10
   

Thumbing up and down: Abuse already?

 
 
old europe
 
  4  
Reply Sat 16 Aug, 2008 11:58 am
okay.

A darn cluster. Everything has already been said by the time I posted.

Dang.
Thomas
 
  3  
Reply Sat 16 Aug, 2008 12:00 pm
@littlek,
Quote:
Yep, I'm getting it. Thanks, nimh. I have been playing. I am happy that I can undo any voting I do.

You can? I know I can change my vote from "down" to "up". But how do I undo my vote? How do I get back to "no comment", or whatever you call the status of your vote before you cast it in the first place?
maporsche
 
  2  
Reply Sat 16 Aug, 2008 12:00 pm
@Thomas,
that's a good question Thomas; been looking for the same thing.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Sat 16 Aug, 2008 12:01 pm
@old europe,
Old Europe wrote:
A darn cluster. Everything has already been said by the time I posted.

Including this. Laughing
(Don't worry, it happens to all of us.)
OCCOM BILL
 
  2  
Reply Sat 16 Aug, 2008 12:02 pm
I further don't see all forms of the popularity contest aspect as being bad. Take Gus, for instance: When he starts a thread; you are almost guaranteed a couple of laughs along the way and you can expect it to be a good natured read that most anyone would probably enjoy. I bet we'll find people pretty much Thumbs-uping his threads by default... and rightly so because they will be good recommendations for the community.

On the flip side, you have the rapist. When he starts a thread; you are almost guaranteed that the content will turn your stomach and the garbage he types will aggravate you. Why shouldn't members of the community that aren't already familiar with the piece of **** get some warning by way of ratings?

Popularity contest or no; it isn't as if relative popularity doesn't provide some insight of its own.
old europe
 
  2  
Reply Sat 16 Aug, 2008 12:02 pm
@nimh,
Quote:
Sooo ...... one thing with the preview function is that underneath the post you're writing, you see only the post you're responding to. In the old site, you just saw the thread as it developed; so if you clicked preview, then underneath you could see, hey there's been four more new posts since I started writing! And eh, they all already said what I was saying... Embarrassed

Embarrassed


I totally second that. That's the twelfth time I feel like a bloody fool, because everything I was saying has already been said.

Dang.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  3  
Reply Sat 16 Aug, 2008 12:04 pm
@Thomas,
Thanks for rubbing it in my face, Thomas.

I'll vote your post down.

Evil German.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  3  
Reply Sat 16 Aug, 2008 12:04 pm
I've voted down more of my own threads than anything else. Collapsing them out of view.
I have given thumbs up to most posters on threads I visit, but no thumbs down. If there is a poster or post I don't like, I don't vote it at all.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  2  
Reply Sat 16 Aug, 2008 12:11 pm
@Thomas,
Back to no comment? That I don't know.
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Sat 16 Aug, 2008 12:18 pm
@littlek,
Okay. Then we're on the same page again.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  4  
Reply Sat 16 Aug, 2008 12:18 pm
@hawkeye10,
Absolute bullshit. I have expressed no desire for a "sanitized" a2k, just one where people can ignore you if they want. I have no problem with your "honesty", you have a problem with being unable to annoy people who have you on ignore.
Below viewing threshold (view)
Craven de Kere
 
  3  
Reply Sat 16 Aug, 2008 12:21 pm
@nimh,
Quote:
Or alternatively, they're simply not interested in the topic, and to avoid having to wade through a million threads to get to the ones they like, vote down the ones they're not interested in so they will collapse out of view.


Exactly. This isn't "abuse". If people don't like it, they can vote it down. For example, I think the site would suck if there were a bunch of threads naval gazing about the voting so if this thread consistently shows up on my topic list I'll vote it down. It's nothing personal, I just don't find these threads useful.

Others who do can vote them up, and I won't mind. They don't have to agree with me when they post, and they certainly don't have to agree with me when they vote.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  2  
Reply Sat 16 Aug, 2008 12:27 pm
@Thomas,
So what's abuse to you? When people vote how you would have voted? That's silly. Almost all the technical threads are being voted down. That just reflects that the community is not as interested in tech as I am. It's certainly not "abuse" to not like all the same threads you do or to vote without the same criteria you do.

Abuse is finding ways to have your vote counted more than it should be, not using your vote in a way Thomas or Craven decide is wrong.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  -4  
Reply Sat 16 Aug, 2008 12:29 pm
@Craven de Kere,
The fact that you Craven think that you know the motivation of those whom you only know virtually...is a problem. I know that you want a sanitized a2k because you have said that you want what is "ugly" eliminated, and because you have said that you don't have the resources to do full on moderating, that that this new system is designed in part so that the community will do the moderating. You know darn will that what will be moderated out is what is not liked (emotional response) more than what is not relevant (rational response) because you know human nature, or at least I give you enough credit as a smart individual to assume that you know human nature.
Craven de Kere
 
  2  
Reply Sat 16 Aug, 2008 12:31 pm
@Thomas,
What do you mean? If we wanted to force the voting on everyone there's only be the voting sort. You can turn off all their editorial control over the topics you view just by sorting by a different metric and not collapsing posts when other people vote on them.
Craven de Kere
 
  5  
Reply Sat 16 Aug, 2008 12:42 pm
@hawkeye10,
This is rich, you just go around telling people my intention is to "sanitize" the site and that I can't deal with your "honesty" and even that everyone else who doesn't like you is merely emotional (as opposed to merely not liking troglodytes for perfectly well thought out reasons) yet you then have the temerity to say that it's wrong to guess at the motivations of others?

Take your own advice then, and stop telling others my goal is to sanitize a2k when my goal is to empower the individual to control their experience. And if they don't like your misogyny, that's their prerogative.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Sat 16 Aug, 2008 12:46 pm
@Craven de Kere,
Craven de Kere wrote:
What do you mean? If we wanted to force the voting on everyone there's only be the voting sort.

My criticism wasn't directed against you, and not about forcing the voting on everyone. I know that's not what you're doing. My criticism was that people seem to use their votes to live out their personal animosities and that this diminishes the usefulness of the "sort by vote option" for me -- and presumably for everyone else, too.

Craven de Kere wrote:
You can turn off all their editorial control over the topics you view just by sorting by a different metric and not collapsing posts when other people vote on them.

Yes -- as soon as the "no_collapsing" option works for me.
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Aug, 2008 12:51 pm
@Thomas,
Quote:
I know that's not what you're doing. My criticism was that people seem to use their votes to live out their personal animosities and that this diminishes the usefulness of the "sort by vote option" for me -- and presumably for everyone else, too.


But since you can turn it off entirely, what's your beef with it? That others won't? That they won't use it how you see best? Why do you assume that if it's not useful to you it's the same for everyone? I like it and find it useful. Should I turn it off too because you don't find it useful?

I'm not trying to be a prick, but I'm really curious. You already know how to turn off the effect on you, so how does this negatively impact you? You've said that it means you wouldn't use the ratings but you already said that before the ratings even existed. So how is it any different. You don't like ratings, have never liked them and don't have to use them. So where's the beef? That others who do like them can use them? And if so, why on earth do you care?
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  3  
Reply Sat 16 Aug, 2008 12:53 pm
@Thomas,
Quote:
Yes -- as soon as the "no_collapsing" option works for me.


Arrg. Complicating the issue with this silly bug isn't fair. Only a handful of posts would have even reached your threshold so far and we'll obviously fix it soon.
 

Related Topics

How to use the new able2know - Discussion by Craven de Kere
New A2K feature requests. - Discussion by DrewDad
I'm the developer - Discussion by Nick Ashley
JIM NABORS WAS GOY? - Question by farmerman
A2K censors tags? - Discussion by hingehead
New A2K Bugs - Discussion by sozobe
New A2K annoyances - Discussion by sozobe
The a2k world is changing 3: about voting - Discussion by Craven de Kere
LOST & MISPLACED A2K people. - Discussion by msolga
Welcome to the 'New' My Posts - Discussion by Nick Ashley
The "I get folksonomy" club - Discussion by Robert Gentel
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/03/2020 at 09:39:30