Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
"be consistent"

Re: Challenging votes

by footpad (Monsignor)
on Jun 23, 2001 at 02:49 UTC ( #90892=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to Challenging votes

I assume someone got personality voted again?

Your idea is interesting and might work, but I'm not sure yet. Let's look at a few different things:

  • How will this affect XP's granted by voting?

    I've heard there's a votelog somewhere. Is there also a log of XP's granted by voting? Would the voter lose any XP's granted for unconfirmed or inappropriate votes? Would the votee regain XP's lost by unconfirmed downvotes or lose XP's for unconfirmed upvotes?

    If not, then you really haven't done much to mute the personality voters. You've simply limited their annoyance factor by increasing the burden of work of everyone who votes.

    However, if these XP's are balanced out/in, I wonder if that doesn't make the XP system really unpredictable. You might be a Saint one day and an initiate the next. Okay, that's a bit extreme, but I think you get the idea.

  • It seems like this would create a huge burden of work for someone, whether vroom or whoever. Aren't there better ways to invest our development resources? There have been a lot of good suggestions made over the past several months. Thankfully, some have been implemented. Unfortunately, others haven't. I'm not sure what the ToDo list looks like, but I imagine it's pretty huge.

  • Like power deregulation in California, it might back-fire severely. Ovid mentioned that he's not sure he really wants to be able to challenge votes because he's not sure he really wants to know. Another editor recently expressed similar misgivings privately to the team.

    We may find that we really don't want to learn who voted us down and why. Granted, there are times when it can help, such as when you and I discussed a node of mine that you downvoted, but I wonder if there would be other times where it might increase friction between certain monks. (And, as you know, friction generates heat.)

  • I don't think it'll really stop the votebot/personality voter problem. After all, it seems like it would be pretty easy to register a new handle and work it to earn votes. You might chase those folks away for a time, but they'll only resurface under a different handle or find another way to abuse the system.

    In other words, I don't think it'll catch the rat(s) I think you're trying to chase down, the one's defacing doors (as merlyn once put it).

I agree that there is a problem with one or more people, but I'm not convinced that this is the best way to solve it. Perhaps a better idea would be to simply limit the number of downvotes available in a given time frame to 1/10th (or 1/20th) the total number of votes granted during that time period. I'm not completely satisfied by that, but it does prevent those that voted from having to explain their votes. Also, it seems like it:

  1. Is a simpler implementation
  2. Limits the effects a troll can have
  3. Still allows you to properly downvote nodes that truly deserve it
  4. Doesn't add any burden to the people who are participating nicely.
  5. Preserves voter anonymity.

Again, I'm not convinced that's a better solution. However, if we must have a compromise, perhaps this one will be more palatable.


Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re3: Challenging votes
by pmas (Hermit) on Jun 23, 2001 at 07:30 UTC
    I read original idea of tilly at work, was tempted to respond (agree), then read disagreement of others and I realised I tend to agree with them, too. So I "left issue in back burner", and now, close to midnight, after reading more responses, here is my 0.02.

    First, as petdance said, let's agree on what problem we want to solve, and what we want ot avoid.

    I guess tilly and Masem want voting be more responsible, because he feels some monks sometimes abuse the system. Goal is to clean the monastery a little, make place to be more revarding. If so, it's worth trying.

    I understand that if initiate monk will get -- for no reason (by votebot?), s/he can get frustrated, forget about monastery and we just lost one soul looking for enlightment.

    I also agree with footpad that this is probably not the most important feature, and maybe it is not worth too much development effort.

    Still, from many posts in a month I am here in monastery I got feeling that sometimes many of you would like to know what happened with voting process, and why, so slight need to educate (to teach a lesson?... :o) ) our voting comunity is apparent here.

    So, IMHO, question is: how to accomodate "cleanup" need without too much code development and too much disturbance for monks who do not want to participate?

    I think what might work is: after (monk on high enough experience level) voted, together with reputation s/he shold see also ++ and -- votes(like: 17 = 22-5). If this is not stored already, s/b not too complicated to add.

    If I see -- votes where in my opinion they should not be, I can spend one more vote on chalenging the node. (another vote, or special votes like 10% of my total votes). Or directly while chalenging, you may decide to chalenge only ++ or -- votes.

    If enough monks will decide voting on suspicious node should be chalenged, it's probably worth doing. We can set high treshold so it will not happen too often. Or only 3 (or so) most often chalenged nodes each day will be precessed further.

    Now, How to get explanation of votes without too much development?

    Maybe someone can just run report manually (ID of monks who downvoted the chalenged node) and send report via email to one (or all) of the monks who decided to chalenge node. Then they can meet via email and decide I guess /msg or email "unbehaving' monks that there are issues with the vote. I think this might be enough, just to let them know that voting is anonymous, but misbehaving is not.

    I whink we can play idea that XP points, our reputation, is important for participants, and they will not be pleased to respond too often "I made honest mistake" "I clicked wrong button" etc. Even if they behave like children, they will prefer other will think about them as mature persons.

    And after we found out and resolve couple ot these isues, we will know the pattern and we will have better feeling what we need and how to automate it. And in this first phase, without automation, only truly dedicated will do it. After a week or two doing it manually (resolving 20-30 nodes) we will know if it makes sense and how to do it - how to automate it, if feasible.

    Maybe "misbehaving" monk can get "black points", which will be in his/her account for some time until expire.

    So if we can figure out how to make our stay here Monastery better, safer and more pleasant experience without too much need of development from vroom, let's do it.

    And if Ovid will need to overcame some temptation in the process, so be it - he can be tempted, he is saint, isn't he? :o)

    I agree with your arguments, even if you do not agree with each other. And I am glad I can participate in such a comunity where is more than single correct opinion and more than one single answer. Now, go ahead and downvote me, if you feel so, I know I am not consistent. This is not black-or-white, here we do not have single correct syntax: we are dealing with life, with humans, not with computers.

    And, by the way TIMTOWTDI...

    And soon, we will have no nodes to chalenge - and everybody is happy... :o)

    Update: I probably will not chalenge votes myself - I do hope on my level it will not be allowed. However, maybe strugling with temptations might improve my karma... :o)


    To make errors is human. But to make million errors per second, you need a computer.

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://90892]
and all is quiet...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others meditating upon the Monastery: (8)
As of 2018-01-17 12:18 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?
    How did you see in the new year?

    Results (198 votes). Check out past polls.