Suggestion: Open (not anonymous) thread voting.

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

Does anyone have a argument for anonymous down-thumbing?

What osso already said, for one. Imagine the following exchange:

indignantposter: Hey! Thumber! Why'd you vote my post down?

Thumber: Sorry, just wasn't that interesting to me and I like to keep my "computer" tags view lean.

indignantposter: Yeah, right. It's about how I never responded to that one thread of yours, isn't it?

Thumber: What?

indignantposter: Yeah, yeah, and it's probably because Hotchick gave me her email address but she wouldn't give it to you. It's all becoming clear now.

Etc.

Plus, I'm assuming that if displaying the last poster on a thread is too complicated to have been achieved yet, displaying who voted every thread and every post up or down is another level of complication yet -- and there would have to be some REALLY good reasons for it to go that route.

But maybe there are more positives than negatives -- just answering your question.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

The problem is, it doesn't matter what Craven's definition of thumbs up and thumbs down mean. Those terms already have pre-existing definitions in the minds of the users and they aren't going to stop using those definitions just b/c the creator of the says 'oh, they mean something different here.' People aren't going to be able to give up their instinctive responses.

What does "instictive response" mean when applied to computers? I don't think any of my ancestors hunted using Google Maps to track down prey....

Your definition of thumbs up and thumbs down doesn't matter particularly, either. One might argue that your definition matters less than Craven's.

2 Replies

@ebrown p,

Quote:

Does anyone have a argument for anonymous down-thumbing?

Do you have an argument for identifiable down-thumbing?

Develop a rationale, argue your case, we'll vote on it ( Mr. Green

) and see what Craven decides to do....

But really, all you've done so far is complain that you don't like it this way so it should be changed.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

Quote:

ebrown....given that there are no longer seperate forums to view, if I were unable to collapse threads that I wasn't interested in, I would stop coming to this site because it would be impossible to navigate. Even though I can collapse threads it is still a PITA.

I don't have a problem with your ability to collapse threads for yourself.

I question whether it is a good thing that anyone can collapse threads for others (i.e. decided what you want to see before you have seen it).

Another annoyance is what the rating system does to the "Science and Mathematics" area. The threads that deal with Science and Mathematics are getting demoted in favor of arguments about religion and discussions about sleep. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with either sleep or religious arguments-- it just bugs me that this hurts discussions about real science or math.

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

Hee..!

Phoenix is one example (I've seen a few) of someone who had a pretty strong anti-voting reaction and has now come around to it. Here's what she posted today:

Phoenix wrote:

I never realized how efficient it would be to decline a thread. It is not dislike of the person, but uninterest in the subject matter. Once I removed many of the threads of which I had no desire to participate, I found that I was flitting about A2K at warp speed!

http://able2know.org/topic/120920-3#post-3363095

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

You just read my mind, ebrown.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

Quote:

Re: Cycloptichorn (Post 3363463)
Quote:

The problem is, it doesn't matter what Craven's definition of thumbs up and thumbs down mean. Those terms already have pre-existing definitions in the minds of the users and they aren't going to stop using those definitions just b/c the creator of the says 'oh, they mean something different here.' People aren't going to be able to give up their instinctive responses.

What does "instictive response" mean when applied to computers? I don't think any of my ancestors hunted using Google Maps to track down prey....

Your definition of thumbs up and thumbs down doesn't matter particularly, either. One might argue that your definition matters less than Craven's.

Well, it matters to ME, and that's the point, isn't it? It will matter to each individual user no matter what a top-down authority tries to say about it.

Thumbs up and thumbs down had a clearly defined meaning before A2K started using them, and I think you will agree with me that it wasn't 'this is what I am interested in' and 'this is what I am not interested in.' It is commonly used as a value judgment of content. Siskel and Ebert didn't give movies thumbs down because they weren't interested in watching them, they did because they didn't like them.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@ebrown p,

Quote:

I don't know what an "innocuous thumbs down" means. (Can you flip someone an innocuous bird?).

I think you may be conflating "thumbs down" and "flipping the bird."

IMO, a thumb down means "I'd rather not see this in the future" which is quite different from "eff you."

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

But it means more than "I'd rather not see this in the future".

Giving a thread a thumbs down effects the community at large. It is more than just removing things from your view.

Up there somewhere I noted a negative effect on the "Science and Mathematics" threads.

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Well, it matters to ME, and that's the point, isn't it?

Only if we conclude that we all need to kowtow to what you want. Sheesh, I don't think you could've made me care less what you think if you'd tried.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

People aren't going to be able to give up their instinctive responses.

I just told you I did. Sozobe gave Phoenix as another example. So maybe Craven's instincts in the matter were correct, and maybe it's you who needs to update his preconceived notions of what "people are going to be able to".

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

Quote:

Giving a thread a thumbs down effects the community at large.

No, it affects those that choose to be affected by it.

You make your choice, I'll make mine.

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

I'd put this into the Wisdom of Crowds category. I think the intention is to optimize the experience of this site by giving people the tools to contribute.

Therefore, participation of a great number of users is required . The more people contribute, the better the experience for everyone. Somewhat along the lines of pedestrians optimizing the flow of movement on the pavement by making lots of individual decisions.

That would be my explanation of why anonymous votes are more helpful than an open voting system. In an open system, more people might be reluctant to vote. Just look at the number of threads that have been started about the voting feature as it is.... I don't think it would be helpful to increase the load by giving people a reason to make additional posts, challenging him about his vote on a certain post. I'm fairly sure it would stop some people from using the feature entirely. Which means that you would get less people to contribute. Which means that you'd get more statistical "outliers". In the end, you would take away from the usefulness of the tool.

2 Cents

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

how does any of this change if records are kept and available as to who has done the voting?

It doesn't. I just don't see why I owe you an account of my reading preferences.

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

Quote:

Giving a thread a thumbs down effects the community at large.

How?

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

Quote:

I get the point that thumbs down for a Thread simply means "I don't care to see this". (I still question the utility of this, but OK).

I haven't seen any reason that "thumbs down" votes should be anonymous.

Does anyone have a argument for anonymous down-thumbing?

I've thumbed down dozens of topics to get them off my jump station, which is now a clean navigating machine. I meant no offense to the thread authors; I'm just not interested in the subjects. Why should I have to explain that to each and every thread author that wants to take offense to my innocent act of cleaning up my desktop? At the same time; I've thumbed up every thread that I am interested, so when ya'll clean up your desks it will have NO EFFECT on mine.

Doesn't it make more sense for the people who think it's a personal affront to learn the simple truth that it isn't?

Not to pick on gamers; but why should people who have no interest in games have to scroll through dozens of them, just so the authors of same don't take the innocent act of desk cleaning as a personal affront? That's just silly. As Cyclo pointed out earlier, while making the opposite argument; it doesn't matter how Craven wants the tools used; people will use them how they see fit. That being the case; why would anyone NOT want to clear something they know they have no interest in out of their own, personal, cyberspace forever? And what kind of a dolt will continue to take it personal, when they understand that that's all people are doing?

2 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

I don't know about Dolts, but I think some people who only follow one forum, or even mostly one or two or three threads are more readily seeing this as primarily some kind of hurtful thing. I'll go further and guess that many haven't followed all of the discussions on voting over the last few days, that made the clean-up aspect particularly clear.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

Quote:

I question whether it is a good thing that anyone can collapse threads for others (i.e. decided what you want to see before you have seen it).

No one has that power, Ebrown. If I collapse your last post, that only happens on my screen. The corresponding vote number moves once. It only collapses at user-defined thresholds IF users CHOOSE to use that feature. I don't... and you don't have to either. NO ONE'S posts or threads are collapsed before anyone gets there unless that "anyone" CHOOSES to have it happen that way. What's wrong with leaving that up to the individual to decide for his/herself?

0 Replies

Umm like my Michelle Obama thread.. I know it is not the most positive thread but neither were her untoward comments Ummm...

I would like someone to show me where I (a homosexual who has had a rather difficult life of it) have been "racist" or partisan in pointing out that I found her comment distasteful? I don't care what damned COLOR she is!

Yet I my post is still the pig pile for the RADICAL "partisan" liberals here.

I would like to know who voted this stuff down considering I have strictly only voted comments up (not a single one down) since the voting was established. Makes me sad but I am used to being kicked while I am down. It just shows the generally good nature of conservatives versus the nasty back stabbing liberals.

If you really knew me you would know I am not hiding behind my homosexuality… I have never even once ever told of the REAL hardships and VIOLENCE I have had to endure in spite of my choices in life. I would like to know what members feel the need to vote me down so I can return the “LOVE” in a concerted reciprocal effort…

One day the liberals are going to learn the hard way what a faithless, hateful DOUBLE STANDARD is like... Hopefully this November.

3 Replies

@RexRed,

Well, RexRed is going a pretty good impression of indignantposter, there....

Really good post by old europe, I think those are some really important points.

Rating system depends on many users to be effective --> removing anonymity means fewer people will use it --> rating system will be less effective.

2 Replies

Suggestion: Open (not anonymous) thread voting.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know