Up/Down Voting Reasons

[darkagn]

Personally I prefer the Reputation as a measure of one's helpfulness/popularity on DaniWeb, and truthfully I haven't paid much attention since the introduction of the Up/Down Voting system. But lately one thing is starting to bug me about it - if someone up/down votes a post, it is completely anonimous and no reason need be given. I would prefer someone tell me why they like/dislike one of my posts so that I can either debate their response or learn from their point of view. Honestly, can anyone put forward a reason as to why such a "feature" was implemented when we already had the perfectly acceptable reputation feature? I know this has kind of been done to death, but I am still yet to be convinced of its purpose or value.

[Dani]

Members with a lot of reputation were actually turned off to handing out reputation unless they really felt very strongly about a post because they felt that their votes carried too much influence.

After a bunch of discussions, it was determined that a good solution would be to come up with a second system in which every vote counted only once from everyone, either a simple thumbs up or thumbs down. It is meant to be used more en masse than the reputation system where, over time, posts may accumulate hundreds of points. It also offers a way for members who don't really like to be vocal on the forums (note: a lot of members are long time readers, zero time posters, but they still visit the site regularly) to have an influence in what they think about what they're reading.

[Narue]

Do you keep track of who up or down votes, or is it a simple counter?

[Nick Evan]

Do you keep track of who up or down votes, or is it a simple counter?

I can see when I up- or downvoted a post by the color of the arrow. It's only green when I upvoted it. So I would think it's stored instead of just a counter

[Dani]

Do you keep track of who up or down votes, or is it a simple counter?

We do keep track of who up or down voted in the database. We also have certain limitations in place to prevent people from abusing the system by continually down-voting the same person a million times in a row.

[Narue]

If you're already storing it, might I suggest having some kind of feature where we can view that information (like rep)?

[Dani]

If we made it just like rep, then what would be the point of having both? :) The whole purpose is to arm forum lurkers with a mechanism to rate posts in a way that is more anonymous than reputation.

[Narue]

>If we made it just like rep, then what would be the point of having both?
If the only difference between voting and rep is anonymity, I'd question why we have both at all. Or if anonymity is so important, why did you agree to make rep public in the first place? There may be measures in place to protect a single user from voting abuse, but what's to stop someone from blanket down voting the posts in every thread he reads? Having a public record would make such a person think twice. Anonymity gives one a sense of safety and power, which usually results in more aggressive and reckless behavior.

...bah, I'm thinking like a moderator again. :@

>The whole purpose is to arm forum lurkers with a mechanism to
>rate posts in a way that is more anonymous than reputation.
The "whole purpose" seems to be a moving target depending on whatever is most convenient for you at the time. :icon_rolleyes:

[Dani]

Reason's been the same since the voting system debuted a few months back?? We even had a whole thread about it.

[Dave Sinkula]

The whole purpose is to arm forum lurkers with a mechanism to rate posts in a way that is more anonymous than reputation.

It rather works like crap, though.

Let's say someone has a great post and gets 1 or 2 upvotes. Then some idiot comes along and says something stupid, and gets like 3 downvotes. Now you've got a thread with a great answer that has a negative overall.

Or some tool comes along and upvotes some "me to" garbage. You've got a positive rating of a crappy thread.

Happens. Every. Day.

With this great mix, the overall result is that the thread rating is absolutely meaningless.

[edit]No. I take that back. Generally there is a lot of negative feedback on "do my homework" posts. But ain't that the lion's share of what you're after here? Why would you want to accentuate the negative?

[Nick Evan]

Let's say someone has a great post and gets 1 or 2 upvotes. Then some idiot comes along and says something stupid, and gets like 3 downvotes. Now you've got a thread with a great answer that has a negative overall.

Or some tool comes along and upvotes some "me to" garbage. You've got a positive rating of a crappy thread.

If you are referring to the big black number in front of the thread name as the "overall" on a thread, then you're mistaken. The number only represents the up/downvotes on the first post in the thread. The rest of the up/downvoting has no effect on this number at all. So if someone posts a homework-question, this number will be negative. If a member posts a descent question, uses code-tags and has shown some effort, then this number often more then 0. So I think it works pretty good.

[Dave Sinkula]

If you are referring to the big black number in front of the thread name as the "overall" on a thread, then you're mistaken. The number only represents the up/downvotes on the first post in the thread. The rest of the up/downvoting has no effect on this number at all.

This in itself is also dumb. Half the people here don't know how to ask a question. Posts get split of from threads because they can't figure out "New Thread".

But if a good reply comes along, then the rating is meaningless for the "overall"? Dumb again IMO.

Wouldn't the ultimate goal be to highlight "great responses" -- useful replies, etc.?

So if someone posts a homework-question, this number will be negative. If a member posts a descent question, uses code-tags and has shown some effort, then this number often more then 0. So I think it works pretty good.

It's a rating for Daniweb's guests' ability to ask a question? Ha!

Again, why accentuate the negative? :p

[Dani]

> It's a rating for Daniweb's guests' ability to ask a question? Ha!

The reputation system does its job at highlighting great responses and useful replies, and people post reputation comments thanking people for good solutions, etc.

The number on thread listings only shows the vote for the first post in the thread to give an indication for someone perusing the list of questions the ones that are interesting or are worth their time reading.

[darkagn]

I understand the reasons of anonymity, but for me I would like a reason as to why my post has been up/down voted. I don't understand why someone has decided to down-vote a post that I think was helpful without blurting out an answer, but up-vote another post in the same thread that is grammatically incorrect and uses IM-speak and fails to meet the OP's questions. Of course, these votes could have been done by two completely different users, but I think you can see what I am getting at...

Overall I don't really take much notice of the up/down vote system, but I would like to learn to be more helpful in the posts I make, so prompting people to give a reason for their votes could be worthwhile and might add to the feature.

Sorry, I know that this feature has been debated several times already and I hate to beat a dead horse...

[padtes]

I came searching this thread because I found my power to affect someone's reputation is +/- 1. I also observed that some other newbies have less posts or solved less problems and got more points.

The only thread I got negative, in my honest opinion, are from idiots to put it mildly. And I get down graded? The reputation and power to change reputation is really beyond my ability to understand.

If I don't get answer from the community or moderators in next few days, I am going to give good bye salute with you know which finger.

[Dani]

Reputation is just like it's real-world counterpart. It's all about what other members of the community at large think of you. Members with more reputation themselves can affect other people's reputation by more. The reputation system also comes armed with a way to comment on why you gave the reputation you did.

The voting system is simpler. You can vote each post either up by +1 or down by -1. It's anonymous and everyone counts equally. It's a second system devised around the numerous complaints around the rep system. Most notably that people with a lot of rep felt that they wielded too much power to affect a newbie, and that newbies felt like they were too insignificant to count towards anything. And it also gave an in for forum lurkers who don't feel comfortable posting but still want to share feedback about what they read to anonymously interact with the site.

Both systems are a rating system that are completely in the hands of the community. If you post gets negative rep or down votes, then a member in the community either didn't like you or didn't like your post or was just having a bad day. It's a VERY arbitrary system, and it's meant to be that way. It wouldn't be much of a community-based voting system if it were moderated and we made sure that everyone who voted had a very good reason for doing so. The hope and goal is that with a community of 700,000 strong, with enough participants, everything will even out over time.

That said, at the end of the day, they are just numbers. Ignore them if you want. Don't ignore them if you don't want. If you just like the rep system, just use that. If you just like the voting system, just use that. If you don't like either, pretend they don't exist. They're just for fun.

[WaltP]

The only thread I got negative, in my honest opinion, are from idiots to put it mildly. And I get down graded? The reputation and power to change reputation is really beyond my ability to understand.

I don't really see your problem. You have 9 positive rep posts and only 2 negative rep posts. That's 82% positive. And 53 total rep points. You must be doing something right. And if you look at the reputation comments, I see 7. All positive.

IMO, the reason your VB post was negged was the statement

No arguments. Mark thread as solved.

I realize it was probably said in fun, but at least 2 people thought you were being a know-it-all, and slamming their choice because you didn't agree.

I see your post here was also negged. Calling people name is not a way to get positive rep. And giving an ultimatum to the community and mods or we all get a one-finger salute does nothing to make us thing better of you. Sorry.

Take what cscgal said to heart -- ignore rep. It really means nothing.

[Nick Evan]

I see your post here was also negged. Calling people name is not a way to get positive rep. And giving an ultimatum to the community and mods or we all get a one-finger salute does nothing to make us thing better of you.

That was me who downvoted it, and it was indeed for those reasons.

[WaltP]

See, I ain't sew dumm...

[MosaicFuneral]

Reputation is just like it's real-world counterpart. It's all about what other members of the community at large think of you. Members with more reputation themselves can affect other people's reputation by more. The reputation system also comes armed with a way to comment on why you gave the reputation you did.

That concept of "reputation" sounds like a mixture of highschool-freshman gibberish and Big Brother style reality TV.

But it works.

[VernonDozier]

Dave Sinkula had the answer a while ago, I think. Give rep UP TO your rep power. If you're Ancient Dragon and you want to neg rep someone without destroying them, give them neg rep of however much you feel is appropriate. Ditto for positive rep. I use the up/down arrows more for when I agree or disagree but don't feel strongly enough to leave rep. If I could leave a single point, I'd use rep more. As for anonymity, it has its pros and cons, but I think it has more cons than pros. The biggest con is that if no one knows who left it, no one knows whether it is an honest opinion of someone whose opinion is actually worth reading or whether it was just left by some jackass who should just be ignored. Anonymity brings out the trolls. And being able to down-vote the same person more than once a day REALLY brings out the trolls (not sure if you can still do that).

But I vote, once again, for Dave Sinkula's idea. Have it so you can leave as many rep points as you want.

[WaltP]

I agree with Vernon and Dave.

[diafol]

Take what cscgal said to heart -- ignore rep. It really means nothing.

??

If it really means nothing - scrap it. Pleeeaaazzee. If something is in your face, it's difficult to ignore.

//EDIT

Walt/Dave/Vern - yep me too - variable rep points good idea. Or, just give everybody +1/-1.

[lllllIllIlllI]

Yeah, i was in favour of that "Up to" rep system back when Dave first suggested it, i'm surprised there hasn't been more talk on the subject. It sounds like a great idea.

[darkagn]

Yeah, i was in favour of that "Up to" rep system back when Dave first suggested it, i'm surprised there hasn't been more talk on the subject. It sounds like a great idea.

Not to mention that it removes the double-up of what is really two functions serving a single purpose.

[ndeniche]

Reputation is just like it's real-world counterpart. It's all about what other members of the community at large think of you. Members with more reputation themselves can affect other people's reputation by more. The reputation system also comes armed with a way to comment on why you gave the reputation you did.

Yeah, the thing is, rep points are used to show what the community thinks about you in general, and Up/Down voting is used to see what the community thinks of your post.

Still, I think Up/Down Voting should be used only for the original post, let's call it the thread initiator, since it's not the poster's responsability what other posters respond to hat post. That's what rep points are for.

[VernonDozier]

Yeah, the thing is, rep points are used to show what the community thinks about you in general, and Up/Down voting is used to see what the community thinks of your post.

Still, I think Up/Down Voting should be used only for the original post, let's call it the thread initiator, since it's not the poster's responsability what other posters respond to hat post. That's what rep points are for.

You can't give rep/votes to a member. You can only give it to a particular post. There are lots of times when you have high regard for a member, but think that a particular post is bad and rep/vote down, or vice versa. I don't see what difference it makes whether it's the original poster or a responder's post. You give rep/votes to a post based on whether you think it's a good one or a bad one.

[diafol]

Would it be an idea to have a poll/vote on whether to keep voting (up/down) system? A number of options could be included. Whatcha think?

[jwenting]

Would it be an idea to have a poll/vote on whether to keep voting (up/down) system? A number of options could be included. Whatcha think?

Best solution IMO: scrap both rep and voting and give mods more power to remove useless and factually incorrect posts (which are the main reason people (should) vote posts down anyway) and posts in violation of the TOS (which apparently can't be removed now for some reason).

[lllllIllIlllI]

And also give them the power to be able to ban users with spammy sigs! That ReplicaWatches thing is really annoying me :S