110 replies to this topic

[Flex]

Thanks

[tolerant]

I believe there was a phase when people received notifications when somebody rated their post, including the relevant post, the rating, and the name of the person who rated it. I seem to have missed that phase, but I would repeat that I would like to see which of my posts are being rated when my overall rating stats change. I don't need the name of the person who rated it, I think including that is probably a bad idea, just what post the rating relates to. I just can't curb the curiosity.

 

And also, how you say that the new system doesn't translate likes into thank you points. I find that somehow the thank you points catch up to the likes. It just doesn't happen straight away. But if the new system meant that likes don't translate into thank you points at all, I agree that it would be too high a price to pay.

[YOLF]

If you see someone who is getting hammered for a good post or just outright being trolled, consider giving them a TY point donation. This can be done in their profile under the thank you tab.

[caliban]

added a poll.   

[pamojja]

Thanks for adding a poll.

 

 

The rogue which gave me 3 down-votes within 1 Minute received within the last 10 days 30 / 20 / 23, and gave 31 / 45 / 88 points at the same time. Anyone came across a profile more angry?

 

Within 16 days the same person received 35 / 23 / 24, but gave 34 / 77 / 123 in total.

 

Caliban, with how many down-voting per day does the abusing of this system start?

 

Abuse: As before, if you think someone is abusing the system you can alert a moderator. The votes ARE anonymous, even to moderators, but administrators have the option to look 'behind the blind' if they actively choose to do so. 

 

 

Must have overseen my question. Therefore again:

 

With how many down-voting per day does the abusing start?
 

 

[YOLF]

Here's something else I'm thinking...

 

We can promote positivity internally using the introductions forum. As everyone must now introduce themselves, we (in this case me as I'm the regular greeter) give everyone a positive feedback or two on their first experience posting here. Of course, myself and anyone else who participates in the introductions forum would need additional votes. At present I think users get 3 and members get 8?

 

We can solve this by giving people extra votes for each post they make in the introductions forum. This will also help incentivize our users/members to participate there.

[Flex]

Same case here

There is someone Downvoting me in the recent the time.

No matter what and How I post..

 

See:

http://www.longecity...825#entry677825

Firstly I thought it was 2 people but after recognizing today that pointless/timewasting is one vote,

I must be one person.

 

So, can I make a complaint with this post or do I have to write directly to a Moderator?

 

 

 

Edited by Flex, 29 July 2014 - 03:39 PM.

[YOLF]

I have to say that I've been downvoted quite a bit when it comes to posting honestly about illicit drugs. There are politically motivated people in the US who want to see drugs made legal and don't want anyone getting in the way of their freedom to abuse drugs. 

 

Braindamage is bliss... 

 

I think moderators should be able to have an option to remove negative votes from certain topics, especially the ones relating to drugs of abuse. 

 

Maybe we can add an option to make a topic allow positive votes only?

[Flex]

This new forum system with so many icons for every mood, thought, belief, attitude etc. beside being confusing for new users, does not add any real benefit to forum discussions and is going to derail many forum threads with people complaining about the way their posts are labelled. It is already happening and people are getting annoyed or even upset (swearing) for the way their posts are judged. The previous system was much simpler (like/not like) and effective. Do we really need to have an icon "enjoying the show". Many of these icons are also repetitive or at least have similar meaning: like/agree; dislike/disagree; good point/informative/well written
I hope some moderator will look into this and consider to reverse or simplify the new system.

 

I guess this is a good point.

The good and the bad on the new system is that You can vote more precisely,

but it could replace the comments or overlaps in such a degree that people tend to write less and push a button instead.

In the negative voting case, the user doesnt know sometimes why did he got this rating which leads to upset reactions.

 

I would vote for this new system as long as it doesnt could cause a questionable feedback.

I have to say that I've been downvoted quite a bit when it comes to posting honestly about illicit drugs. There are politically motivated people in the US who want to see drugs made legal and don't want anyone getting in the way of their freedom to abuse drugs. 

 

Braindamage is bliss... 

 

I think moderators should be able to have an option to remove negative votes from certain topics, especially the ones relating to drugs of abuse. 

 

Maybe we can add an option to make a topic allow positive votes only?

 

Wow cool !

sounds innovative 

 

Thx btw.

If You ask me, I think You are doing a great Job.

I´ve seen You allready often responding to various posts.

This is in my view a very dedicated attitude.

Edited by Flex, 29 July 2014 - 04:06 PM.

[YOLF]

My pleasure

[caliban]

I'm not going to say this again: if you have a complaint about a abuse, write a PM to a moderator, or write straight to me providing as much evidence as you can.   

FYI: "Abuse" constitutes an extreme voting pattern where most posts of particular users are apparently singled out for positive or negative reaction with no reasonable basis. A proclivity to vote negative or positive as such, or in reaction to a particular theme is not abuse. Irrational voting is not abuse if there is no discernible pattern to systematically promote or damage the reputation of another.  Abuse investigations must be rare. I will not spend time, nor have LC moderators spend time chasing individual votes or mollycoddling bruised egos. 

Those people who find a negative votes upsetting, I strongly recommend that you vote for 'likes only' in the poll.

 

What I'd like to see in this thread rather than more whining about the reputation system in general (go here instead) are tangible suggestions what feedback options are useful.  

[xEva]

Sorry I did not see this discussion before. I read the thread and see that the general consensus is to leave the voting anonymous. I disagree. I'd rather have an option to see who voted what and how. I don't care about notifications though. Here are some points for  keeping the votes "signed": 
 
- Signing up under a vote helps to keep the number of redundant posts to a minimum: instead of posting, "yes I agree and", the signed vote does it.
 
- A voter can be challenged to give rationale for an odd vote. For example, I'd like to know  who was giving "off topic", "time wasting", "pointless" on this very thread? (to caliban and niner out of all people)
 
- Seeing how people vote is often more revealing about them than their posts. 
 
- I don't agree that lack of anonymity prevents some people from being honest in their ratings. If 'fear of retribution' is the issue for them, they can limit their votes to 'positive feedback only' -- after all, how to vote, if at all, is each user's personal choice. 
 
-Signed votes promote responsible voting and prevent abuse of the system or at least neutralizes the impact of abusive voters -- thus on some fora where the voter names are listed, some users manage to acquire such a reputation that to be downvoted by them becomes a sort of an upvote. No feelings hurt.
 
- I agree with  pamojja that there appears a contradiction in having the like, dislike, agree and disagree buttons while the voters remain anonymous.
 

Finally, imo this proposition is absurd:

I think moderators should be able to have an option to remove negative votes from certain topics

I thought that the purpose of a moderator is to facilitate the exchange of opinions and information between users, rather than to "edit their posts" to fit the moderator's personal worldview. And: how would you like it if an election commission would start fixing electorate votes?


To summarize, I'd like you guys to reconsider anonymous voting

Edited by xEva, 13 August 2014 - 03:13 AM.

[YOLF]

Sorry I did not see this discussion before. I read the thread and see that the general consensus is to leave the voting anonymous. I disagree. I'd rather have an option to see who voted what and how. I don't care about notifications though. Here are some points for  keeping the votes "signed": 
 
- Signing up under a vote helps to keep the number of redundant posts to a minimum: instead of posting, "yes I agree and", the signed vote does it.
 
- A voter can be challenged to give rationale for an odd vote. For example, I'd like to know  who was giving "off topic", "time wasting", "pointless" on this very thread? (to caliban and niner -?!)
 
- Seeing how people vote is often more revealing about them than their posts. 
 
- I don't agree that lack of anonymity prevents some people from being honest in their ratings. If 'fear of retribution' is the issue for them, they can limit their votes to 'positive feedback only' -- after all, how to vote, if at all, is each user's personal choice. 
 
-Signed votes promote responsible voting and prevent abuse of the system or at least neutralizes the impact of abusive voters -- thus on some fora where the voter names are listed, some users manage to acquire such a reputation that to be downvoted by them becomes a sort of an upvote. No feelings hurt.

 
Good points 
 

- I agree with  pamojja that there appears a contradiction in having the like, dislike, agree and disagree buttons while the voters remain anonymous.

IMO liking something means you find it interesting, while agreeing with it infers that you have some knowledge on the subject and find there to be no shortcomings. That's how I use them anyways.
 

Finally, imo this proposition is absurd:

I think moderators should be able to have an option to remove negative votes from certain topics

I thought that the purpose of a moderator is to facilitate the exchange of opinions and information between users, rather than to "edit their posts" to fit the moderator's personal worldview. And: how would you like it if an election commission would start fixing electorate votes?


To summarize, I'd like you guys to reconsider anonymous voting

 

The purpose of being able to remove votes is to remove votes that get reported to moderation or in topics where something like an illicit drug is being discussed and people are dishing out negatives because it interferes with maintaining their ignorance. The purpose of a moderator is sometimes more the role of a security guard. Sorry for any confusion. See these posts for more info 21 68. 

[Luminosity]

Scrap the whole thing.  Go back to using the English language to give feedback, under your own name, when you think it's important.

[blood]

Maybe some work/thinking should be done on/around the user interface & usability aspects of submitting nuanced post feedback? It feels a lot like 'work' to have to make a choice from 15 icons which are closely spaced & laid out in row. There is 'significant' mental/cognitive effort in hovering over each icon, waiting for the text label to appear, when deciding on what option to choose. The icon layout looks kinda of ugly, too.

Maybe just two icons should be exposed by default - agree, disagree. Next to that, a little drop down menu or expandable clickable thingy allowing the exposing of & selection of the nuanced options. This would mean people would mostly like or dislike a post (the default way of indicating approval/ disapproval on social media). On those more rare occasions when people feel moved to offer more nuanced feedback, they could click the expander and select the relevant option. This would possibly make the nuanced options feel more special and meaningful.

The way that a post's feedback is displayed (closely spaced, in a line at bottom of post) is difficult to parse (takes effort). Looks ugly, stupid & 'unprofessional', too. Hopefully someone will come up with a more usable way of displaying that info, also.

I also notice that we can now submit unlimited feedback in a day. Is this a feature or bug? In the past, wasn't it limited to 3 or 4 likes/dislikes a day? Presumably this was to prevent the savage/vindictive down voting of individuals who e.g. express controversial/contrarian viewpoints?

Edited by blood, 28 August 2014 - 02:23 AM.

[caliban]

the nuanced system will be rolled back from today. 

 

While strong feelings have been mobilised on the other side, overall the user feedback has been positive. However, we have not been able to integrate the new system with the point rewards so far. A fundraiser for this has been initiated.  

We are also trialing an alternative awards system  

 

The current move for 'likes only' is not a permanent decision, but another trial which may not last very long at all.   

[blood]

I've grown to like the option of giving nuanced feedback.

The new system has wrinkles/problems, but nothing that can't be solved, surely?

Edited by blood, 02 September 2014 - 10:43 PM.

[tolerant]

I've grown tired of the nuanced feedback system and changed my vote. It has really fatigued me in the long term, so that all I give now is "likes" anyway, I stopped considering other options at all.

[FW900]

I know it is a temporary decision but negative votes are useful for keeping people in check. They should be added again. I really think negative votes really are useful for when someone posts pseudoscience or an irrelevant post.

 

What I liked most about the use of negative votes in the past is that they were seldom used. It seemed that people only used them from time to time. Whenever an unwarranted negative vote happened, usually someone would give a positive vote to offset it.

[niner]

Did we lose all the ratings given under the nuanced system?  The likes-only system is kind of like Barney the Purple Dinosaur.

[tolerant]

Did we lose all the ratings given under the nuanced system?  The likes-only system is kind of like Barney the Purple Dinosaur.

 

Yes, I've been advocating that at least the "likes" accrued while the system wasn't functioning be credited to us.

 

Edited by tolerant, 05 September 2014 - 12:29 AM.

[blood]

oooh, the new "Likes only" system displays who liked a post...

Interesting.

A "Like" from a trusted source such as say niner or timar will definitely hold more sway (for me at least).

[blood]

I know it is a temporary decision but negative votes are useful for keeping people in check.

They can also be used for more shady purposes.

I can't for the life of me understand why _Tom has a -40 rep. His posts on drug treatment regimens for mental illnesses contain pretty much 'best practice', textbook recommendations... maybe he could provide a reference or two, but the content is solid. Maybe people object to him 'practising medicine' on an internet forum, but you could make that same objection about anyone who has ever made a supplement or drug recommendation here.

Would be interesting to reintroduce "Dislikes", but without anonymity... and perhaps require that people enter a one or two word justification for their 'Dislike'... the justifications could be displayed like a "tool tip" when hovering over the names at the bottom of the post.

Edited by blood, 05 September 2014 - 01:08 AM.

[timar]

While I like the new, facebook-like personal like button (say that three times ), I think that the previous "nuanced feedback" system also had its advantages. While open to abuse (e.g. people tagging posts they probably disliked for ideological reasons as "ill-informed"), it also provided a great way to rapidly give constructive feedback with tags such as "need references", which is now lost.

 

Hence, I would suggest to keep the new like button but simultaneously reintroduce the old nuanced system, without the "like" and "dislike" buttons. This integrated system would have the following advantages:

 

• ₮-points could again be gained by likes, but only through the new like button, when members are actually willing to endorse a post with their name.
• Therefore, the nuanced feedback could (optionally) be opened for guests.
• With no dislikes, there are no negative ₮-points, ending the dubious state that certain members accumulate a negative balance only because they write (ideologically) controverse posts. To do such members justice, there should be a general acquittance, resetting any negative balance to zero.
• Nuanced feedback such as "needs references", "cheerful", "agree" and "disagree" could still be given, but below the "prestige" level of the personal like button and therefore not affecting the ₮-points. It would be understood that anonymously "agreeing" with a post is a less strong endorsement than to personally like it.
• As both feedback options would work independently, you could "like" a post and still tagg it with a more nuanced attribute.
• Last but not least, we would keep the existing votes from both the old/new and balanced system (except the "likes" and "dislikes" from the nuanced system, which were rarely used anyway)

Edited by timar, 05 September 2014 - 10:04 AM.

[FW900]

 

I know it is a temporary decision but negative votes are useful for keeping people in check.

They can also be used for more shady purposes.

I can't for the life of me understand why _Tom has a -40 rep. His posts on drug treatment regimens for mental illnesses contain pretty much 'best practice', textbook recommendations... maybe he could provide a reference or two, but the content is solid. Maybe people object to him 'practising medicine' on an internet forum, but you could make that same objection about anyone who has ever made a supplement or drug recommendation here.

Would be interesting to reintroduce "Dislikes", but without anonymity... and perhaps require that people enter a one or two word justification for their 'Dislike'... the justifications could be displayed like a "tool tip" when hovering over the names at the bottom of the post.

 

 

Valid point but visible dislikes could create hostility between the poster and the person who disliked the post; leading to lead to retributive disliking. One may see that someone disliked their post and then proceed to dislike the disliker's future posts.

 

 

I personally think this system would be best:

 

Effects ₮-points:

 

     + Visible Like

     - Visible Dislike

 

No effect on ₮-Points:

[Secret votes/ anonymous votes]

• Agree
• Disagree

 

Additionally, I think the post should show the balance of current likes/dislikes and the balance of agrees/disagrees.

 

I'd be pleased with this or the original system. Even the nuanced feedback is better than the current like-only button.

[Application]

 

 

I know it is a temporary decision but negative votes are useful for keeping people in check.

They can also be used for more shady purposes.

I can't for the life of me understand why _Tom has a -40 rep. His posts on drug treatment regimens for mental illnesses contain pretty much 'best practice', textbook recommendations... maybe he could provide a reference or two, but the content is solid. Maybe people object to him 'practising medicine' on an internet forum, but you could make that same objection about anyone who has ever made a supplement or drug recommendation here.

Would be interesting to reintroduce "Dislikes", but without anonymity... and perhaps require that people enter a one or two word justification for their 'Dislike'... the justifications could be displayed like a "tool tip" when hovering over the names at the bottom of the post.

 

 

Valid point but visible dislikes could create hostility between the poster and the person who disliked the post; leading to lead to retributive disliking. One may see that someone disliked their post and then proceed to dislike the disliker's future posts.....

I strongly agree that all feedback should be anonymous.

Otherwise people who are particularly concerned about what others think and those who have the misfortune of rating their posts will go through unnecessary stress. This was my experience here last time feedback was de-anonymized- annoying PMs from people I had rated seeking explanations. 

If people want to argue, explain, or justify an opinion, they will post, not hit a feedback.

[FW900]

Looks like we're back to the original! Well, it's been an interesting experience trying out all the post feedback functions but personally, I'm glad to see the old one back.

 

LC Moderators, is the old post feedback system final (like/dislike) or is it temporary and plans are still in the works for a different feedback system?

[YOLF]

I was kind of liking the like only version. But it's not the most important thing we have going on. Have you guys seen our latest fundraiser?

[Flex]

I cant remove my rating and this is for me not so great.

What are the reasons to do it so ?

 

[niner]

I cant remove my rating and this is for me not so great.

What are the reasons to do it so ?

 

These are plug-in software mods, as I understand it, and we may or may not even have the ability to modify them.  The fact that the rating can't be undone is a serious defect in this version.  I hope that IPB will have a fully-supported feedback system at some point in the future, and that it will have this problem fixed.