change to eliminate down voting has made the Lounge a rather moribund place.
It may be best to leave well enough alone.
What we got here is a failure to communicate
|
|
|
|
|
Ah - but with non-anonymous voting we can bring back down voting.
Just to stir things up
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
I would like votes to be anonymous and here are the reasons:
- People may or may not voice their true opinions if their identities are revealed.
- Even if we make putting an explanation mandatory, there will be instances where people would post unrelated or inappropriate comments like, "I don't like you". This could well lead to YouTube like comment trails.
- Yes, there will be people who will put relevant comments, but if someone really wants to share the view, they any ways do it.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with you regarding anonymous voting. Besides, if it were non-anonymous, who can be sure that false identities are not being used?
The difficult may take time, the impossible a little longer.
|
|
|
|
|
I upvoted you 
Other forums I visit shows who up / down voted you. I think it will eliminate a lot of issues. It will of course introduce some others, but I think it's worth a try. Anonymity gives people a sense of power and allows them do things they otherwise wouldn't. People are brave on the internet.
|
|
|
|
|
I like piebalds idea of allowing the user to choose. I think he will be surprised by the result.
As an additional bit, add the weighting applied to the vote, this is something I do take note of. If some low rep dweeb feels the need to downvote I am happy to let it go, a high rep I might engage for an explanation/advice.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Personally I don't mind revealing how I vote, and I don't mind knowing who votes me up or down, but this isn't about me is it?
What do you want the vote to measure, quality or popularity?
If you show who's voting the downvotes will disappear and the rating will lose all meaning, just like it did for the articles. And just like it is for the Lounge.
Is it just me that thinks the Lounge was a lot more interesting in the old times before it was filled with daily whatever, or is it my memory that's playing tricks on me.
|
|
|
|
|
Actually it's precisely about you. And about everyone using the forums. I want your opinion, not what you think someone else's opinion is.
Jörgen Andersson wrote: What do you want the vote to measure, quality or popularity?
And again this is really about you: what do uou vote for when you vote for a forum message? Quality of the post, a reaction to the topic, or (say) a thumbs-up to the poster for posting what what posted?
Jörgen Andersson wrote: it just me that thinks the Lounge was a lot more interesting in the old times
Everything was better in the old times. The air, the water, the ice cream from down the street. The conversations in the lounge. Especially the ones about "the lounge was so much better when..." that are over 10 years old
I don't actually see that downvoting will make conversations more interesting. Disagreeing and posting your opinion makes lounge discussions more interesting.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
