Suggestion: Open (not anonymous) thread voting.

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

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.

Ah, but we have experience in that one, right? Not that the moderators weren't doing their best, but spam occasionally stood there for a while.

And if a particular forum got spammed, it would have required not only lots of people posting in that particular forum, but also posting to lots of different threads. If just three or five or ten threads were busy, you'd see the spam until taken care of by a moderator.

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.)

I don't think it's necessary. I don't think it's offensive either. Go to youtube. Are you offended?

^ semi-serious ^

Mostly, I think that it's No Big Deal.

Quote:

- 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?

Again, see youtube. I don't think users are disgusted because there are little thumby-icons on the page when they first get to A2K.

I think this one is actually a bigger deal for oldsters than for users who didn't know the old format.

Quote:

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

Sparsely-populated threads fell down rather quickly in the old system. In the new system, users can choose to ignore many of the (to them, uninteresting but) densely-populated threads and better keep track of the sparsely-populated ones by tagging them.

I think we'll have to wait to see what the effects will be. I don't think they'll be disastrous.

Quote:

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.

As I said before and as sozobe summed it up rather nicely:

sozobe wrote:

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

Wisdom of Crowds and all.

And your last question... well, I don't know, and my guess wouldn't be better than yours.

0 Replies

@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).

Quote:

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

Well, but if you dont like that effect, you can just turn it off! Just go to your preferences and set them to "no collapsing". Easy as pie.

Craven + co created this new site a) according to a new system that many of us like, but b), additionally, with a host of ways in which you can adapt your preferences if you dont like the effects. And they still get grief. My goodness - tough crowd.

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

- Is it really enough to say 'get over your preconceptions?'

Suits me just fine. At my age, I'm no longer the sharpest crayon in the box. Still, I did it in about two days. So how hard can it be for you?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

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

Not as long as some people are interested enough in those threads to bookmark them with their tabs.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

- 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.

It takes effort to implement and creates as much potential for conflict as it eliminates. (Sozobe and others described it earlier in this thread.) And, to turn the question around, on what logic do I owe you a report on my reading preferences?

Quote:

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

Everyone can criticize anyone for anything. It's called the freedom of speech, dude.

0 Replies

@nimh,

Quote:

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.

I think that if you asked those who have seen their favorite threads voted into oblivion what they thought of it, they would not be so positive about the system. I understand the point that you are making but don't agree with it. And as others have expressed similar opinions to mine, I hardly think that my belief that the thumbs up/down symbol commonly is used as a value judgment, not an administrative tool, is not one held by myself only.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

Quote:

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

Mmm... I think it depends on what you are (or Craven is) wanting to measure.

The measure is currently (it appears to me) one of collective enjoyment. Whether something gets voted down for disinterest or dislike doesn't matter.

I can't imagine why one would want to keep a separate count for dislike and disinterest. It stops penalizing the word games, but it places a greater stigma on the "dislike" button.

0 Replies

@nimh,

You are missing the point.

A thumbs down lowers the chance that other people will read my contributions. The thumbs down I give (because I am not interested) also lowers the chance that perfectly good, well-thought out and well-written threads won't be read simply because I am not interested in the topic.

My contention is that score does not correlate well with quality.

The net effect is that fluff (that everyone seems to like OK) will rise to the top meaning that the stuff with real value will get less discussion.

I gave the example of the Science and Math area which shows this effect quite well. Voting combined with tags means that lots of people who aren't interested in science are voting down topics in the science area that deal with science-- and at the same time voting up topics in the science area (i.e. with the topic tag "science") that have little to do with real science.

The real, interesting science topics are getting less discussion with the new system than they were in the old A2K.

For the record, I like the new site alright-- I am simply questioning the social effect of this one feature.

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

I think that if you asked those who have seen their favorite threads voted into oblivion what they thought of it, they would not be so positive about the system.

This claim strikes me as open to empirical testing. Why don't you ask a few and report back on what they say?

0 Replies

@Thomas,

McTag wrote:

Voting a post down is close to being a personal slight, and is in some cases it is intended to be just that.

Thomas wrote:

That's not a fact, that's your interpretation. Lots of people all over the new A2K have stated clearly that their interpretation is different.

Sure they have. And if you asked the same people if sex or race had any influence on their selection of president, I bet lots of them would say "no".

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

A thumbs down lowers the chance that other people will read my contributions.

Only if they choose their reading material by popularity -- which they won't, if the voting is as worthless as you say it is. And even if you were right: how would that be worse than forcing people to look at your posts if they don't care for them? Isn't that a tad imposing of you?

ebrown p wrote:

My contention is that score does not correlate well with quality.

That's possible. In that case, ignore it, and choose your reading material by some other means.

ebrown p wrote:

I gave the example of the Science and Math area which shows this effect quite well. Voting combined with tags means that lots of people who aren't interested in science are voting down topics in the science area that deal with science-- and at the same time voting up topics in the science area (i.e. with the topic tag "science") that have little to do with real science.

Possible. So people interested in science threads will not look for them by sorting the homepage by popularity. Instead, they will hit their "science" tabs and see what pops up.

1 Reply

@nimh,

Quote:

Re: ebrown p (Post 3363490)
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).

Quote:

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

Well, but if you dont like that effect, you can just turn it off! Just go to your preferences and set them to "no collapsing". Easy as pie.

Craven + co created this new site a) according to a new system that many of us like, but b), additionally, with a host of ways in which you can adapt your preferences if you dont like the effects. And they still get grief. My goodness - tough crowd.

Yes, but the decisions of others shouldn't affect my experience or the experience of others. The default should be for it not to affect others, not for it to affect them.

Let's say that I talk in the 'US, UN and Iraq eleventyxx' thread with three other posters. It won't be popular enough to make the front page. Most new users will never see it. It doesn't mean that it's not a good thread, it just isn't as active as some of the others.

Will a new user ever see the thread? Us few people who post in it will never be able to elevate it to the front page.

I suppose it raises a question: if the posting is by default set to 'most popular' then how is anything which is NOT popular ever going to get back up on to that first page? You can't make it visible enough to get new votes for it!

People shouldn't have to jump through hoops. I understand that many here are very positive about the new site, and I am generally positive about (most) of the changes as well. But I think it would behoove those who are positive about the site to admit that there are downsides to the new way of doing things as well, and discussing alternatives or solutions to fix those downsides should not be looked at as negativity or 'giving grief.'

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

Only if they choose their reading material by popularity -- which they won't, if the voting is as worthless as you say it is. And even if you were right: how would that be worse than forcing people to look at your posts if they don't care for them? Isn't that a tad imposing of you?

Thomas, new users will never get a chance to even judge the new material - they will never see it. How would they even know that they care for the thread or not, if they have to go to tons of effort just to find it? How will you know if an uninteresting thread suddenly gets more interesting, as new topics come up or new contributions would interest you? The answer is that they would not.

If the default were set to 'new posts,' it would be different. To the best of my knowledge, it is not, and Ebrown is perfectly correct: it is going to dumb the place down, as the light pap gets voted up and that which is controversial or unpopular gets hidden from sight.

If your votes only affected what YOU wanted to see, it would be a different story. But they don't. Maybe it's different for others, but I think regression to the mean interest of the site - and especially as people vote things up or down on the front page simply out of disinterest for them regardless of the merits of the discussion - is not a good thing, and does not represent a higher level of discourse.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

Quote:

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.

Why? Threads in the first, matter-of-preference category will be voted down by some, voted up by others. The second, universally disagreeable kind of threads will be voted down by all. You will see a difference in aggregate vote count between the two categories.

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

Quote:

My contention is that score does not correlate well with quality.

What makes you think the measure is supposed to correlate with quality? McDonald's is one of the most popular and successful restaurants in the world....

Quote:

The net effect is that fluff (that everyone seems to like OK) will rise to the top meaning that the stuff with real value will get less discussion.

Measuring "taste" is always difficult. The music industry is like this. "Quality" music is polarizing; people love it or hate it. So the middle ground is what makes it onto the air.

Quote:

I gave the example of the Science and Math area which shows this effect quite well. Voting combined with tags means that lots of people who aren't interested in science are voting down topics in the science area that deal with science-- and at the same time voting up topics in the science area (i.e. with the topic tag "science") that have little to do with real science.

Most people don't give a damn about science and math. I'll be more people watch "the Soup" than watch "Cosmos."

But I'll ask: What is your solution?

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Let's say that I talk in the 'US, UN and Iraq eleventyxx' thread with three other posters. It won't be popular enough to make the front page. Most new users will never see it. It doesn't mean that it's not a good thread, it just isn't as active as some of the others.

Uhm... and how, exactly, would a new poster have come across this thread on the old A2K?

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Thomas, new users will never get a chance to even judge the new material - they will never see it.

I disagree with your word "never", because new users aren't stupid. They'll figure out how to use different sort options than the default.

But fair enough. I actually agree that the default sort should be by latest post. But that's a much more modest and technical request than most of the other suggestions flung around in this thread.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

But fair enough. I actually agree that the default sort should be by latest post. But that's a much more modest and technical request than most of the other suggestions flung around in this thread.

That was my initial reaction to Cyc's argument, too.

But go ahead and try it: pretend you're a new user, set the sorting to "Most Votes". Then set it to "New Posts".

Which one is more relevant?

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

But fair enough. I actually agree that the default sort should be by latest post. But that's a much more modest and technical request than most of the other suggestions flung around in this thread.

Yes, but think of the problems it would solve, just with a simple change. New users would see those threads which were most active by default. People who want to clean up their screen and see only what they like have that option too, but it wouldn't affect the ability for fresh blood to be injected into old conversations.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@old europe,

Quote:

Quote:

Let's say that I talk in the 'US, UN and Iraq eleventyxx' thread with three other posters. It won't be popular enough to make the front page. Most new users will never see it. It doesn't mean that it's not a good thread, it just isn't as active as some of the others.

Uhm... and how, exactly, would a new poster have come across this thread on the old A2K?

They would have seen it at the top of the posting list, for those who use it put new posts on it regularly, and that places it at the top of the list. This gives people the chance to evaluate for themselves whether or not they want to post in it. Forcing people to search around for posts discourages this.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

Not really answering you, Osso.. . just too lazy to go back to page 1.

Maybe Craven could change the thumbs to Collapse Thread and just have one button. Then it wouldn't be taken as a personal attack.

Or he could have an explanation of what the thumbs mean under the boxes on the left.

My computer shut down a while ago, so I have no idea if this will show up.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

Quote:

Most people don't give a damn about science and math. I'll be more people watch "the Soup" than watch "Cosmos."

But I'll ask: What is your solution?

1) Separate the "this topic doesn't interest me" button from the "this is offensive/idiotic/annoying" button.

2) Make the identity of down-thumb donors public.

3) Enforce down-thumb etiquette with the loss of rating privileges for egregious thumb abuse.

Your McDonald's point is a good one... I have always found quality at A2K to be significantly higher than that of fast food.

1 Reply

Suggestion: Open (not anonymous) thread voting.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know