KennyT772
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2005
- Messages
- 3,572 (0.53/day)
| System Name | Raptor |
|---|---|
| Processor | Intel E8400 Wolfdale @3600 |
| Motherboard | Asus P5Q-Pro LGA775 |
| Cooling | Zalman CNPS9700 |
| Memory | 1024mbx2 Crucial Ballistix DDR800 |
| Video Card(s) | XFX 9600GT |
| Storage | Seagate 7200.11 500GB |
| Display(s) | Acer AL2216Wbd and Acer AL1717 |
| Case | Gigabyte 3DAurora Black |
| Audio Device(s) | Creative X-Fi Extreme Gamer Faitality |
| Power Supply | OCZ GameXStream 500w |
The voting system really needs to change. No matter what we try, such as requiring a post if your vote is way off average, there are still those who click away and vote others down for no apparent reason. This does nothing but annoy those of us who work hard on our rigs and would like to know people's honest opinion of our work, and what we could change to improve it.
I propose 3 options:
Require a post in order to vote - This would make a forum post necessary in order to post a vote on someone's case. We already prevent unlogged in users from posting, and while this lessens the amount of fraudulent votes it does not prevent someone from simply registering and spamming 1's. This however makes the simple act of voting a time consuming process, in which some users may just decide to no longer vote.
Public voting - This would place your name, in some way, shape, or form, on your vote for others to see, and report is malicious. Spammers would be easily caught and dealt with by the forum community instead of requiring per basis attention of a moderator. This would be sort of a self-policing attitude. The downside of this is the person who does not like the case what so ever, and does not post explaining his attitude and reasoning.
Private voting Owner review - This would allow the owner of the case to view the names of those who voted, but not the general population. This way the owner could contact the malicious voter and straiten things out, without requiring a moderator to do so themselves. If a case owner and voter cannot straiten things out, a moderator will be called in to finalize the situation as they see fit. This is mostly a compromise between option 2 and the current system, in an effort to curb malicious voting.
I propose 3 options:
Require a post in order to vote - This would make a forum post necessary in order to post a vote on someone's case. We already prevent unlogged in users from posting, and while this lessens the amount of fraudulent votes it does not prevent someone from simply registering and spamming 1's. This however makes the simple act of voting a time consuming process, in which some users may just decide to no longer vote.
Public voting - This would place your name, in some way, shape, or form, on your vote for others to see, and report is malicious. Spammers would be easily caught and dealt with by the forum community instead of requiring per basis attention of a moderator. This would be sort of a self-policing attitude. The downside of this is the person who does not like the case what so ever, and does not post explaining his attitude and reasoning.
Private voting Owner review - This would allow the owner of the case to view the names of those who voted, but not the general population. This way the owner could contact the malicious voter and straiten things out, without requiring a moderator to do so themselves. If a case owner and voter cannot straiten things out, a moderator will be called in to finalize the situation as they see fit. This is mostly a compromise between option 2 and the current system, in an effort to curb malicious voting.
