0
   

Suggestion: Open (not anonymous) thread voting.

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Aug, 2008 03:44 pm
@old europe,
Quote:
Wow. Movie reviews? Really? That's what you associate "thumbs up" and "thumbs down" with?

I had no idea... After years and years of learning, I'm still catching up with American Pop Culture.

---

Yes, sure, approval and disapproval. So, use it that way. I don't see how that does any kind of harm. And besides:

"I disapprove of this thread" Not Equal "this poster is an idiot"

---

Also, you seem to have changed your argument from "we need an open voting system" to "we need different icons". Maybe not, though.


My preference would be for no voting system at all, for it does not really serve any good purpose from what I can tell. A differing system would be just as effective for allowing people to ignore posts they don't like and would carry no value judgment at all. But like I said; A2K isn't going to abandon a system that they put so much work into, so I'm trying to figure out ways which it could be modified to solve the problems.

Do you see McTag's post above? He's certainly not American, and understands that thumbs down is a negative connotation. Additionally, I would add that in the middle east it's an insulting symbol. I wouldn't expect a great reaction from our arabic users. The point is that assuming that people will give up their traditional views of the symbol and terms just b/c someone has decided to use them a different way is silly; many will not. And since an alternative system would work just as well, it's hard to see what the point is - other then the fact that it's a cute thing to program and implement and someone wanted to try it out.

Cycloptichorn
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Aug, 2008 03:46 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
It's wrong when your value judgments start to keep others from being able to see posts without changing settings.

They only have to change their settings once: Change them from "sort by most votes" to "sort by new posts", and forget the other option ever existed. It strikes me as easier than having a team of volunteer programmers rewrite the site for you.
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Mon 18 Aug, 2008 03:46 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
It's wrong when your value judgments start to keep others from being able to see posts without changing settings.


No it's not. That has always happened and always will.

When you read a newspaper, value judgments kept you from reading some things and you can't "change the settings". You can change your newspaper, just like you can change what websites you use, but you can also change the settings on the website.

None of this is wrong and none of this is fundamentally different in principle.

On the old site the value judgments were expressed through posts, and the most active topics were the most prominent. Now there is a variety of metrics for value judgment you can use.

For example, in the past the politics forum could be browsed pretty much only by recent activity. Now you can browse it based on latest activity, total activity, total votes, total times tagged politics and even "total views" (which is largely prominence outside the site when the topics aren't very active).

Each metric has a slightly different community culture and a slightly different culture in the value judgment, and votes don't represent the introduction of mob influence on the community, it has always been strongly influenced by the mob and there are just additional ways that it can be dissected now.

Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Aug, 2008 03:49 pm
@Thomas,
Quote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:

It's wrong when your value judgments start to keep others from being able to see posts without changing settings.


They only have to change their settings once: Change them from "sort by most votes" to "sort by new posts", and forget the other option ever existed. It strikes me as easier than having a team of volunteer programmers rewrite the site for you.


Okay, so explain to me:

If you were a new user to the site, who was looking for politics discussion; AND you hadn't read the manual, how would you know what the terms mean? How would you know to change your view? Please explain to me in detail. I think your answer is obvious if you already understand how the system works. It is not if you do not, and right now, if you log out, navigate to a page, and look at what it looks like? It looks like a popularity contest. There is no context for anyone to believe that it is any different without study, and that's an impediment to use.

As we know it isn't a popularity contest, and as it is being used to serve a function, why not find a way to serve that function without making it appear like a popularity contest?

Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Aug, 2008 03:52 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Quote:


On the old site the value judgments were expressed through posts, and the most active topics were the most prominent. Now there is a variety of metrics for value judgment you can use.


Sure, but the default is a popularity contest. This is what new users will see. And it shouldn't be that way. It isn't immediately obvious to a new user that changing the sort style moves it away from that. You ought to admit that this is true.

Cycloptichorn
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Aug, 2008 03:52 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Imagine this. Right now, you can follow the volume of posts and topics the site gets and editorializing by others doesn't sound useful to you. I get that.

But what if there were 16,000 (an example of Digg, a site with a similar system where users bring the most interesting content to the surface through voting) topics a day? Or even just a couple hundred instead of a couple dozen?

Harnessing the social power of your community is one of the only ways to handle volume. The only way this site can handle growth and diversity is to have its members have editorial control. That way the editorial control scales directly with the content and users.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Aug, 2008 03:55 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
Sure, but the default is a popularity contest.


It was always a popularity contest by default. In the past, the posts were the only popularity metric.

Quote:
This is what new users will see. And it shouldn't be that way.


You can control your own world here but, yeah, if you care about controlling the worlds of others you might not be as well served.

Quote:
It isn't immediately obvious to a new user that changing the sort style moves it away from that.


I'm not sure how a past change in a website could ever be "obvious" to new users or even why that would be desirable.
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Aug, 2008 03:56 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
If I remember correctly, you have voiced your concern about the symbol ("thumbs up"/"thumbs down") before, and Craven answered that the design was far from finished. Not sure. Maybe I misremember.

I do acknowledge that a "thumbs down" symbol has a negative connotation. I don't think that's such a big deal. I see how it might be a big deal to some people.

However, that's not a criticism concerning the system, as far as I can see. It basically just says: if the "thumbs down" icon was changed to a "hide it from view" (and the "thumbs up" to "display prominently"), you (and assumedly McTag) wouldn't have a problem with the system.

---

That's a different argument than the initial one, that the voting system should be "open".

---

As I said before, I can see why you would question the wisdom of displaying threads prominently that have a high positive ranking. Especially as a setting for first time visitors.

I'm not sure it's a bad, either. If you're new to the site, you might get more from threads that have been collectively voted up (for whatever reason) than from just seeing threads with the latest posts.

For example, currently I think a new visitor might get more relevant information from the How to use the new able2know thread than from the An Exciting Way to WIN a Vacation Package! More Details Here! thread...
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Aug, 2008 03:58 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Nothing you wrote in your last post directly pertains to what I was writing, and I am forced to believe that you are being deliberately disingenuous. So I'm going to vote your posts down from now on every time I see them. As there is no ToS currently, and people shouldn't care, it shouldn't make a difference to you at all. Right?

There's also a value judgment associated with the thumbs up/down; it's on your profile screen.

Cycloptichorn
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Aug, 2008 04:00 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
You (deliberately, I would bet) mis-interpreted my post. When I say that yes, the thumbs down has a social connotation that is different then how it is used here, and that it matters to me when I see it, that's an expression of opinion and from all appearances one that is shared by others here besides myself. In addition, it is an opinion which will be shared by nearly all new users to the site, who are not likely to have taken the time to read the manual before posting, because people don't really do that in real life.

Do you have anything to back up your assertion other than your own feelings?

I have no reason to believe that your opinion "will be shared by nearly all new users to the site." Certainly my initial reaction was much different from yours. Should we trust your reaction? Mine? Perhaps we should just let the chips fall where they may.

Quote:
although here's one that I would propose: scrap the whole stupid thumbs up/down system completely, as it's basically useless

This is definitely something I hear as whining. "I don't like it! I don't LIKE it!"

You do have a choice, though, of whether you subject yourself to it.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  5  
Reply Mon 18 Aug, 2008 04:00 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
Nothing you wrote in your last post directly pertains to what I was writing, and I am forced to believe that you are being deliberately disingenuous.


I thought it did, and don't see how you can reach that conclusion.
Quote:

So I'm going to vote your posts down from now on every time I see them. As there is no ToS currently, and people shouldn't care, it shouldn't make a difference to you at all. Right?


There is a TOS but it certainly doesn't purport to prevent you from doing that, and no I really don't care. Laughing

If that makes you feel better I'm all for it.

Quote:
There's also a value judgment associated with the thumbs up/down; it's on your profile screen.


I'll survive. ;-) I'll be confused as hell as to why you are so upset with me but I'm not going to let it ruin my day.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Mon 18 Aug, 2008 04:06 pm
@old europe,
Yes, but the spam gets pushed down the list plenty fast by people posting in threads they do like, when 'new posts' are the default.

You are correct that there are several different discussions ongoing here, and I'll attempt to split them -

- Is it necessary to use a symbol which is stigmatized in the minds of some and downright offensive to large segments of the world's population? (note: I don't think the second part of the question is a big deal personally but it was brought to my attention by an arabic friend of mine, who was looking over my shoulder while I was posting this morning, and began laughing at all the 'f*ck you' symbols on my screen, so it's at least worth considering.)

- Is it really enough to say 'get over your preconceptions?' I will try to get over my preconceptions, as I am not going to quit A2K over voting in this manner. But does it give a good impression to new users?

- In the long run, will sparsely-populated threads die as they are seen by less and less people?

- what is the argument against having open voting? I don't see the problem with it. Many other sites which rely upon voting are quite open.

And I guess a final question would be:

- What is the future of A2k? Is it trying to become a digg or reddit or something where closed voting and popularity determine conversation? These sites typically have a large influx of new items which are then judged by a population, before they move on to judging the next new item. This is fundamentally different then the prolonged discussion model that we used to have here at A2K.

None of these are questions which I deserve criticism for asking.

Cycloptichorn
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Aug, 2008 04:11 pm
@ossobuco,
Quote:
I think watching who voted what would be a large sack of worms released and generating more grudge stuff.

Echo that!! Shocked

I think that would be a Very Bad Idea...

Like, you'd get all these people unavoidably holding a grudge against you for voting down their posts or threads, when all it meant was you weren't interested ... vice versa too, for every name I'd see voting down my post or thread, I'd feel, "hey why does he not like this thread, I thought he'd be interested!" and irrationally simmer about that ....

If already now some people are taking the thumbing of their thread personal, imagine how they'd/you'd feel if you could see exactly, oh that person voted down my post, and this person's now twice voted down a thread of mine ... what an immense distraction that would bring.

Like, I can see how it could be used, tangentially, to unmask abusers of the system, but otherwise it would pretty much take the aspect people dislike about the voting system now - and intensify it.
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Aug, 2008 04:12 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
Is it necessary to use a symbol which is stigmatized in the minds of some and downright offensive to large segments of the world's population? (note: I don't think the second part of the question is a big deal personally but it was brought to my attention by an arabic friend of mine, who was looking over my shoulder while I was posting this morning, and began laughing at all the 'f*ck you' symbols on my screen, so it's at least worth considering.)


Youtube uses the same thumbs, as do many other sites. I don't think the internet community takes it in the way you describe. In any case I don't for a minute think you'd be happy if the symbols were merely changed.

Quote:

- What is the future of A2k? Is it trying to become a digg or reddit or something where closed voting and popularity determine conversation?


When did the voting close?

Quote:
None of these are questions which I deserve criticism for asking.


Agreed. But I don't think it's worth getting too worked up by those who criticize you for asking. I'm not even criticizing you and am baffled by your strong reactions to me.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Aug, 2008 04:17 pm
@nimh,
If the whole point of voting down a thread is to show that you are unintersted in it, there are ways of doing so that do not have value judgments associated with it.

If you don't think that previous value judgments attached to terms matter at all, then let's change the 'vote up' words to 'You rule!' and the 'vote down' to 'f*ck off!' After all, everyone should easily be able to learn that those symbols don't mean what they traditionally or used to mean, but instead mean something different. It couldn't possibly discourage new posters from jumping in. Right?

Cycloptichorn
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Aug, 2008 04:18 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
If you don't think that previous value judgments attached to terms matter at all, then let's change the 'vote up' words to 'You rule!' and the 'vote down' to 'f*ck off!'


You really see no difference between that and thumbs up and down?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Mon 18 Aug, 2008 04:19 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
If you were a new user to the site, who was looking for politics discussion; AND you hadn't read the manual, how would you know what the terms mean?

1) If I was invited to A2K by a friend who already was member -- which is how I actually did get here in the first place -- I'd ask my friend.

2) If I just surfed into the site, I'd lurk, see how people interact, and get the hang of how the system works from those observations. That's how I figured out several communities on Usenet.

3) If all this wasn't an option for some reason, I'd start a thread and ask around.

Either way, it's no big deal.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Aug, 2008 04:20 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
If you don't think that previous value judgments attached to terms matter at all, then let's change the 'vote up' words to 'You rule!' and the 'vote down' to 'f*ck off!'

Personally, I'd have no problem with this. Of course, I work from home....
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  3  
Reply Mon 18 Aug, 2008 04:22 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Ebrown wrote:
a thumbs down should be, in my view of how the world should be, reserved for things that are truly offensive or spiteful (i.e. quite rare).

That may be in your view as it may be, but that is not what it's about on this site. It's about allowing people to customise their own experience of a2k to fit their personal interests. So you no longer have to wade through wads of stuff that means nothing to you - now, you just vote it down, it disappears for you, and it wont show up for you again. Nothing personal, and it does not need to affect anyone else's experience of the site (everyone can determine whether they want their view of the topic list to be affected by the voting and to what extent.)

Cyclo wrote:
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.

Considering that the threads currently most systematically voted down are not controversial political threads, but word games threads, it seems that most users understand Craven's concept fine. I mean, who really disproves of word games? No, it's just that most people arent interested in them, so they vote them down. Exactly as Craven's definition would have it.

Cyclo wrote:
And why not? If you have the guts to vote against someone, you ought to be able to stand up for your decision.

I think this suggests a complete misunderstanding of the system. Apart from the odd time where you'd vote down personal attacks or such sludge, the thumbs will be (and already are!) used overwhelmingly to get things you're not personally interested in out of your individually customised view of a2k. It's not about "voting against somebody", and the last you want if you were just uninterested in something is somebody making it into something about guts and balls and standing up for your choice and (inevitably) having to argue it out mano a mano. Jeez, the testosteron.
ebrown p
 
  2  
Reply Mon 18 Aug, 2008 04:25 pm
The problem is that there are two different reasons to down-thumb a thread.

1) Because it is a perfectly good thread... but it doesn't interest me. (The games threads are a good example of this).

2) Because it is an idiotic thread that I object to philosophically. (The Michelle Obama thread, for example).

It seems to me that these should be two different functions.

I don't see why the first function should count in the voting, just because a lot of people aren't interested in real Math and Science, doesn't mean that posts that really deal with Math and Science area shouldn't rank high in the Math and Science area. (One of my practical complaints is that fluff is doing much better than content in this specific area).

I do not want to filter at all based on other peoples' interests. Furthermore, as a contributor (particularly as a contributer in science discussions) I don't to have my contributions downgraded-- which will mean less people read and respond.

I think the second reason is a far more reasonable measure to use for wide scale ranking. Threads that are merely to goad, or are offensive at their core should be easily filtered-- and I don't miss Threads with wild defamatory rumors about the wives of politicians.

I get the "personal choice" argument... but I don't buy it. This community is based around a technology. Decisions like this do affect how the discussions will happen, including what topics get the most responses.

I still prefer that down-votes not be anonymous... I think this would minimize them. But after this discussion, I have another-- more important suggestion.

We should provide a way to "hide" (collapse) a thread personally; Without having affect any other ranking. This should be completely separate from the button I push when someone is being an idiot.
 

Related Topics

BBB gets the message - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
Thumbing up and down: Abuse already? - Question by littlek
The 'I voted' thread! - Question by Cycloptichorn
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
The Problem with Thumbs up...or Down - Discussion by Bella Dea
Is lying to protect yourself ok with God? - Question by missmusical
Franken is Challenging This Vote - Discussion by cjhsa
US Voters: Tell us, how was it? - Discussion by Joe Nation
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/14/2021 at 11:40:24