How is the forum rating system doing?

[hollus]

@Variante, since this has obviously been triggered by the +1 to your post being -1'd back to zero, two hours before the post in this thread. There is a big difference between a negative vote leaving the post with a net -1 and neutralizing a +1, at least there is in my head.
I checked your rep history, and you have two posts in -1. To both, I agree, very questionably so, but it wasn't those that brought you to this thread. The post in the Mercedes thread that initially got a +1 is, in my opinion, partially correct and partially wrong, partially informative and partially misleading, partially informative, yet so oversimplified as to not be informative anymore. In my opinion, I can't speak for everybody else and do not claim to be in possession of the truth. So someone thought it worth of an upvote and someone thought it wrong enough that a positive rep wasn't justified after all. This, to me, smells of peer review, and to me suggests that the system is working.
Also, when a post of yours in the Red Bull thread got first -1 and then got upvoted to zero, did you complain then?

I am guilty myself of being a serial re-zeroer. If I see a +1 or a -1 based exclusively on opinion, with no info content, I click it back to zero. Note that I can only do this once, if it is against the general agreement, it will be outweighed by the community. If I see a +1 given exclusively in terms of it being a funny post, I click it back to zero. Both are my little contribution to the T in F1T. And clearly, I am not the only one doing this, as your example proves.

Until recently, few people were voting, now I find that if I spend 1 day away from the forum, when I come back I find some posts rated, and those ratings are mostly a decent quality guide. Many good ones remain at zero, sure, but almost all posts with multiple digit reps deserved them, be it positive or negative, and anything with say, a +3, is deserving of a slower read, as it rarely disappoints.

In any case, whatever the voting system is going to do, it is finally starting to do it. Some 600 members can upvote and some 50 can downvote, so that votes are starting to be the norm rather than the exception. Looking forward to a live experiment on community self-control and keenness on keeping the house clean. And yes, there will always be noise in the system.

Edit: The "opinion" bit was added after some other posts were made, the initial tone came out a bit harsh, my apologies.

[Steven]

Indeed hollus. It was mentioned before that the more people would use the system, the more representative rating become, particularly because the majority will prevail, relegating the "noise" to a sideshow and less of a problem.

As for the work coming up meanwhile, it's on the list to make it easier to find (highly) rated posts, making the system more useful that it is now.

It was also asked before that downvotes should be somehow justified, either by requiring a comment, or a list of options so that the downvoter can show what the downvote is for. I'm inclined to implement the latter and perhaps make those reasons public too.

[turbof1]

That would be great. I have no problems with anonymous downvotes, but some sort of explanation would be helpful. If you are going for checkboxes, constrain the choices to 4, 5 options only, keeping it compact and quick. Perhaps add in an option to a custom explanation.

[Pierce89]

I don't think it should be necessary to explain downvotes. I can't even down vote, but I like the rating system and I feel that might reduce participation.

[variante]

This is a forum, not a "polling booth". Votes are supposed to be an help, not the predominant mean of communication (as it is in some cases).

As it is now, the rating system is working exactly as a free market: it generally works well on big numbers, but fails on details and has no sistematic contermeasures to prevent abuses.

@Variante, since this has obviously been triggered by the +1 to your post being -1'd back to zero, two hours before the post in this thread......and then got upvoted to zero, did you complain then?

This is off topic, Hollus, my personal events should not be considered at all, as i didn't mention them. Still, i have to answer.
My behaviour has been proactive about this rating problems. Yes, it was triggered by recent events, but that doen't make my proposals less respectable: i've justified them (thing that doesn't happen with downvotes...).
If you think the post you quoted was partially misleading, well, please, enlight me with a PM so i won't make the same mistake again.

I'd simply like to know why i'm wrong, whenever i'm wrong. It would be helpful for everyone.

[Cam]

In the Pirelli 2013 Thread:

Just found this:

Ecclestone told this writer. “If you offer me stolen goods, it’s up to me to decide whether I want to accept them or not. It’s not up to anyone to tell me what I should do. I should know what I should do.

Unreal. I stated that some time ago (page 80) and got a -1, but when someone quotes Bernie saying it, it's a +1.

I don't mind being down voted if I'm wrong. I don't mind being down voted if I'm perceived wrong. I do mind seeing misguided votes not corrected by members through their inability to be adult enough to correct their mistakes. But from the childish responses I have had in the last couple of weeks - nothing surprises me on here anymore. All thats occurred is my faith in the voting system (which I have defended on here vigorously) is waining. I mean - what's the point?

So being offered an illegal test is okay, is it?

Edit: thanks for reversing that -1 on that post. Hopefully it was the member who down voted it who reversed it.... we'll never know. If it was, thanks, hopefully others can review their down votes from time-to-time to ensure they too can reverse any decisions which may later be incorrect, or at least, too harsh.

[Pierce89]

In the Pirelli 2013 Thread:

Just found this:

Ecclestone told this writer. “If you offer me stolen goods, it’s up to me to decide whether I want to accept them or not. It’s not up to anyone to tell me what I should do. I should know what I should do.

Unreal. I stated that some time ago (page 80) and got a -1, but when someone quotes Bernie saying it, it's a +1.

I don't mind being down voted if I'm wrong. I don't mind being down voted if I'm perceived wrong. I do mind seeing misguided votes not corrected by members through their inability to be adult enough to correct their mistakes. But from the childish responses I have had in the last couple of weeks - nothing surprises me on here anymore. All thats occurred is my faith in the voting system (which I have defended on here vigorously) is waining. I mean - what's the point?

So being offered an illegal test is okay, is it?

Edit: thanks for reversing that -1 on that post. Hopefully it was the member who down voted it who reversed it.... we'll never know. If it was, thanks, hopefully others can review their down votes from time-to-time to ensure they too can reverse any decisions which may later be incorrect, or at least, too harsh.

In the same thread I got downvoted simply for saying Cam had a good point. I'm pretty sure it was just a disgruntled Merc fan. Oh well, I like the voting system, so I'll take the bad with the good.

[Cam]

...i suggest, as a countermeasure to wild and unjustified downvotes (the main problem IMO), to force people who want to downvote something to write a post where the reasons for the downvote are clarified.

100% agree. It's all too easy to cast a negative vote or a swath of them, willy-nilly, for no good reason other than a personal dislike. Not agreeing with a post should not be enough to down vote it - no matter who you are. What's that about casting the first stone? If you can supply a valid reason why 'this post should not be read by anyone' then down vote it and give cause.

My down votes are rarely used (well, very, very rarely), but maybe I should use them like the majority of other are? I'd prefer to subscribe to promoting what I think is good info and showing why with a +1, rather than demoting borderline info (obvious off-topic accepted). That is a better method - more carrot, less stick. So long as a down vote is used a secret weapon by members, it'll be a system open to abuse and will fail to encourage free and open discussion in an encouraged environment.

Support for a 'reasoning' for down votes, count me in - and I'd probably use it more often too.

[MOWOG]

From my perspective, I think the system is just mildly silly. At the site I co-own/moderate, we discussed this early in our existence and decided not to use such a system. I guess the heart of my objection is this well known aphorism: "I have never learned anything from someone who agrees with me."

That being said, I would give a +1 to Cam's latest post, directly above.

[Pup]

Cam, I think it's useless to agonize over individual votes. I'm sure you've had some up-votes that were questionable as well, so it all evens out over time I suppose.

Interestingly enough, when I started posting in this topic, I thought I'd give the whole voting thing a try. I haven't voted much, but I've found that the votes I do place are almost exclusively ones that cancel out others - things that I think "WTF? Why was that voted up/down?"

I've also noticed with my own votes that they come in spurts. I think that goes back to very few people being regular voters, so if you're posting in a topic that one of them is paying attention to, then you get votes; if not, you don't.

So, my advice if you want to avoid questionable voting? Stay out of the Mercedes and Pirelli threads.

Wait, did I just suggest that the voting system might discourage good members from posting?

[rjsa]

Is there an limt for upvotes per post?

[Steven]

Is there an limt for upvotes per post?

Every member is allowed one upvote per post, if his reputation is above 0. Hence the number of votes per post is simply limited by the number of members who are able to vote. There is no hard limit in place.
Downvotes are also limited at one vote per member.

More info in the FAQ: http://www.f1technical.net/forum/faq.php#f8r0

[WhiteBlue]

I get down voted quite a lot because I'm such an opinonated old bugger. I never counted them but I probably got more than 50 down votes just because people simply don't like my opinion or my style. You have to be philosophical about such things happening. It is a good thing that some fanboy attracting threads are not eligible to voting. It was a lot worse in the first four or six months with the voting system. In my view the team threads should olso be closed to voting.

[Blanchimont]

To me the best solution would be to disable downvoting and only allow to upvote posts. Keep the report button for cases of spam or insults. This would still inform you if a thread has valuable content, but avoids the "problem" of downvoting when someone doesn't like what was written.

[muhammadtalha-13]

I have a question. When do you get eligible for voting? What are the requirements?