Let me just clarify right here the suggested system @ Tweakers.net (and why it circumvents most of the con- arguments I read here now)
Up/downvotes should be:
- anonymous to users, but not to moderators.
- transparent scorecards: 'X number of +1, X number of +2, etc.' should be visible to all
- taken as the 'median score' - you can vote +1/+2/+3 (varying levels of appreciation) or you can vote 0 / -1 (neutral/offtopic or 1 level of negativity)
There is some psychology behind all this: The attention shifts to the more positive posts and people will start considering how they can make a post 'more interesting' because the most interesting ones will stand out and shit posts will just get a -1 (note: -1 median scores are automatically hidden similar to low quality posts are now). On Tweakers.net they do this by making the background of +2 and +3 posts a darker more visible tint of green. In addition you can filter on median scores, so the user gets to choose in the end what is 'low quality' or not in his/her own view.
My experience with this system & reality check for those who aren't familiar:
- it is not flawless. Because people.
- it has a positive effect when combined with strict moderation for those who repeatedly cross the line + accumulate large numbers of -1 and don't change
- it really does promote informative posting, you can check Reddit for another confirmation of this; the most informative answers are always the most visible ones. Sometimes this is curated, but more often than not, the numbers of the community do the work
- this is not and will never be about individuals but about big numbers. The big numbers eliminate all the worries about people 'getting personal' and the anonymity helps too
- big numbers + Median scores promote nuanced scoring. Only the best posts will have a +3 Median (because that would require more than a 2,5 point AVERAGE score and you can only give 3 points max) and only the posts a vast majority considers unwanted will have a -1 Median (again, same reasoning + there are more degrees of positive scoring). The vast majority of posts will end up as 0 or +1 (even those placed by less popular people or of less popular views), preferably a community will promote having as many +1 posts and a small selection of +2/+3's on each topic. The filtering option on +2/+3 is effectively a 'best answer' mechanic, but allows for multiple views on the subject to have their place.
Big data works. Community driven content works. That is the basic concept of all this really. The accuracy and effectiveness of this whole idea thrives on numbers and also motivates people to take part.
What you really do in the minds of people though is more important and this also works with smaller numbers: you focus the attention on what's nice to read, and not on what you don't want to read. In turn, the community does the same and will start learning to simply ignore the non informative posts, or even filters them out altogether. This is how you 'don't feed the troll' professionally.