Shoutbox

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chrono
voting on members instead of posts would solve all these problems u are talking about

---

I still agree with you (GFDs method), it would be much better than individual posts.

Blah... now I'm starting to lean towards the Guido system...

For those who haven't noticed, I've been trying to keep the first post in this thread updated with all the ideas. You might want to re-read it...

After watching on the sideline and after reading the thread (and rereading the old one) and trying to understand each point and imagine how the implementation would work, postives, negeatives (my brain is almost fried now ), I definaitly agree on the user-vote system, not the post-vote system...

Arguments for this are already given in the thread, so, I'm not gonna repeat them or give other arguments but in overall view user-votes would be more fair then post-votes imo...

---

EDIT:

After reading a the thread about some negative votes (and abuse of it) to someone and all the fuss about it, I realy need to reply with this though: That kind of anonymous abuse is very likely in a anonymous system...
And:

quote:

---

Originally posted by musicalmidget
Sooner or later he (and others) will learn that users can remain annonymous for a reason when it comes to reputations.  If there was any way of finding out who issued reputation points, then nobody would ever vote negatively.

---

I totaly disagree... If you make it public you prevent this kind of abuse and bad votes will still be made.
eg: I'll vote bad on someone/on posts if he deserves it. And I have no problem in making that public. Also personal grunge-vote would be less, because it will show up in the public votes, makeing the system more fair and neutral...

About the question of being anonymous or public: I like it to be public (aka eBay-system) And I don't think users would be held back to say their opinion because it is public (unless they know they are going to talk crap).

I just had an idea

From my favourite Site bash.org!!

Use Radio buttons to determine a positive neutral or negative vote.  I'll use it this way because i dont have to load up another page on my 56 Gay modem

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wabz
Use Radio buttons to determine a positive neutral or negative vote.  I'll use it this way because i dont have to load up another page on my 56 Gay modem

---

the current system has already radios for positive and negative. wdz should only add one more for neutral...

quote:

---

Originally posted by WDZ

Users [...]
- Respected users could have a high reputation even if they have a low post count.

---

I think this is also achieved in *my system* (I'm sure it's used somewhere, so it's prolly not mine ). You don't need many posts to get many users rating them. (Of course the more post a certain member does, the more known s/he becomes, but that affects either system-philisophy)

Anyway, could you put advantages and disadvantages in green and red in the list, so we have a better overview? Thank you

I like the post version personally because then people can continue to vote, and as some of the admins and mods may get lazy (no offence) the Elites will probably not get tired of it, due to they don't have any admin or mod abilities that they have to do. Although one thing that could be annoying is that only Elites and above can vote, personally I would prefer if more long-term respected members ,who aren't 1337, could vote as well because then we could get more views in the reputation

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anubis
I like the post version personally because then people can continue to vote

---

They can continue to vote with the user system too, but not on the same users...

With the post system, the voting opportunities are kinda unlimited... there's too much stuff that you can vote for. Voters won't know which posts to vote on, and which to ignore... I think they'll tend to give more negative opinions than positive ones, because bad posts kinda stick out and beg to be rated...

quote:

---

Originally posted by KeyStorm
I think this is also achieved in *my system* (I'm sure it's used somewhere, so it's prolly not mine ). You don't need many posts to get many users rating them.

---

Yeah, but take dwergs for example... are people going to search for all his old posts then vote on them? What kind of comments will they give? You shouldn't say "dwergs rules; I love mess.be" as a comment on one of his posts...

I suppose there's a similar argument against the user-system: a comment like "his reply pissed me off" that isn't associated with a certain post is kinda dodgy...

quote:

---

Anyway, could you put advantages and disadvantages in green and red in the list, so we have a better overview? Thank you

---

I guess so.

Edit: Some of the points are just informational, and some could be either good or bad. If you have suggestions for things that are missing from the list, post.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wabz
Use Radio buttons to determine a positive neutral or negative vote.  I'll use it this way because i dont have to load up another page on my 56 Gay modem

---

Where would these options go? You'd have to load a new page to get the voting form... it needs a comment box and everything...

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
I totaly disagree... If you make it public you prevent this kind of abuse and bad votes will still be made.
eg: I'll vote bad on someone/on posts if he deserves it. And I have no problem in making that public. Also personal grunge-vote would be less, because it will show up in the public votes, makeing the system more fair and neutral...

---

Hmm... I think you might be right...

As long as you have a valid reason (not a grudge) for giving a negative reputation, the user shouldn't be able to complain. Maybe the only way to really find out is to implement it and see what happens.

Do you think ALL votes should be public, even if there's no comment? Or should a comment be required? Someone could still vote based on a grudge and just not leave a comment... nobody would know what the vote was for.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anubis
personally I would prefer if more long-term respected members ,who aren't 1337, could vote as well because then we could get more views in the reputation

---

I agree, but those old respected members should be choosen carefully.

quote:

---

Originally posted by WDZ
Do you think ALL votes should be public, even if there's no comment? Or should a comment be required? Someone could still vote based on a grudge and just not leave a comment... nobody would know what the vote was for.

---

If a comment is required and I don't want to give one I could put "None", filling the comment box and submit the reputation. There should be an option / a way to make votes be private. And maybe all private reputations should have a comment, eh?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Choli

quote:

---

Originally posted by WDZ
Do you think ALL votes should be public, even if there's no comment? Or should a comment be required? Someone could still vote based on a grudge and just not leave a comment... nobody would know what the vote was for.

---

If a comment is required and I don't want to give one I could put "None", filling the comment box and submit the reputation. There should be an option / a way to make votes be private. And maybe all private reputations should have a comment, eh?

---

That defeats the point in making it public to prevent sentences as "blah said blah about you" or "you stink" I think...


I think everyhting should be public... That way, if somebody has a grunge on somebody. The negative vote (including the voters name) will show up for everybody to see between the positive ones. The voter can indeed leave a blank comment (or "none"), but it will still be suspecious if only he voted negative. And since it is public, we all can see who that person is (and if this happens again and again with him/her, measures can be taken)... I hope I explained it well

It's almost exactly as how the ebay-system works btw... But in the eBay system you can even select a user and not only show all the votes he got, but also show all the votes ha has given. This is an excellent system to find out if somebody's vote is something valuable or not (if he always votes negative, you now his vote means shit...) Again... because it is public, you will rule out many abuses...