Thoughts on adding downvote capability?

[R0H1T]

How about +2 for an upvote & -1(or -3) for each downvote? Depending on whether you think a downvote merits a higher or lower weightage.

I'm afraid a bad rep would made you cool somehow

There's this saying in India, something along the lines of ~ There's no such thing as infamy, just the one & only - fame.

 

[Jetster]

How about on a up or down vote, you get nothing until say 5 people acknowledge it

 

[Space Lynx]

How about on a up or down vote, you get nothing until say 5 people acknowledge it

To expand on this, maybe 5-8 downvotes auto-hides a post... would be a good filter system, all names should be ANON for the downvotes though...

 

[Fourstaff]

I think there should be a penalty for people downvoting. Makes people think before they groupthink and downvote a valid (but unpopular) opinion. For the sake of simplicity though, I would prefer no downvotes. Less is more.

 

[Space Lynx]

I think there should be a penalty for people downvoting. Makes people think before they groupthink and downvote a valid (but unpopular) opinion. For the sake of simplicity though, I would prefer no downvotes. Less is more.

Agreed. I do like the positive badges idea though W1zzard has.

If downvoting does become a thing... I think all downvotes should be hidden, and then when it hits 7 downvotes, that post vanishes... but no one knows if it was downvoted or not... I don't know... lol... prefer it not to exist like you though. Cheers

 

[Ferrum Master]

Won't solve really anything. We have often here first day/rare posters often starting the war. (duplicate accounts?)

Leave it as it is IMHO.

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

why does everything have to get so fussy when its easy to just report a post? Adding an extra layer of policing i.e. downvoting will add to discontent and friction whether its public or not.

The only problem with the post reporting function is that the mods on line often do nothing and there are occasions when none are here.

Perhaps thread starters or news posters should control their own threads better and if it a contentious subject be prepared to take some flak

 

[Vayra86]

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.

 

[EarthDog]

No. Not here... not with this readership.

If so, i suggest having mods approve a best answer. Problem is, mods may not know the best answer. Though havimg them split up incharge of their own section may see its first benefit.


Just saying no. Yes, i suggested this as well a few ago too. After seeing the other thread with LQ posts, no way.

I dont understand why we dont want to moderate with a sharper edge here until the troublemakers are gone..

 

[Vayra86]

I dont understand why we dont want to moderate with a sharper edge here until the troublemakers are gone..

Several arguments:
- Mods seem unwilling or just not the right cut to put their foot down (no offense, this can also be a good quality if backed by something else, which is currently not in place)
- Its a misconception to think that 'the troublemakers' will ever be gone entirely or that you can ever get rid of them. Or that you can 'have a banwave' and things will be OK for a while. They're not, you just scared people into submission for a few days.
- Carrot and stick. Where's the carrot? No carrot = focus on negatives / the stick.

You have a solid argument about the numbers though, but if all those lurkers would come out of the darkness and started becoming active on this forum because it is a pleasant and well managed place to be, that may also change.

 

[rtwjunkie]

If so, i suggest having mods approve a best answer. Problem is, mods may not know the best answer. Though havimg them split up incharge of their own section may see its first benefit.

I was for about 8 years a member of a tech site called Experts Exchange. You had to pay, so you had people right off the bat who wanted to be there and behaved well.

Anyway, my thought was that the person with the question picked the best answer, obviously because that what was what fixed the problem. If someone neglected to pick a solution, a moderator attempted to wrangle one from the OP with a reminder. After a week of no selection, THEN the generally accepted most technically competent mods would select the best answer.

The system worked great, and the answer was readily visible first.

 

[EarthDog]

There isnt such thing as gone entirely...i get that and never would suggest otherwise. The real problem here, and this was initially suggested by at least one member of the staff, they were told to be nice. Clearly that hasnt worked. And they apparently cant get permission to handle it as a few in their ranks would like (thanks and their statements were telling).

If you really want to change, let your mods do their job amd get rid of the riff raff. Any on the fringe will either fall in line, be banned, or leave if they cant act proper.

Get back to the basics. Though i appreciate the efforts, stop making software to curb the problem.

I was for about 8 years a member of a tech site called Experts Exchange. You had to pay, so you had people right off the bat who wanted to be there and behaved well.

Anyway, my thought was that the person with the question picked the best answer, obviously because that what was what fixed the problem. If someone neglected to pick a solution, a moderator attempted to wrangle one from the OP with a reminder. After a week of no selection, THEN the generally accepted most technically competent mods would select the best answer.

The system worked great, and the answer was readily visible first.

not bad... problem there, is it may be a right answer, but not the BEST answer. But, i suppose its better than the staff which may not know in the first place without putting more time i to it.

 

[jsfitz54]

Good question though, should we display individual votes? with usernames?

Yes, to avoid nepotism, favoritism, block voting and add transparency.

 

[W1zzard]

taken as the 'median score'

Ah I wasn't aware that they used median instead of sum. Great idea

 

[EarthDog]

Yes, to avoid nepotism, favoritism, block voting and add transparency.

And cause more animosity between members and spamming to retaliate as they can see who downvoted it? Not a great idea...again, not with this crowd here.

 

[jsfitz54]

And cause more animosity between members and spamming to retaliate as they can see who downvoted it? Not a great idea...again, not with this crowd here.

Secretive voting? How do you measure negative or unfair trends? Mods override votes?

 

[EarthDog]

Mods can see it, not members...is that what you meant to say?

 

[jsfitz54]

Mods can see it, not members...is that what you meant to say?

I mean if a member can't see who is giving them negatives, you can't expect a Mod to always be aware that some sort of block voting is not going on.
The down voted member would have to report to a Mod for intervention and ask if fair-play is involved.

The intended system becomes unwieldy and harder to manage.

I'm not sure why the old system has had a breakdown.

I do like the idea of best answer being highlighted.

 

[the54thvoid]

As @rtwjunkie and @EarthDog have suggested, I have been on DIY forums to see the OP selects the post that best fixed the problem. An OP (not mod selected) answer that is highlighted reduces the clutter of votes.
As for being best solution, if the OP feels it helped the most, then it is a valid option. Obviously, such a system only works where technical help is required.
I still feel properly enforced moderation (less tolerance of idiotic posts) would make TPU far better than any voting system.

 

[EarthDog]

I mean if a member can't see who is giving them negatives, you can't expect a Mod to always be aware that some sort of block voting is not going on.
The down voted member would have to report to a Mod for intervention and ask if fair-play is involved.

The intended system becomes unwieldy and harder to manage.

I'm not sure why the old system has had a breakdown.

I do like the idea of best answer being highlighted.

Perhaps... but its undoubtedly better than letting the members see it and watch things snowball.

The old system had a breakdown because, IMO and apparently a staffer or two, they were told to go easy... so the members took the slack on the line and ran. Now, all you hear is the drag noise and line running out. Cut the cord and start again. This time, let the mods do their jobs.

I still feel properly enforced moderation (less tolerance of idiotic posts) would make TPU far better than any voting system.

Absofrigginlutely. Stop giving the asshats participation awards and deal with them already. Man up. Tighten up. Hell, I have a list of 5+ people I'd instantly wipe off this site and nobody would be the wiser and TPU would be a better place (I'm #6. ).

 

[Devon68]

TBH I like it the way it is. If you think that someones comment was helpful you get a thank you. If not just scroll by. I think the down votes might be a bad idea since there will be people that will abuse the system. Maybe if you really want to add the down vote option , after clicking on down vote the user should explain why he down voted a comment.

 

[jsfitz54]

People management is the worst job. Asking a Mod or team to be an impartial arbiter of a disagreement has its own down side.
I think TPU has a done a fine job at this tedious task.

One member, not named, complains loudly and often at certain things. The thing is, a rant as such is sometimes needed to gain attention to issues.
While I don't always side with the point of view I do want to be aware of the issue and I do read and value the other point of view.

 

[neatfeatguy]

Could you list a bunch? Always love to check out the competition, but haven't had much time to browse around

I also like the badges that tweakers gives out, which adds some level of gamification that could help drive up activity and quality

I've never been a fan of badges/trophies. I suppose I'm one of the few out there that dislikes the idea of needing to be rewarded for posting or playing games. I hate trophies for games - feels like the dev couldn't actually make a quality game so they attach a bunch of crappy trophies to the game to make the player feel better about themselves as they play the low quality game. I've seen posters on Tom's Hardware that have badges, but some of the stuff they get marked for "best answer" is crap or since the original poster never came back in a mod picks the last entry as best answer after a few months.

If you feel something like this might help the forums, then by all means I hope you can find a healthy balance to make it happen. Sounds like a lot of work, though.

 

[CrAsHnBuRnXp]

Isn't that why we're trying to make changes to improve quality of posts?

I see more people leaving the site with some of these new features for the sole fact that this website is unlike all the others.

But on the other hand, some of the members around here are pure poison. No matter what you do @W1zzard, it's not going to be favorable.

 

[xkm1948]

This will get abused to death. Just no.