110 replies to this topic

[Flex]

Thx

[caliban]

We have made good progress with integrating points and nuance feedback. Before we switch the nuanced system back on, here is another chance to shape what types of feedback users should be able to give.   The following were used on the previous round:
 

Positive 
Good Point +1
 Informative +2 

 Cheerful +1 

 Well Written +1 

 WellResearched +3 

 like +1 

 

Neutral

 Agree 
 Enjoying the show

 Needs references

 unsure

 Disagree

 

Negative 

 dislike  -1 

 Ill informed -1

 Off-Topic -2

 Dangerous, Irresponsible -2

 Pointless, Timewasting -2

 Unfriendly -1

 

 

Under the new system the 'weight' of each item can be nuanced based on its impact on T-points.  The values given are indicative of the rating's relative weight not of the actual points added or subtracted. 

 

Constructive feedback welcome on the existing types and icons, and on others you's like to see. Please refrain from pointing out that 'like' and 'dislike' are redundant, we need to have them at the moment as 'catch all' positive/negative buttons for technical reasons.  

 

[YOLF]

Dislike should be neutral IMO.

[timar]

With this system I would remove like and dislike. They are a too general category with those more nuanced options available. The good thing about this system is that it forces poeple to specify what they like or dislike about a post - or if they just subjectively agree or disagree.

[krillin]

There should not be an ill-informed button. Either write a rebuttal with better information or "like" one that already exists.

[FW900]

Am I the only person here who thinks the total number of options is far too vast? There should be fewer choices. On some studies with experiments with humans, if an option is offered and there are enough people, someone will usually choose a response simply because it is offered. Were it not there, they would have had a different response. In much the same way, this feedback system prompts people to answer and may result in a lack of quality in terms of appraising a post.

 

With the current like and dislike, I'm very discerning whenever I like or dislike a post. With the newer system, I'm more apt just to go with whatever I feel toward the post. I think there are far too many options and if you want feedback to be taken more seriously, the only thing you can do is decrease the number of them.

 

For instance, pretty much all of the neutral voting options aside from 'Needs references' could be disbanded.  'Pointless, Timewasting' and 'Off-topic' could be merged. Unfriendly could be done away with as a dislike carries the same connotations.

 

My honest suggestion is eliminate some of the new feedback options and merge a few of the feedback options.

 

 

Dislike should be neutral IMO.

 

At least according to this scheme, the disagree button is used to give a neutral disagreement. I personally am in favor of having dislike weighted negatively. For instance, if someone is on here, uses a double sized font with multiple colors and misspells a poor quality post, they deserve any dislikes and the negative feedback that goes along with them. Or if someone is rude, in response to a well written post, they deserve to be disliked.

Edited by FW900, 10 November 2014 - 10:21 AM.

[niner]

I'm unsure about 'unsure'.  I was never quite sure what it meant.

[xEva]

I like 'unsure'. It means that whatever was said in the post was not quite convincing.

I think it is more important to have the voting non-anonymous. Then even the simple + or - would suffice, but if people want it more elaborate, that would be fine too.

[caliban]

While in transition, the feedback system has been disabled altogether for a short time. 

[Luminosity]

There are about 90% fewer posts on the forum than there were three years ago.  At this rate it will not last another year.  Wow.  Handing people more bad experiences than good ones is one of the reasons.

 

It was so great when the "Nuanced Feedback System" went away.  Site participation was damaged by it, but I was hopeful that it could recover.  Proposed "fixes" made it meaningless, but there seemed to be a need to pursue the shell of this bad idea, no matter how destructive, like Obamacare.

 

I sincerely hope the "Nuanced Feedback System" dies once and for all, but it might be too late for the site at this point.  

Edited by Luminosity, 02 December 2014 - 05:37 AM.

[The Brain]

Do you keep statistics or are you just full of it ?

[blood]

So the options in green boxes add to reputation & the options in red boxes detract from reputation, whereas the options in between have no impact?
 

I still think there could, should be a slightly more elegant, compact, less over-whelming way of presenting the multitude of feedback options. E.g., if you click on the "A" icon in the text editing box, you get a popup menu of colour options. Perhaps something like that (a pop-up) could be implemented for the feedback options.

 

 

[xEva]

Well, since number of posts issue was brought up, I don't think it's so much due to this 'nuanced feedback' thingie. I think it's more due to the new requirement to 'introduce yourself' before joining in. I would have never signed up if it were the case back then. Though I must say that this 'nuanced thing', without the names attached, may not be such a good idea. Recently I saw a newbie asking a question, in the thread of his own, and someone clicked 'off topic' button on his very first post. How can OP be off topic? I wish I knew who done it.

[blood]

Recently I saw a newbie asking a question, in the thread of his own, and someone clicked 'off topic' button on his very first post. How can OP be off topic? I wish I knew who done it.

 

With anonymity comes mean behaviour.

Edited by blood, 02 December 2014 - 07:22 AM.

[Flex]

Its a real pity that there are lesser posts than 1 Year ago.

Hope theres a good solution

[blood]

there are fewer posts than 1 year ago.

 

Is that really the case, though?

 

Forum seems as busy as ever to me.

[Flex]

Honestly its just my subjective impression I could be also mistaken.

I see just a lot of activities in the Dihexa thread(s) but not that much in other brainhealth threads compared to ~1yr ago.

 

[pone11]

Well, I am very late to this discussion, but I would like to share an observation.

 

The problem with negative feedback on this system is that it is being used incorrectly to express the following use cases:

 

1) "I strongly disagree with your conclusion or sources or any part of your post" is being used as an excuse to mark the post as some very negative thing like "dangerous".   A site like this requires respect for different points of view, even ones that you think are wrong.   Address bad facts or bad reasoning in your reply, not in the rating system.

 

2) "I don't like you".   Apparently there are people here who seem to feel that simply because they don't like a person it is okay for them to then go to all of their posts and downvote them in sequence.  That serves no legitimate purpose.

 

Here is what I would like to propose:

 

1) Have as many positive rankings as you like and let people select them as they do now.

 

2) Restrict negative ratings to things that don't involve liking and only involve serious issues like:

 

* rule violations

* time-wasting

* dangerous

 

3) For negative ratings, make the person giving that rating WORK:  specifically they must clearly document their reasoning for this negative feedback, and that reason needs to be displayed in public.

 

4) Give the poster being downvoted a clear way to appeal that feedback, so that when the system is being mis-used for the use cases above, the negative feedbacks are then later deleted by a moderator.

 

5) Since this site seems to care about paying members, make the option to appeal negative comments part of paid membership.   It's a natural value-add feature for anyone who cares about reputation.

 

[pone11]

Regarding off-topic posts: the problem with this rating is the site's features don't allow the off-topic poster to be a good citizen and:

 

1) Edit the post to remove off-topic comments

 

2) Edit the post to make the positive case for why the comment is not off topic

 

3) Delete the post

 

Edit is only allowed for a short time after you make a post, and the off topic objections come much later.

 

Item 3) is particularly frustrating.  If you do make an error and post off topic, people start reading your post for months after you posted and keep accumulating off topic negative points to your account.   Had the site allowed us to just delete the post the first time someone indicated their objection to the content, people could better self regulate keeping threads on topic.   I find that the best posters will generally do the right thing when given the tools to do so.

 

If someone does self-delete an off-topic post, the off-topic ratings of that post should no longer appear on their points feedback.   A person who deletes an off-topic post is being a good citizen and doing the right thing, and there is no longer an off-topic post to influence the rating.

Edited by pone11, 04 March 2015 - 01:04 AM.

[caliban]

If you do make an error and post off topic, people start reading your post for months after you posted and keep accumulating off topic negative points to your account.

 

 

The same is true for posts that are considered bad for other reasons.  If people could take their posts back the forums would soon loose their coherence and utility as an archive. 

With the exception of a certain thread   LongeCity generally operates a philosophy that nothing is deleted. 

However, if a thread is of particular importance or high quality, it would be ok to ask a moderator to split out the offending post in the public interest. 

This request would usually come from the threadstarter and will be more likely complied with if they are a member.    

 

Regarding abuse see my earlier post.

[pone11]

 

If you do make an error and post off topic, people start reading your post for months after you posted and keep accumulating off topic negative points to your account.

 

 

The same is true for posts that are considered bad for other reasons.  If people could take their posts back the forums would soon loose their coherence and utility as an archive. 

With the exception of a certain thread   LongeCity generally operates a philosophy that nothing is deleted. 

However, if a thread is of particular importance or high quality, it would be ok to ask a moderator to split out the offending post in the public interest. 

This request would usually come from the threadstarter and will be more likely complied with if they are a member.    

 

Regarding abuse see my earlier post.

 

 

If a post is bad, then the post is bad.   Allowing a user to actually listen and respond to what people say by deleting the post does not make the forum loose coherence.  More likely, it raises the quality of content on Longecity because bad posts will be less likely to appear in a thread.   It should not be an objective of this site to preserve bad content.  It should be the focus of the site to encourage only good content and to get off-topic and "bad" posts removed, preferably with minimum involvement of time of moderators.

 

If you want the system to scale to a large number of users, you should let the original poster make the decision about deleting the post.   It consumes too much moderator time to have such things resolved by moderator when reasonable adults can resolve things between themselves without intervention from a higher authority.

 

Off topic subthreads that remain in the main thread can always be moved by a moderator, so nothing in my suggestion takes away from that practice.

 

I'm not asking to avoid abuse.   I'm suggesting a specific feature that will make negative feedback constructive and factual, and will give people a basis for understanding if the negative feedback is warranted or not.

Edited by pone11, 04 March 2015 - 02:33 AM.