Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Keep It Simple, Stupid

Re^4: RFC: Emulating the monastery voting system

by sundialsvc4 (Abbot)
on Sep 25, 2015 at 03:01 UTC ( #1142971=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to Re^3: RFC: Emulating the monastery voting system
in thread RFC: Emulating the monastery voting system

Ahem ... maybe not one of my better posts ... but, nevertheless, a pretty long-standing rejoinder to the notion that “there will not be a significant number of down-votes.”   This is not the case, and it therefore should enter into your plans for your system.

Within ten minutes of the posting of almost any comment bearing my name, I will see Reputation -n, where n varies between 1 and 7.   (This post, of course, will undoubtedly garner a higher count.)   Over the course of the days that follow, the reputation-tally will usually turn slightly positive.

A simple Google search on the term downvote AND forum is actually quite interesting.   There is a lot of human psychology at play here, and if there’s one thing that the Internet cultural experience has taught us, it is that human beings are far more competitive ... and hurt-able ... than they care to admit.   Most people would not put up with the things that I choose to.   Your voting strategy will have a subtle yet profound impact on the profitability culture of your site, and you should consider it carefully.   (Many people would never dream of putting up with the things that I do, for any length of time at all.)

I remain persuaded that your forum need only have an easy link:   “Did you find this post helpful?”   And then, to include a minimum upvote-count as part of the available search criteria.   When searching for relevant content, I frankly don’t care how many people pissed in a person’s campfire:   I want to know how many other people found it useful.   I do not want the numbers to be totaled or otherwise mixed, and I do want the ability to be able to filter by that (positive-only) number.

  • Comment on Re^4: RFC: Emulating the monastery voting system

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: RFC: Emulating the monastery voting system
by Your Mother (Bishop) on Sep 25, 2015 at 12:25 UTC

    I could tap-dance around it but we're past that. You are completely wrong. All I read when shopping is the bad reviews; to see if any hold water. Good reviews are non-sense, just like upvotes from strangers. There are many persons who *like* kęstur hįkarl. There are Bronies and Juggalos. There are legions of fans of music so stupid, awful, and moronic it boggles anyone who takes music seriously. A five star review is tripe and it might have been paid for to boot. 10,000 Likes for yellowcake is what got Iraq trashed. A system built without a means of dissenting feedback is a system for propaganda and mutual masturbation.

    Your posts have been straying back into positive territory lately because you've been posting more sensible answers. It's not bad stars, it's a reflection of what you put into this place.

      The signal-to-noise ratio is better in the 2-star reviews.

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://1142971]
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others having an uproarious good time at the Monastery: (5)
As of 2019-12-14 00:39 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found