Everything about this website and its content. Here you will find update announcements or requests for feedback. Questions about layout, functionality, content, and your suggestions are welcome.
wesley123 wrote:Upvotes aren't used rather well to my experience, and are more used as an "I agree" or "I like this" rather than "This is a quality post(and correct information)". As ratings grow higher and more people will reach the magical mark of 25 upvotes we will see more people receive an ability to downvote. My guess is that it will be used in a similar fashion.
Work is going on to require a reason for downvotes. Maybe we would need the same for upvotes as well? An "I disagree" option will not be available btw Users will also be able to check the reason for up or downvotes, eliminating the questions about "why did I get a downvote for this...".
Secondly, as for incorrect upvote use, perhaps we should also limit the number of daily upvotes for each user, to have them used more wisely?
Steven wrote:
Work is going on to require a reason for downvotes. Maybe we would need the same for upvotes as well? An "I disagree" option will not be available btw Users will also be able to check the reason for up or downvotes, eliminating the questions about "why did I get a downvote for this...".
Looking forward to see that implemented. I think having it for up and downvotes keeps the equality to both and doesn't put one or another in a bad light.
Secondly, as for incorrect upvote use, perhaps we should also limit the number of daily upvotes for each user, to have them used more wisely?
Personally, I hardly ever upvote, I do not know how that is the case to other users. I think that with the reason for the vote, people might stop voting on a post that does not fit any of those reasons.
I'd advocate for many less votes per user per day both for upvotes and for downvotes. When there are so many available, one gets trigger happy (I am as guilty as anyone), while if they are scarce, you think twice before using them.
Something like a quadratic function could work, with the number of upvotes being Sqrt(rep) and Sqrt(rep/10) for downvotes, both rounded down and with downvotes starting at 25 as now. That would give a guy like me 8 upvotes and 2 downvotes right now. Just a suggestion.
To clarify, upvoting rights would be gained at reps of 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49, 64, 81, 100, etc while downvotes would come at 25, 40, 90, 160, 250, etc. This might sound a bit extreme, but I think votes are entering some sort of exponential phase. Or maybe it is just a bad idea. KISS.
But the cat is out of the bag, and now most active users have the ability to vote and voting habits are bound to reflect that. We are going from an elitist behavior to mass behavior, which has its own risks, but is not necessarily a bad thing by itself, IMO.
So do people agree that the general tone of discussion is more civil and focused now than before the voting system? I expected hell after saying that!
I like to go to Ars Technica once in a while to check treads about their voting system, which they implemented at around the same time as here. Only that they get really massive amounts of votes everywhere, and have developed some more subtle formulas to manage them. Maybe a dialog with them could be good, Tomba? (Edit: No more Tomba, Steven from now on, and Aurich would be your go-to guy in Ars Technica).
But the general conclusion of the mods there is the same. Messy, imperfect, but there is no way they are going back to before it; as bullshit, offensive behavior and nonsense no longer get the attention they seek and get drowned down and everything is more civil. They also claim that much less mod action is necessary since they have a voting system in place.
i see people are downvoting suddenly just to downvote any post they can discover - probably because for some
reason they're upset. childish.
"Explain the ending to F1 in football terms"
"Hamilton was beating Verstappen 7-0, then the ref decided F%$& rules, next goal wins
while also sending off 4 Hamilton players to make it more interesting"
Manoah2u wrote:i see people are downvoting suddenly just to downvote any post they can discover - probably because for some
reason they're upset. childish.
I still think the down votes are being used in a childish way. There are plenty of people trying to prove their intellectual superiority. I do not want to discourage lively debates. The down-vote is just a knee-jerk tool in a tit-for-tat battle of ego's.
That being said, I used an up-vote recently to compliment a set of livery renderings. How about F1Technical adopting the philosophy of "if you can't say anything nice, then don't say anything at all." meaning up votes but no down-votes.
If someone posts something truly offensive, or trolling, then the moderators have the power to deal with it.
I believe limiting upvotes will make the voting system redundant. Remember that changes were made in the past to promote voting.
One has to ask the question what is wrong here: the system or human behavior? I personally believe it's the latter that needs to be steered. I suggest making subtle changes to get people using the system correctly.
IMO, the downvote part of the system does have it's merits. It acts as an inmediate defense against idiotic comments/posts/ads/... . Posts will not be visible at -2. Normal posts here and there get a -1 sometimes, but I never seen a correct/normal post having -2. In that regard it works exactly as intended. I believe the random undeserved -1 is an issue of diminishing returns to the system: you can't improve it further in one area without hurting it in an other area. IMO I rather have that random -1 once and a while to keep the benefits.
I'd like to point out here that my reputation is 0, but I can still see the options to upvote and downvote posts in the General Chat board. I haven't tried clicking on them, so I don't know if they'll work though. Also, those options are visible to me only in that board and no other.
1) Some user which is still in primary school and downvoted the seplling,
2) Some user which is getting tired of the off topics everywhere in all those 30 page threads and though that the cost of a part of a Caterham did not belong in the RB10 thread.
Pick whichever you like the most.
P.S. Not me in the downvoting seat.
P.S.#2 The system looks suspiciously self-correcting, both complaints are obsolete by now!
Spacepace wrote:Bad choice by cateram then considering there budget
probably because there must be their.. but still
nothing wrong with this system here..
it was refering to caterham in the RB10 thread. Atleast that is what i think.
I think someone upvoted for the humour in the first post you quoted: Which is kind of contrary to what you should use it for on a technical thread i guess. Never the less maybe it serves as a good example of where a line should be drawn in the case of upvotes.
Steven wrote:
Work is going on to require a reason for downvotes.
Assuming the mods could see the reasons for downvotes for a given user: Could it be possible for mods to increase the allotted downvotes per day for certain users who have been seen to correctly downvote unwanted posts?
Positive of this would be that you have trustworthy and logical people using there extra downvotes to correctly downvote unwanted posts.
Negative of this would be some people may go overboard. Although, in such a situation, you could just revoke the additional downvotes per day.
el-Magico wrote:How the F...! can this be up voted? in this topic..
beelsebob wrote:
Spacepace wrote:Bad choice by cateram then considering there budget
Where budget?
Although funny, I agree this one shouldn't be upvoted
And why is this down voted?
Spacepace wrote:Bad choice by cateram then considering there budget
imo this one is a bit on the line. Although the discussion around it made it clear, the post lacks argumentation and it is written in such a way that it writes "this is the case", where it either should be "this is the case, because..." or better "I think this is the case, because".
The way the post is written, it claims something as a fact(when it obviously is not) and closes any possible discussion, just because Spacepace's thinks something is the case.
I wouldn't have downvoted it myself, but I see very good reasons why to downvote it.
Users will also be able to check the reason for up or downvotes, eliminating the questions about "why did I get a downvote for this...".
