Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Think about Loose Coupling

Problems that could use solving

by tilly (Archbishop)
on Jun 23, 2001 at 04:57 UTC ( #90910=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to Re: Challenging votes
in thread Challenging votes

You ask what problem would be solved, and then give an instance that I think it would be least effective for. Well here are a list of problems that I think this would be good for.
  1. Make it harder for someone to distort the system with vote-bots. And if someone wrote a better bot, make it possible for someone other than vroom to get an idea who some of the bots probably are.
  2. Fairly frequently we have people who say, "What didn't people like about that node?" They want feedback, but the current system keeps them from getting it. The best anyone can say is that people vote for all sorts of reasons. Well this would provide a way to get that feedback.
  3. Some people use the anonymity of their votes to snipe at others and vote indiscriminantly. We often call this "personality voting". Often the personality votes come very fast. This would reduce that abuse.
  4. Periodically monks have become frustrated at being completely powerless when faced with voting abuses. This would give them a fairly low-impact tool (compared with merlyn's "Other Users" snapshot anything is low-impact) for doing something. Not a very effective or powerful tool. But something is better than nothing.
Now one point I should make. I structured the proposal explicitly with the idea that the vast majority of your votes remain anonymous, and of the fraction that do not remain anonymous, you get considerable choice. I think that the privacy issues are preserved. What has changed is that there is some accountability for the "faceless hordes". Is that worth potential for conflict that comes with accountability? I think so, but then again I was on the wrong side of the current system right at the start, and in every case where it has been argued, I have been on the side of making things more accountable...

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Problems that could use solving
by Vynce (Friar) on Jun 23, 2001 at 13:57 UTC

    2. Fairly frequently we have people who say, "What didn't people like about that node?" They want feedback, but the current system keeps them from getting it.
    with all due respect, tilly, i think this is just not true. the current system doesn't facilitate it, but it in no way prevents it. most nodes can be edited easily; others you might have to put in an edit request or post a reply; but you can certainly ask, "I am very interested in why people downvoted this; i honestly thought it was a good node and would appreciate feedback. chatterbox /msg or AM replies welcome."

    granted that if it is a separate node, that request is likely to get downvoted by at least all the people who downvoted the original; sometimes you just have to live with it.


    (i got an explanation of a downvote once; i was happy to get it. i looked at the node again and decided that they were wrong, but at least i knew why they did it. but i suspect i'd not be any happier if i got the "i didn't like what you said in the chatterbox earlier" "i think you're rather an arrogant jerk for a newbie" and "just shut up" explanations that would go with the majority of the downvotes i've received.)

      With all due respect, if you put out a request for an explanation of why you were downvoted and got an answer, that is very unusual. Certainly I have both been at the center of and watched quite a few controversies caused by someone who was downvoted ask for explanation and not get it.

      While you can ask, it doesn't seem to work.

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://90910]
and all is quiet...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others rifling through the Monastery: (7)
As of 2018-05-22 19:59 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?