[Bbradley62]

nige1, on 2011-June-15, 16:44, said:

Why not? Most of those with large negative reputations have controversial innovative and interesting views

Or they've simply been behaving badly.

[Antrax]

Quote

a poster who made a self-proclaimed policy of upvoting ever -ve reputation post unless it passed his threshold of a post being worth of deletion by a moderator (therby abusing the voting system to match his own standards of a completely different target)

Why is this an abuse? When was an official target defined?
BTW, it seems at least one flame war broke out, though it's a very quiet one (profile comments and votes, for most part), so maybe I was too quick to rejoice.

[matmat]

Antrax, on 2011-June-15, 23:26, said:

Why is this an abuse? When was an official target defined?
BTW, it seems at least one flame war broke out, though it's a very quiet one (profile comments and votes, for most part), so maybe I was too quick to rejoice.

a flame war broke out and I missed it?
awfully un-troll-like of me.

I think the optimum solution may be to have a negative vote send little electrical shock to both the voter and the recipient; just a little jolt... a leetel peench.

(a'la "this hurts me as much as it hurts you")

[hotShot]

Everybody should have equal rights to vote.
Every other choice is hardly in a democratic spirit. If controversial views are excluded how do you plan to improve?
If someone is wrong you should take the time to explain why (s)he is wrong, so that (s)he can improve or ignore it.

Of cause voting can be abused, but where should we draw the line?

Isn't it also abuse when "friends" always upvote each other?
Isn't it abuse if "fans" downvote anybody who has a different opinion that their "idol"?

If this up- and down-vote thing helps us to get rid of those "lol" and "Agree with ..." posts, it's an improvement.
This forum reputation is mainly a popularity measure and not directly correlated with the bridge skills.
(But of cause championship winners are popular and have great bridge skills.)

Downvoting is new, people play around with the feature now, things will calm down in a few days.

[1eyedjack]

hotShot, on 2011-June-16, 00:38, said:

If this up- and down-vote thing helps us to get rid of those "lol" and "Agree with ..." posts, it's an improvement.
This forum reputation is mainly a popularity measure and not directly correlated with the bridge skills.

I think that this is one of the strongest arguments for keeping public the identities of voters.
Most posts which are limited to "Agree with ..." are predicated on the arrogance of the responder's belief that he has such reputation that his mere public agreement adds value to the thread. Non-anonymous upvoting has the same effect without thread-inflation.

[matmat]

1eyedjack, on 2011-June-16, 01:30, said:

I think that this is one of the strongest arguments for keeping public the identities of voters.
Most posts which are limited to "Agree with ..." are predicated on the arrogance of the responder's belief that he has such reputation that his mere public agreement adds value to the thread. Non-anonymous upvoting has the same effect without thread-inflation.

Strongly disagree with this. I think there are several posters on here who have sufficient reputation to get away with "agree with" posts; then again, there are some who do it who do not. I also don't think that upvoting will ever replace those posts, especially since people upvote for the strangest reasons, such as correct spelling, witty use of punctuation, or remarkably stupid humor.
And honestly, when I (and this has become rare for various reasons) post a bridge related question on here, I really only care about the responses of several specific posters, I actually wish I could block some of the others from ever saying anything in the threads I start. And if the ones that I do want to hear from only have sufficient time to reply "agree with the pinkbunnyrabbit," then so be it.

[Vampyr]

Would it be difficult for a little field to pop up when a downvote is made, so that the voter could, if they wished, add a reason? It sounds as if some people would like this.

[mgoetze]

nige1, on 2011-June-15, 16:44, said:

Why not? Most of those with large negative reputations have controversial innovative and interesting views

Noone proposed preventing them from posting. It is simply felt that the voting/reputation system should be based on more mainstream views.

[helene_t]

Vampyr, on 2011-June-16, 04:12, said:

Would it be difficult for a little field to pop up when a downvote is made, so that the voter could, if they wished, add a reason? It sounds as if some people would like this.

You can just post a reply.

[hrothgar]

Silly question about upvoting and downvoting

Are there any options to filter content based on voting results?

On sites like Daily Kos, I have the option to filter the material that I am looking at based on up/down voting.
(I have things rigged such that I only see messages that have been voted to level +2 or better)

Here, the voting system feels like a popularity contest; however, it really doesn't have any practical impact on how I read the forums.

I'd like to have a real reputation system like they use at Kos or Stack Overflow.
However, the existing system feels like more trouble than its worth...

[helene_t]

Well the system does serve one purpose: the number of one-liners and flames has been reduced because some of those people who would otherwise post one-liners now can just up- or downvote. So the threads get less contaminated. And threads that show up in the "new content" are likely to have real new content. Before the voting system, many of the new posts were one-liners.

[Free]

Ok, lets summarize what you guys want in the last few posts:
- people can only vote when they have 100+ posts (basically to avoid people making some new users to upvote themselves or downvote 1 post multiple times)
- people with a negative (or -100) reputation can't vote (basically to ignore the opinions of poor rated posters and avoid infinite flamewars)

By the time a newcomer gets to 100 posts, he'll have a bad reputation most of the time. Many newcomers need some time to adjust to the forum bidding style, the level that is expected,... 1 wrong/ridiculous argument and they get 20 downvotes. In practice most new members won't ever get the privilege to vote. And face it, once you get a bad name on the forums, forget to ever reach a decent reputation.

While both ideas have their merit, the combination is flawed imo. The -100 reputation may solve a little bit for sure, but I think it will be depressing for many newcomers because they'll get a very poor reputation in no time.

[mgoetze]

Free, on 2011-June-16, 07:15, said:

By the time a newcomer gets to 100 posts, he'll have a bad reputation most of the time.

Sorting the member list by most recent join date and filtering for at least 10 posts, you'll see the following reputations: -2, 0, 0, -4, +1, 0, +2, +1, 0, -8, 0, 0, +3, 0, +2, 0, +3, +1, +1, 0.

But I suppose it never occurred to you to check your facts before making this kind of claim.

[matmat]

helene_t, on 2011-June-16, 06:19, said:

Well the system does serve one purpose: the number of one-liners and flames has been reduced because some of those people who would otherwise post one-liners now can just up- or downvote. So the threads get less contaminated. And threads that show up in the "new content" are likely to have real new content. Before the voting system, many of the new posts were one-liners.

********.

[1eyedjack]

I don't "get" the multiple downvoting of this thread:
http://www.bridgebas...rious-students/

Rain has already posted that commercial advertisements are allowed.

I have absolutely no knowledge of the tutor concerned. It may be that those who are voting him down do have inside knowledge. Purely on the strength of the content of the post, however, it would not occur to me to vote it down. I might decide not to take up his offer, but hey, it's an open market. It is not as if he has concealed either his credentials or his charging structure.

I might be persuaded that downvoting is not so great an idea, if this is how it will turn out.

[EDIT 2011-06-17 00:04 BST (=GMT+1)] At the time of posting, the linked thread had a vote count of -3 for the OP and -2 for the first response

[mgoetze]

1eyedjack, on 2011-June-16, 14:02, said:

Rain has already posted that commercial advertisements are allowed.

Farting on a packed train is allowed too, but that doesn't mean people have to like it.

("Allowed" as in "legal where I live".)

[1eyedjack]

mgoetze, on 2011-June-16, 14:06, said:

Farting on a packed train is allowed too, but that doesn't mean people have to like it.

("Allowed" as in "legal where I live".)

I meant allowed in the context of compliant with the rules of the forum, specifically in the context of Rain's post explicitly clarifying the matter. Sorry that I had to spell it out.

So what you appear to be saying (and by all means correct me) is that the forum admin have decided that this sort of post is OK but as a forum member in order to express displeasure at that decision it is appropriate to vote down any post that applies that policy. Just wanted to be clear on that point.

[Vampyr]

1eyedjack, on 2011-June-16, 16:50, said:

So what you appear to be saying (and by all means correct me) is that the forum admin have decided that this sort of post is OK but as a forum member in order to express displeasure at that decision it is appropriate to vote down any post that applies that policy. Just wanted to be clear on that point.

Is there something wrong with that? Or would you prefer that you get the job of filtering every downvote and deciding whether the reason is good enough?

[Vampyr]

I found it a bit unsavoury that another member chose to make his very first post in support of the guy.

[1eyedjack]

Vampyr, on 2011-June-16, 17:31, said:

Is there something wrong with that? Or would you prefer that you get the job of filtering every downvote and deciding whether the reason is good enough?

Forum etiquette is what the forum decides to make it. That code could be made by the those who run the forum, or the members who participate, or some combination. If you want the votes to comprise a load of white noise then as forum members you could as a body act to that end. It is no more right or wrong than any other code, but I suggest that it would be less valuable.

At present there is no established forum etiquette on this matter (at least in this forum), and accordingly by definition nothing is "wrong" unless and until that is established. In most mature forums where these issues have bedded down, no individual takes on the responsibility of "filtering", as you put it. Unacceptable actions get stomped on by the masses.