|
That's one of the questions that I don't care about, but included it in the interest of covering all possible bases. 
".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
|
|
|
|
|
So this got me thinking.
What if we replace the voting system with the reactions system (I think this is actually one of your suggestions)
The reactions would be
- thumbs-up
- Great-read
- Techno-mazing
- Saved-my-arse
- bad-code / poor-form
- technically-incorrect
- hard-to-read
So the feedback must be chosen with a little thought, and what feedback provides guidance. A reaction of the first 4 will translate to a vote of 5, the last 3 to a vote of 1. A score can be calculated, the reactions provide readers with a sense of what people like, and the whole thing uses our current systems (give or take a small connecting wire)
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Would more than one reaction be selectable at a time? And would "hard to read" really be applicable (unless you explained what "hard to read" means)? We have a lot of non-English speakers here, and I can see that one going sideways on us.
We also still need in-site notification of new article formum messages (pretty please ).
".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
|
|
|
|
|
This is, as always, a tricky one for sure.
First: we filter out downvotes from most members if their vote is too far off the general consensus. Drive-by's shouldn't actually affect your score after more than 10 people have voted. However, if a high ranking member downvotes you, their vote, as a trusted member, sticks.
Making votes public is something we've toyed with forever (and we have the code ready to rock and roll) but we've always felt, based on past behaviour, that the tit-for-tat voting wars would just get silly.
So: we could switch to a model where you only get the good votes and no one, not even high ranking members, can downvote anyone's article. That's very easy to do (flip a switch, more or less) but what do we do about poor articles? How do we surface the good articles?
One possibility is that you show the articles with the most "thumbs up"s first, but this doesn't reward quality, it rewards an article for being old (which is the last thing we want).
So taking all that into account, and wanting something that
1. Says "thank you" to members
2. Helps sort the wheat from the chaff
3. Doesn't favour old over new
4. Provides trusted authors with more say
5. Minimises drive by's from new members
we've ended up with our rating system that has exponential voting weighting based on level, auto-filters out outliers, provides a relative (/5) score, and can identify the good and the bad.
The biggest issue (I think) is that a downvote is considered judgement. An upvote is a thanks and a pat on the back and a great dopamine hit. We want the latter but not the former.
So: options?
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: That's very easy to do (flip a switch, more or less) but what do we do about poor articles? How do we surface the good articles?
Remove the 1-5 voting entirely and have a series of checkboxes, something like:
I found this article useful
I downloaded this code
I used (or will use) this code
I recommend this article to others
And come up with a score based on the answers, and the reputation of the member answering them
".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
|
|
|
|
|
There's a few issues with this.
1. Anything other than a single-click will drastically reduce the number of votes, thus reducing the effectiveness
2. These are all positive votes - there's no way of identifying poor content
3. This provides an absolute number of ticks, but no way to create a time-invariant relative scoring.
A way around that is to simply give in to The Google and just score an article based on # pageviews and time read. We get an average time spent per article and rate them that way.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
it's not a matter of identifying poor content, it's the idea of identifying the most useful content. Usefulness can be weighted similar to how you currently do voting (awarding rep points the same way). It should all work out pretty much the same way.
In the end, users are more likely to look at the articles most often marked useful (just like they'd look at articles with a higher score). The only difference is that you won't have me complaining about drive-by down-voting.
".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
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: So taking all that into account, and wanting something that
1. Says "thank you" to members
2. Helps sort the wheat from the chaff
3. Doesn't favour old over new
4. Provides trusted authors with more say
5. Minimises drive by's from new members
Chris and the other might powers on-high, you're overthinking this ratings thing.
All that needs to be done is to ask me rate them.
At some point, this reply was obligatory - so why not here?
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
I would suggest no votes without a comment, or at least no 1 through 4 votes without a comment. If I'm not giving it a 5, then I think it can be improved or disagree with it, and I should be willing to say how. And if I provide a useless comment, like "You know less about this than the back end of a donkey", it should be possible to flag my comment so that it, and my vote, can be removed.
|
|
|
|
|
We had this and removed it. See My blog post[^]. It actually made tings worse.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
It was an interesting post but actually gave no reasons for why insisting on comments made things worse, other than perhaps unduly skewing things toward upvotes.
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm - good point. There were two reasons in my mind:
- Because adding a comment required extra bit of work compared to just upvoting
- Because adding a comment made the downvote non-anonymous
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
I can see why some people wouldn't want their identity revealed when downvoting.
|
|
|
|
|
You sound as if you new here 
Also, your comments, like mine, are sometimes harsh; we no OriginalGriff. And we not here to be, OriginalJSOP.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
#realJSOP wrote: drive-by 1-voters
Yerwo?
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 hours late, I'm afraid: The Lounge[^]
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Hehe, he just started the night shift for you 
modified 27-Mar-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I am always late to the party. I don't start watching the lounge until like 9ish Chicago time. so I apologize for not being the loop more.
I will try to mend my wayward ways.
To err is human to really elephant it up you need a computer
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps someone should text you ?
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
oh please yes. Especially while I am driving. HAHAHAHA
To err is human to really elephant it up you need a computer
|
|
|
|
|
As a cyclist, I rather like the idea.
Of course, I'm still in the market for a bicycle-mountable anti-tank weapon.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
In the 1950s in America healthcare wasn't as much about the patients as it was about the providers. The doctors didn't listen to you so much as tell you what was wrong with you - that's just how the industry was run and how providers were trained.
It took decades of industry navel gazing to move to what they now call "patient centered care" where doctors are encouraged to listen and let the patients make the primary decisions, with doctor in a supporting role rather than simply an absolute authority acting unilaterally.
It seems like software and hardware developers could take a page from that.
Windows forcing updates on you. Samsung and Apple forcing you to have all these partner products on their devices that you don't want. Basically an entire industry treating you like "Daddy knows best" and basically unconcerned about the idea of losing customers because you've insulted their intelligence and undercut their autonomy in a single stroke.
And they'll continue to do it as long as we put up with it.
I'm a software and hardware developer, so I have some amount of control over what I create, and what I'm *willing* to build. I've made the choice to not be part of the problem in this respect. I have the luxury of that choice, I understand that some people don't. I'm not judging you if you're stuck working to pay the bills for a company that treats its customer's like dirt, but to the degree that *you are able* I think it's good to avoid contributing to the attitude that users should just shut up and accept what they are handed. If my software can autoupdate, you can turn it off, for example. I have some amount of respect for the users of my creations to know what's good for them.
And maybe people have just gotten dumber and/or more pliant. Maybe that has created a responsibility vacuum that has allowed producers to just screw people every which way, not just on price anymore but on how you go about your daily routine. How much power can we exercise over your daily lives? You're not a person anymore.
I am not a number.
I am not "a consumer"
I am a human being, with my *own* drives, desires, and agendas. What I do with your device or your software is *my business*, not yours. That's why I gave you money. Not just so you'd give me the goods, but so you'd go away. I pay you to leave at least as much as I pay you to show up with the goods.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Prophecy from the late 60's[^]
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
That's precisely the scene I was thinking of when I wrote that.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
