The a2k world is changing 3: about voting

Craven,

Thanks for the detailed explanation. I still have some reservations about the wisdom of the voting feature, though I do appreciate the features you are developing to limit its misuse.

The old system gave equal space and visibility to the comments of all posters - a varied lot that for all of us included full spectra of; folks we usually agree with; others for which aggreement was occasional; still others whith whom we disagreed on a lasting basis on many issues; and finally others who are regarded as annoying cranks. The components of these individual spectra varied from user to user, though there was a small residue of posters who were probably regarded as annoying cranks by most users. The result though was that every "voice" had the same potential to be "heard", and, perhaps more importantly, each of us had to consider the potential reactions of all posters to what we put here. I believe that enriched the experience, though I will readily concede there were a few persistently annoying and (in my view) destructive participants in the crowd -- just as there are in almost anything we do in life.

The new system will provide the benefit of gradually suppressing the "voices" of those persistent annoying and destructive users - just as you described. Importantly, you have also incorporated features that will limit the potential for more convivial but intolerant users to abuse the system by, in effect, silencing others they simply don't like. However this benefit comes at a price that affects every other aspect of the site: that is the equal access of every user and the potential for every "voice" to be heard. I believe that is a very high price indeed.

You have already incorporated a separate feature that independently accomplishes much of the same purpose - the "IGNORE USER" feature that lets us all suppress the posts of any user we may find particularly intolerable. I like that, in that my own choices in this area are not imposed on any others here, and I know what "voices" I have suppressed - for me.

My question then is that, given the IGNORE feature, what additional benefit does the voting feature confer on the site and its users?

That is my case. I don't know enough about site design and the long-term effects on the behaviors or satisfactions of users to be certain of my conclusions here. However, I offer it for your consideration. You have long had a very good thing going here, and like so many others, I continue to appreciate your efforts and the features of the site you have created.

George, Craven posted last evening that he was cutting off posting day and night answering questions and getting back to code writing and fixing things.

Instead of trying to find some more of his explanations on voting - which would be best - I'll show you a 'verse' I composed on the subject a few minutes ago for Letty's thread about voting. Here, then -
http://able2know.org/topic/121115-1#post-3363340

I've already found it very beneficial to simply not consider the voting personal towards anyone (and will likewise not take it personal.) By disappearing threads that don't interest me via the thumbs down; I avoid repeatedly reading thread titles that I know do not interest me. Same goes for posts I've read and got nothing from... by thumbing them down I avoid reading garbage a second time. This isn't the same as blackballing a poster altogether; because some of the posts I don't like come from posters I do. By voting it up myself, on the other hand, I know that it doesn't matter how many people vote it down; I'll always be able to see it. In this way; even if only a handful of us are interested in a particular thread; we'll see it, but everyone else doesn't have to. The more you get used to it; the more ass it kicks.

Take my schizophrenic personality for instance: Someone may be interested in reading my relationship advice, but find my politics deplorable (No need for dozens nods here!) The vote feature allows them to pick and choose which of my nonsense to disappear... and which they want to read.

The only people who are actually handicapped by the new system are those who get their jollies posting crap in front of people who don't wish to see it... because anyone who wants to still can.

The macro effect is that it also provides something of a guideline for posters who choose to rely on the community to assist them in making their choices in different degrees. I'll probably change my preferences with my mood.

Like some days I may wish to only read friendly positive stuff; for the most part I can purposely do so now. And on other days; a fight should be only too easy to find.

At any rate; I think it should be no concern of yours beyond being a useful tool. Your posts will prove more popular than your politics, because you’re a hell of a guy.

I'm *really* relieved to see that others are using the voting the way I do--I was startin' to feel like a jerk for being all casual about it & treating it as a way to organize my view! I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, but I think everyone will realize after a while that it (usually) doesn't mean anything personal. (I'm sure there are people using it in a more vindictive way, in some instances, but obviously that's not what's going on in a lot of cases, like the word games, for example.)

Well, thanks to Osso for her blank verse description and to Occam Bill for his prose one, of the essential points I had missed. You did make me think differently about the matter. I can see that, over time, the process you described will occur. It is just hard for me to visualize now, and to forget the subjective, judgmental aspects of the process.

Ironically even the cranky users and those poor misguided souls who disagree with me are a valued part of the scene here.

Occam Bill is a good example. He has disagreed with some of my best and most clever ideas and put down some of my most brilliant posts. Now he confronts me with this.

As I said in epbrown's post about voting (roll eyeballs), only paranoid people will take it as a personal attack. From Day 1, I've voted down all the threads I have no interest in, regardless of who posted them. And I don't even notice those stupid numbers any more.

It's simple, for me, a way to eliminate boring (to me) posts so I do less scrolling and reading of irrelevancies.

The shitty comments I've read on the last A2K were far, far worse and more damaging than a negative number could ever be perceived to be, especially since it could be voted down as a TOPIC instead of AUTHOR.

I've never voted up, and probably never will, but I'm going to continue to vote down threads that I don't want to see. I also LOVE the ignore user feature. I've already eliminated the most annoying from my realm.

Hey, mame, I've lost track but wanted to admit you were more right about the voting down idea than I was in the beginning of these last few days. (What was it, Thursday? Seems a long time ago now..)

And that's the funniest part. One A-hole, unfaised by suggestions to kill himself, is crying like a baby about the numbers.

That's the freedom, George. With my view set at "new posts" and "all time", I see everything regardless of who, how, or how many vote. Individual can see anything they want. Only those who wish to disturb people using the tools as a "do not disturb" are disturbed by the option. Option being the key word.

I have noticed that at work, I've had to collapse the same threads repeatedly today, which is kind of annoying. Can anyone hear me that might know if that's just a temporary bug?

I've posted about that on the bug thread, O'Bill, and no one has responded to that so far. Of course, I wrote about it in a confusing way, which is sort of a deterrent..

I dunno, about twenty posts back from the most recent.. and I mentioned how I'm working around it on later posts.

I am posting on a thread that has a -7 attached to it. What does that mean then?