|
Thanks Pete. I have reciprocated in kind.
|
|
|
|
|
This could get very silly, very quickly. Oh wait...
This space for rent
|
|
|
|
|
Let 'em eat cake.
".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
|
|
|
|
|
I get the point everyone. Thanks. 
I am not the one who knocks. I never knock.
In fact, I hate knocking.
|
|
|
|
|
Actually I agree with you. I think it would be a fine feature.
I don't understand the people who say that they tell someone when they upvoted? Are they wanting a pat on the back or something? Are they wanting a reciprocated upvote? Sounds insecure to me.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, because we're all so insecure. Or, it could be that we will tell you why we upvoted you, and not just that we did.
This space for rent
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: because we're all so insecure.
They make pills and chocolate for that. 
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
modified 6-Oct-17 10:39am.
|
|
|
|
|
SerenityNowDev wrote: Are they wanting a pat on the back or something? Are they wanting a reciprocated upvote?
No, that's exactly what we don't want, and the best option for that is to keep it anonime.
If I tell someone that I have upvoted, I have my reasons but wanting a vote back is definitively not one of them.
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Don't take it too seriously, we are just fooling around 
|
|
|
|
|
I'm going to start upvoting all you guys and won't tell you. Ha! Jokes on you. 
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
And I'm going to upvote you and tell you just to irritate you.
This space for rent
|
|
|
|
|
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Now I am confused...
Should I tell you I upvoted you too? Or should I keep it secret?
If the second... please forget the last 5 seconds 
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Confuse them. Tell someone you voted for them and then vote for someone different. You'll drive them mad trying to see the upvote in the reputation.
This space for rent
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: Confuse them. Tell someone you voted for them and then vote for someone different. You'll drive them mad trying to see the upvote in the reputation. [evil voice] MWAHHAHAHAHAHAHA [/evil voice]
FTFY
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Nish Nishant wrote: we are just fooling around
What? I think someone needs to be downvoted then (but not saying who).
|
|
|
|
|
No problem. I undersTand The consensus. There are a few downsides To The feaTure, and mosT of The communiTy is fine wiTh how Things are. IT's all in good humor. 
P.S. : My T key is noT working on my home compuTer. Using CTrl + V.
I am not the one who knocks. I never knock.
In fact, I hate knocking.
|
|
|
|
|
It's been a while since this thread has come back.
We've had many, many, many debates on this topic (and they aren't wasted discussions) and the consensus is that it will simply lead to voting wars. In fact we still occasionally have voting wards even when those involved aren't actually sure who's downvoting them. It's crazy, and it's the reason there's no downvoting in general discussion forums.
The options that have been discussed are
- Everything's open. General carnage ensues.
- Everything's open for those who opt-in for public voting. You can see who voted for you, they can see what you voted for. Unfortunately this allows someone to opt-in, see who voted, then opt-out and go crazy with the votes. There are variances to this, none of them worth the time.
- Upvotes are public, downvotes aren't. It's a possibility...
- We introduce a different system.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Glad to know that this has been a topic for discussion before. And I absolutely share your views. Personally, I was thinking along the lines of the 3rd option, but the I'm used to how things are right now, and things should only change if the majority wants it.
Update: What do you think about anonymous comments? When someone downvotes, they don't want the OP to know for obvious reasons. An anonymous comment could help OP know what the downvoter did not like without the possibility of a backlash.
I am not the one who knocks. I never knock.
In fact, I hate knocking.
modified 11-Oct-17 15:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Different system -
Was useful.
That's it. That's all. No down-voting, simply a thumbs up for something that was useful to somebody. Article rating is based on thumbs up value and the rep of the person giving a thumbs up. You could treat forum messages and Q/A answers the same way.
".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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe make it so hi-rep users (in the technical categories, such as author and scholar) can vote an article as 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
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe show a bar (or pie) chart for each article, showing the number of people for a given rep value that voted. So if you get someone votes your article as useful results in you getting 80 points (assuming "useful" means 5.0), and two vote that get you 48 points, the graph would be (and I don't know all the possible points values). Bar values (or pie slices) would represent a percentage of people that voted with a certain point value.
=
= =
-------------------------
1 8 16 24 32 48 80
This chart idea could also be carried over to the list of articles presented on the CP home page, and in the user's list of articles (and tips).
(I don't know if you've noticed or not, but the PRE tag handling is completely hosed up.)
".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
|
|
|
|
|
You had "Use markdown" checked, so the markdown processor was getting confused about what's markup and what's not. I've unchecked that box for your post.
I just can't see how the pie chart would provide meaningful information. Statistically you'll mostly get low rep voters.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: Statistically you'll mostly get low rep voters.
Just an idea. You could also factor in bookmarks, views, downloads, etc.
I have no ideas regarding how these would factor in, but you have the metrics, so maybe you could run a few hundred test cases against whatever algorithm(s) you might devise. It would/should be a simple matter to convert existing article votes to the new system as well.
".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
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
