.jsLink{display:none;} This site uses JavaScript to enhance functionality. Your browser does not have JavaScript enabled.

The Problem with Thumbs up...or Down

Tags: able2know, Voting, Thumbs Up, Growing Pains, The New a2k
Print this Page • Email this Topic

Read Discussion
Reply to All

Re: theollady (Post 3373985)

theollady wrote:

You said and I quote... "If someone is sufficiently disruptive to earn a negative rep; I think they've earned it."

What about folks who discuss topics that are not interesting to the 'most frequent posting group' ? They will be thumbed down for boredom by SOME.

It is just obvious to me, and to many others... this site will not be the same.
Shadows of 'reaching out' and the accidentally 'coming across' a topic,
that COULD just 'grab you' yet it never had before....

Before the change; a poster would take a hit for starting an unpopular thread, yes, but posts within that thread could be approved by one another until their reputations hit the stratosphere. I don't see too many people trolling a topic that doesn't interest them just to vote down particular posts. That just doesn't make sense.

1 Reply

Re: OCCOM BILL (Post 3374574)

Hmmm. I'm gonna see how it goes.
I do think the voting system is elitist, and I don't really think it encourages new users. For example, if I was a newbie posting on a board such as the philosophy an debate board, perhaps without realising how scrutinising a2k-ers can be, then I wouldn't see getting a load of stick and a negative vote a particully nice welcome.
Also, i think the system slightly discrimiates against people with strong objectivist views, certain types of religious people, for example. It forces a kind of conformist neutrality, but maybe this isn't always a bad thing.
I'll wait and see... the quality of posting, at least on some forums has gone up since the new system was put in place (imo) and secretly I'm enjoying being able to filter out the bollocks without having to click and read first. (but shhh!)

0 Replies

I can understand the idea of voting particular topics down because you personally don't want to read them & want to reduce the number of threads you have to scroll through .... (even though I'd much prefer a different, less negative way of achieving this) .... But today, while scrolling through my My Topics I discovered a long defunct thread (last post 11/03/2006) had received a fairly recent thumbs down! I'm trying to figure out what the motivation for that was ..... Someone really, really hated that thread in 2006 & finally got the opportunity to say so? Laughing

2 Replies

Re: msolga (Post 3438051)

msolga, are you familiar with the term "lowest common denominator"?

Rolling Eyes

1 Reply

Re: msolga (Post 3438051)

Not necessarily. Some of us have been generally tidying up the threads in our 'book'. I'm working forward from the first threads I posted in back in 2002. I'm somewhere in 2004 now.

You don't have to hate a thread to not want to see it.

2 Replies

Re: Rockhead (Post 3438053)

Indeed, I am familiar with that term, Rockhead. But would you like to elaborate? Wink

1 Reply

Re: ehBeth (Post 3438055)

Quote:

Some of us have been generally tidying up the threads in our 'book'.

You mean threads that might have been saved in your "Favourites" file (Windows IE), ehBeth?

0 Replies

Below viewing threshold (view)

one of the many problems with the hands is that it is clear that we are not operating by one person one vote. I have no idea how the post popularity number is factored though. If numbers are supposed to mean something then everyone needs to know what they mean, how they are arrived at. Transparency is required. Nobody should pay the numbers any mind unless Craven comes clean with how then numbers are computed. Same goes for the ridiculous "reputation" score that he insists on shoving onto a2k.

1 Reply

Re: msolga (Post 3438072)

Not at this time, I am pickin' my fights...

Wink

2 Replies

Re: Rockhead (Post 3438108)

Yup, I learned that one today, too. No more. I hope I've learned my lesson.

0 Replies

Re: Rockhead (Post 3438108)

Fair enough. Don't blame you! Very Happy

0 Replies

Re: ehBeth (Post 3438055)

ehBeth wrote:

Not necessarily. Some of us have been generally tidying up the threads in our 'book'. I'm working forward from the first threads I posted in back in 2002. I'm somewhere in 2004 now.

You don't have to hate a thread to not want to see it.

That's ambitious!

0 Replies

Re: hawkeye10 (Post 3438101)

hawkeye10 wrote:

one of the many problems with the hands is that it is clear that we are not operating by one person one vote. I have no idea how the post popularity number is factored though. If numbers are supposed to mean something then everyone needs to know what they mean, how they are arrived at. Transparency is required. Nobody should pay the numbers any mind unless Craven comes clean with how then numbers are computed. Same goes for the ridiculous "reputation" score that he insists on shoving onto a2k.

Uh, no, but I know you don't want to hear that. Enjoy your complaining! Smile

1 Reply

Re: jespah (Post 3438348)

jespah wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:
one of the many problems with the hands is that it is clear that we are not operating by one person one vote. I have no idea how the post popularity number is factored though. If numbers are supposed to mean something then everyone needs to know what they mean, how they are arrived at. Transparency is required. Nobody should pay the numbers any mind unless Craven comes clean with how then numbers are computed. Same goes for the ridiculous "reputation" score that he insists on shoving onto a2k.

Uh, no, but I know you don't want to hear that. Enjoy your complaining!

(If I may bend the words of the famous Roy Rogers show fade-out song.....Happy Trails to You.)

Happy wails to you, until you bleat again.
Happy wails to you, keep girning until then
You share all your clouds each time you blether,
You sing your song and bring the rainy weather,
Happy wails to you, 'til you bleat again.

0 Replies

Read Discussion
Reply to All