One of the things I spend more time than I should worrying about are readers that have acquired voting rights and use those rights to unnecessarily downvote comments, thereby creating a bad air in certain parts of the site.
We can quickly see which readers are habitual downvoters, but I'm wondering if making that data available to everyone on the site would help from an accountability perspective?
Would making this data public be a good or bad idea in the long run?
I'll shut up and listen.
Accountability is always a good thing Jason. I'm all in with this idea.
I think it would be a good idea to show the votes. Might expose some of the trolls out there that just downvote to get people fired up.
sounds good to me
Seems like a good idea. Plus, you are the boss.
I like it!
Yes please!
Jason,
While this is a good idea I do question the "counting" that goes into it. Is the displayed numbers inclusive of helmet stickers given to people thread topics and voting on comments or is it mutually excusive for one or the other? Please specify. Thanks!
You tell the SEC when they can learn to read and write, then they can figure out what we're doing. - Gordon Gee
The numbers shown above reflect the number of upvotes/downvotes the user has cast on comments, forum topics and blog posts.
Just don't try to take away my guns from my cold, dead hands!
"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." Charlton Heston(1924-2008)
I'm good either way with this.
But... playing devil's advocate for a minute. I can see a scenario where someone may have a few more downvotes than upvotes being un-necessarily labeled as a troll. There could be very valid reasons for each downvote that person has cast.
Self-policing by anonymous (mostly) users could be a slippery slope.
I would be more in favor of keeping this type of regulation to the admin folks at 11W.
IMHO.
GO BUCKS!
I think if you're within reason on your downvote to upvote ratio, most people won't care.
-The Aristocrats!
You could simply identify those that have downvoted multiple times in a day or other specified time period by a number, asterisk, or other notation. That way you would only identify the over-indulgers. Say if someone handed out 5 downvotes that day, week or some other time frame, identify them with an asterisk beside their name, 10 downvotes 2 asterisks and at some point they would be dealt with by downvotes themselves by the members or by you folks. Just a thought.
The only hiccup I see is this: It is encouraged to upvote more than downvote. However, I'm sure there are a few people out there that don't do much voting, but when they see a unanimously horrible post, they join the masses and downvote it. This would make that user look like a habitual downvoter, when that may not be the case.
I'm sure this is by far not the norm and relatively uncommon, but I have a habit of looking for the instances that may slip through the cracks.
All in all, I think it's a good idea, however.
That is actually a design goal. When we introduced voting and in nearly every communication on the topic since, I've tried to stress that this system works best when people are upvoting more than they downvote.
There are plenty of times when a downvote is warranted. Likewise, there are plenty of informative, funny, or otherwise enlightening comments that are worthy of an upvote.
We're more concerned with people that have upvote/downvote ratios along the lines of 1:2 or greater.
Just for clarification, I didn't mean that upvoting more than downvoting was the hiccup... it was a preface to what followed.
I would prefer an agree and disagree function over the current system. That way you can voice displeasure without downvoting. People may get a more reasonable gauge on their comment.
I agree... I don't post a ton but read a lot. At the same time, for all the posting that occurs in a given day I would say I rarely find anything that I feel is worth up voting. Some good posts for sure but most time just the mundane piling on of what someone else had already said. For me to give an up vote it has to be very thought provoking and/or so hilarious I laugh out loud. That's just my view of worthiness of an up vote. Yet if some is trolling and/or attacking people just cause they provided an opinion I might down vote. That said I don't down vote a lot however I would suggest the sheer number of threads of people trolling or attacking people is greater than the thought provoking convo or laugh out loud hilarious posts. So I probably would be considered a troll because I have down voted a few more times than I up voted albeit probably few of each.
Maybe show it once a poster has xxxxx number of posts ( set a minimum number of posts). Kind of like a MLB batting champ has to have so many at bats before being considered in the running...
"Tough times don't last, tough people do" - Gregory Peck
More important to me than the number of downvotes/upvotes cast is if one user seeks out and downvotes a specific other user. Those kind of vendetta votes are what really needs to be stopped.
Obviously you wouldn't want to publically post it, but is there a way the staff can be notified if one user downvotes a particular other user more than a set number of times?
The upvote/downvote display isn't a bad idea, so long as people realize it is a stat. Like any other stat it can be misleading (see the comment somebody posted above about someone who rarely votes unless they see a particularly rude post. That would look like a habitual downvoter, but is actually legit).
You're right on the money about the "vendetta voter" being more annoying than the trolls... We can easily see the trolls for what they are (two or three recent threads come to mind), but there are clearly folks who downvote someone habitually because they disagree with a particular opinion or point of view.
I habitually downvote posts with no content other than "who downvoted me?" or "I upvoted you" because those posts never would have been made prior to the implementation of the voting system and I dislike how the voting system has changed the postings on the site (I'm OK with being in a minority here, but that's how I feel). I don't care if voting records are shown, but I would imagine that it will make people assume a lot of wrong things and could spiral out of control like the voting system has, IMO.
To be fair that strategy in voting is in contrast to the spirit of voting put forth by the staff and probably leads to more people asking why they're getting down voted when they probably don't deserve it
I used to do the same Optimistic, but my finger got too sore.
The system is already out of control, with the sensational and the popular far outvoting the thoughtful .... let's call it high school for shorthand. Add in the homer factor which harshly penalizes independent thought and finish it with the death sentence for anyone who criticizes Urban Meyer and you have the basic parameters in place.
I have taken to trying to please myself, and take immense, albeit perverted pleasure in reading my own posts and congratulating myself on how funny/analytical/brilliant I am.
That said, I still yearn for outside approval!!!
GB, I also take perverted pleasure in reading your posts and congratulating you on how funny/analytical/brilliant you are. ;-)
Mom??
No, but just thought you might need a little outside approval.
After all the discussion about upvotes/downvotes, isn't the system about self-esteem anyway (sarcasm and irony!)
The upvote algorithm consists of posting funny gifs (relevance not required), and writing "that's hilarious" after a favored poster's gifs.
Also helpful is to support all coaching and recruiting decisions made by the coaching staff.
Once the majority has let it be known that a player is popular, do not under any circumstances criticize that player. Never tell anyone that you thought that Ted Ginn was a mediocre underperformer who couldn't run a route or break a tackle. Never hint that Shazier misses 10 assignments and 5 tackles every game ... they are icons and the masses need these icons apparently.
Never EVER hint that U Meyer was wrong, is wrong or will be wrong. So too are his staff members geniuses and even when it LOOKED like they messed up by tweeting dumb stuff, or misreading a recruit or flirting with NCAA violations, just remember that YOU are the dumbass, not them. And this goes for guys who used to be stupid before Meyer got here, but are now rehabilitated to genius status.
You forgot half naked pictures of girls. Easy 10+ sticker count right there... vise-versa, don't say it isn't appropriate or no topic or you will get another 10+ in down votes.
My strategy is to say what I actually think without breaking the rules and it keeps me above 100 and therefore doesn't matter.
That's hilarious
+1
I laughed out loud
+1
LOL......
I don't think this is very representative. For example, I use votes mainly only to moderate, so I rarely ever use upvotes. I try to limit my downvotes as well, but when I feel the need to vote, it's usually a downvote. I'm more likely to try to weed out the trolls than hand out positive feedback all over.
That pretty much how I do it too, and I don't upvote people that I agree with either (if I don't downvote a disagreement in opinion, I don't upvote an agreement in opinion.) I upvote novel insight, thorough analysis and good debate.
BUCK-I.8 and Jason, this is exactly what I was saying above in my post.
I still think it's a good idea though. Don't be afriad to hand out an upvote for well thought out comments. I upvote people that disagree with me from time to time, as long as it's a quality thought and not mean spirited.
I would like to add to BUCK-1.8's thought.
As Jason previously advocated downvoting for poor grammar, I would like to do that in practice. However, I never have, because there are way too many posts with poor grammar. This addition of showing voting record would greatly discourage that (not that I'm against the addition).
I don't advocate downvoting purely for grammar mistakes. However, when your statements are unreadable due to the grammar, or punctuation, or syntax errors, that's when I see the need to vote on it.
I am a positive optimistic person, therefore I don't understand someone that feels a need to downvote more than they upvote. There isn't that many trolls here. It's very rare, Mr. BUCK-I.8.
I just think it's ridiculous to downvote more than you upvote. Personally, I think if there is a voter that does this, I believe they should get the ban hammer, or at least lose their voting rights for a while. There is no need to be that critical. We're just FANS here, not experts. We're not(all) English majors. I just don't get the mentality to be so critical. Let's see who's doing all the downvoting.
Just my opinion.
"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." Charlton Heston(1924-2008)
Downvotes could be inflated because when we had posters like OSUFORLIFE it was easy to downvote all of his posts they were so bad. That could inflate your downvote count and make it look like you're a habitual downvoter.
Edit: Also with ISPEAKTHETRUTH is very easy to downvote so once again this could inflate your DV totals.
I love it. You should upvote more than downvote, this will encourage that. If you see something you have to downvote, find something to upvote (it's not that hard.)
“Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect.” - Woody
Jason:
I don't think your readership needs to see user voting records. That would cede some of your authority - unnecessarily and to the wrong party. The fact you can see voting records, is all your readers need to know.
You and your staff do fine work, here. You've created a great place for Buckeye fans to visit, express their opinions, share information and socialize. Your readers trust you.
Good and interesting points here.
I agree with Hoody on this - your readership doesnt need additional power, voting is enough. Think how vendetta voting would get outta hand if we could go to each others account & see their record, then go search for them & down vote all their comments.
I disagree Hoody. Those who habitually downvote are worse than trolls and more annoying, as
AlexJason pointed out"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." Charlton Heston(1924-2008)
I think his point is to take it out of his hands a little more simply because he has better things to do than weed through all the votes.
I'm all for accountability. Sounds good.
Start with me, what os my record? Throw it out there!
1 upvote (on own post) 2 gazillion downvotes
I think we found a troll
Accountability is a Good Thing! However, does a simple summation of up v. down votes amount to accountability? It doesn't take into account when or why or for/against any one user. Therefore I think holding someone accountable should remain within the realm of the 11W staff.
Very good point. Seeing a voting record without knowing the circumstance involved could easily create more issues/abuse with voting. That would be why, in my opinion it would possibly be necessary to point out only the multiple downvoters for a period of time. There are usually not that many posts that, according to site definition, require downvotes in a day or week so an individual with a different view of things that dv's but not in an abusive manner, would have a buffer zone for lack of a better term for that period. So one could dv as they deem necessary without being viewed as an abuser. Excessive downvotes by abusers that go on dv'ing runs, would otherwise "show up" at a certain number decided upon. When this excessive number of dvs is posted with that voter identifying them as a serial dv'er, either members would in turn dv them into submission or it could be kept private and dealt with by site administrators.
I'm all for transparency and, of course, it would be fun/interesting to glance at others' voting patterns, but I see two compelling points above:
First, from Optimistic Buck: overall, the voting system has improved the quality of discussions at 11W; however, Optimistic makes an excellent point that all the "meta" comments about "why did I get downvoted," or "I just upvoted you" do not add anything to the discussion. By showing the voting records, that might exacerbate this tendency where we get fixated on voting/downvoting and clutter up the discussions with petty stuff, etc.
Second, from Hoody Wayes: maybe some unforseen negative consequences would result from 11W ceding its authority in this manner. I'm not really sure how that might play out, by I sense that Hoody is definitely on to something . . . maybe ask other site administrators who made such a move how it worked out?
Sounds good
Meh, I think there's too much discussion on voting as it is. Why give more fodder to those who are obsessed with stickers?
I agree with this. I understand what the "buckeye sticker/upvote" thing is trying to do and I have no problem with it. That said, I do get annoyed by the people who seem to obsess over up/down voting. I love my alma mater and I love my team . . . and, for that matter, I love this site and both its nutty and informative posters . . . . but I don't draw any self worth from the number of stickers I have. My self esteem can neither be hurt or inflated by a message board community. Perhaps I am the weird one, but I wish people would use the system as it was intended and also not feel slighted at every downvote.
"Because the rules won't let you go for three." - Woody Hayes
THE Ohio State University
Love the idea!!
SCOTTC.
Thumbs up
bad. This will send people who downvote more than upvote to slaughter. We can be accountable to the staff but not every whiny vote complainer on the site. Here come my down votes lol
O'Deez330
stark county football
If only the Goverment could take a lesson in common sense from 11W.
I wouldn't have a problem with this, as it is an interesting metric that I would like to see even for myself.
You can kill a fly with your slipper or a cannon. Either way, the fly dies. -Ramzy
Showing received vote +/- might be neat too, but it may also be frivolous.
Taquitos.
Thinking about this a little more (lol, why?) I think that if one metric is provided (up/down votes given) the other should as well. If you provide data, provide it all (if possible).
That said, things are fine as they are currently.
Taquitos.
I would agree with this sentiment. As I've noted, I probably vote down more than up just because I don't feel like upvoting is moderating much, and it's just a personal habit/principle for me as a poster. That said, I think this trend could be changed by the addition of both voting trends, just as added data about the character of the poster.
The only problem I have with this is that consistently down voting doesn't necessarily make someone a bad voter or a bad 11W member. I think this change would inevitably make them look like a bad member and, thus, be treated as such.
Gordon Gee's signature is on my diploma. I'm proud of that. Class of 2008
I think the intent and idea is that if you are only downvoting, you are not using the system correctly. Being able to downvote is a very useful anti-troll tool, most recently used against Ispeakthetruth for good reason, but it doesn't work well if you don't reciprocate with positive votes for worthy comments (and there are many worthy comments every day due to 11W's awesome community).
You can kill a fly with your slipper or a cannon. Either way, the fly dies. -Ramzy
I understand that but I feel that this system would make down votes seem more egregious than up votes, which isn't necessarily true.
If there are two 11W members--one with a 20:0 up:down ratio, the other a 0:20 up:down ratio--and both of them have only voted on comments that included pictures of Oregon cheerleaders, is one voting better than the other? Is one of them abusing their voting rights? This system would lead us to believe so.
Gordon Gee's signature is on my diploma. I'm proud of that. Class of 2008
I say that in my opinion, yes, someone with 0:20 up:down ratio is not using the system as intended. I wouldn't have a problem with the 20:0 ratio because as in society, someone who is positive all the time is more pleasant to be around than the perrenial grump.
I guess I like this idea because I feel it encourages those who might never vote except to downvote to look for things that entertain instead of just those that offend.
You can kill a fly with your slipper or a cannon. Either way, the fly dies. -Ramzy
I just don't see why we need to insert a method for judging someone's voting record in a way that essentially discourages objectivity. We shouldn't be blindly deeming voting records good or bad without knowing any context.
What if the member with 20 up votes is voting that way because he is perverted? What if the member with 20 down votes is voting that way because of a moral stance on the objectification of women? With this system, none of this context will matter.
Gordon Gee's signature is on my diploma. I'm proud of that. Class of 2008
Well...this IS the internet...
Seriously though, as long as they "keep it in their pants" or don't make perverse offensive comments, that's their business I guess.
They're allowed to take that stance, I would just hope they would broaden their horizons and maybe search out some good posts to like as well.
I feel that the general consensus is that people are quick to slap someone with a downvote, yet are extremely judicious when handing out upvote candy. I have no problem with downvoting offensive, ignorant, poorly written, etc posts (as you see fit), but you should also freely hand out upvotes for posts you find amusing or that have extremely good content/points of views. Tracking voting habits seems like it will go a long way toward curbing "frivolous" downvotes.
Maybe it will end up being a bad thing. I have confidence that if it blows up and becomes a hindrance to the quality of the site, the powers that be will see this and remedy the situation.
You can kill a fly with your slipper or a cannon. Either way, the fly dies. -Ramzy
That's a very valid point Scott...I'm still for it - but you do bring up an great point. In the end, I don't think there are enough perverts upvoting here, although I do understand that you were making a point & not speaking to that subject alone, for that to be a large concern.
If you're generally upvoting funny things or good commentary or good points, writing, etc. then you probably won't have a huge downvote to upvote ratio even if all the downvotes you made were totally justified. As for those who upvote for the wrong reasons, it happens. Like a sex offender showing up at an OSU game, there's not much you can do about that - people are gonna be weird & sh*t happens...
I think it's a good idea in which the positives outweighs the potential negatives.
Edit: Alhan - you beat me to it there. Didn't see you'd already made similar points. I'm a slow typer...
The world is full of kings & queens who'll blind your eyes & steal your dreams - it's heaven & hell - Ronnie James Dio.
Heh, its no problem man. I will say that
far outdid anything I wrote in my post! Kudos.
You can kill a fly with your slipper or a cannon. Either way, the fly dies. -Ramzy
I think you guys are missing Scott's point by solely focusing on his example (losing the forest for the trees). It's not about whether or not there are perverts and how many, it's about whether voting record is meaningful without context (and of course are there unintented consequences as a result)?
Is it bad if a person only downvotes flagrant trolls and never votes anything else up or down? Is that person a bad contributor to the community? I have to think that's a good contributor--in fact that person is carrying out Jason's main goal for downvotes--but according to the voting record that person is going to look bad and people might start trashing that person as a consequence.
EDIT: admittedly this doesn't account for the whole back and forth above, but should we sacrifice people who contribute by dv'ing trolls for trying to encourage people to uv more?
No - I even did say that I realized he used that example to make a point. I understand the point completely & actually said it was very valid point of view...
The world is full of kings & queens who'll blind your eyes & steal your dreams - it's heaven & hell - Ronnie James Dio.
I also understand the point he's making, and I don't know that I would say only downvoting trolls is "bad" per se, but it doesn't line up with the complete intent of the voting system. Yes, they would be using the downvotes as intended, but its not just one-sided. Is it that difficult to throw an upvote to posts that enrich your reading experience or make you smile?
If you are completely opposed to upvoting people, maybe you put something in your profile stating that as being the case. Then when people see your voting record, they would at least have that explanation.
You can kill a fly with your slipper or a cannon. Either way, the fly dies. -Ramzy
What about the people that don't like a particular comment, and then stalk that person and downvote them EVERY SINGLE TIME from that point forward? I have a stalker, and I've noticed several other commenters have them also.
"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." Charlton Heston(1924-2008)
I think Pam has a stalker. Just about every comment she makes gets at least 1 downvote.
"YOLO" = I'm about to do something extremely ignorant/stupid & I need an excuse to do it.
Your "nobody" 'til "somebody" stalks you on 11W.
An angry fan...rooting for an angry team...led by angry coaches
I want a stalker too. ;_;
"YOLO" = I'm about to do something extremely ignorant/stupid & I need an excuse to do it.
There, now you have a stalker.
Wait, damnit! I'm not supposed to reveal myself. Oh we'll, maybe you'll get a better one.
This explains everything.
"YOLO" = I'm about to do something extremely ignorant/stupid & I need an excuse to do it.
D. Anthony
To be honest, I'm a Redditor, and therefore I'm a little more likely to downvote. I downvote a lot of stuff based on content (be it terrible content, worthless to the topic at hand, bullshit, terrible grammar/spelling/sentence structure, etc). I also upvote a ton, but not nearly as much as I downvote (much like I.8). I find that most posts aren't worth a vote, but we have a lot more posts worth down than up.
So this would make me look like a jackass (which I am, tbh), but I'm following the rules. I just have a much more draconian way of interpretting what should or shouldn't be downvoted. I'm habitual, so to speak, but not in a bad way necessarily. This would make me look bad. People will slaughter me when I have a net voting record of less than -300.
Does that make me a bad member? No. Do I think you should implement this? No. Do I think people should have to pass a quiz once they hit the voting threshold on what should or shouldn't be downvoted? Yes.
Does this make users accountable? No. It'll send many contributing members to the slaughterhouse. If accountability is what you seek, this is not the way to do it.
Pretty much this.
Plus, displaying this will make people more likely to upvote/reward posts that aren't even worth an upvote or, which is a problem already in society. "Oh, Little Jimmy you lost your football game 56-0? Here is a trophy!!".
I'm prepared for the downvotes.
Help is on the way.
I don't reddit, but you basically sum up my exact feelings on the issue, as I mentioned more briefly
Maybe consider not voting unless a post is egregiously bad or fantastically good. There is no requirement to vote on every post you encounter.
vacuuming sucks
The thing about that is that it's more widely agreed upon when a post is "egregiously bad" than it is when a post is really good. Since I don't just upvote everything I agree with, I don't really have a criteria for distinction.
Upvote what you want to read more of. This is the essense of upvote more than downvote.
Don't focus on the negative, but just as importantly don't ignore the average everyday comments. Those otherwise benign boxes of text are what make you want to come back to this site. Whether you realize it or not. If we all only upvote funny pics or quips and downvote disagreeable things, all this site will be filled with is teenage boys making dick jokes and posting bewbs for upvotes and trolls getting hammered. Make it shameful to post something that doesn't get an upvote, that way commenters have to strive for contributing something, not just making you laugh or smile, but making you want to come back here everyday to read and debate.
“Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect.” - Woody
And I'm not saying funny quips and pics/gifs (bewbs or otherwise) are bad. Not always. But if someone posts about the depth chart or Thad's use of timeouts and it gets one total upvote (in other words, it's what we want to see around here, but it's not as you say, "egregiously good" enough to deserve an upvote) and somebody else posts the pics of Oregon cheerleaders and gets 30+, eventually all we'll have is pics of the Oregon cheerleaders and then where am I gonna go to read about other Buckeye's thoughts on Thad's timeout usage?
“Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect.” - Woody
Give this man a trophy...
Perhaps I don't find anything worthy of an upvote? I don't want to feel obligated to vote on something because I find most of the humor on the forums are just average. I upvote well thought out, well researched posts and the occasional item that makes me giggle. I downvote much more religiously, and that's not going to change. I guess I'll just take the flak if they decide to do this, I'm going to be crucified. It doesn't add any sort of accountability.
I am not a Redditor, but when Jason clearly and repeatedly said we should be aiming to upvote more than downvote, I took that to heart and that is how I try to vote. In many cases, I find myself upvoting mundane posts that have been downvoted for what appeared to be no reason (to Jason's standard, not the one you've outlined). I tend to use downvoting much more in the capacity of "that's uncalled for" than "I disagree" or "that has nothing to do with this thread."
I understand how what you've described could function to bring about the same result, but ultimately, i think everyone needs to be working off a similar standard. If the stated goal is to upvote more than downvote (which it has been), then we should be reserving our downvotes for things that we believe truly deserve them.
We certainly don't have to (and shouldn't) do everything exactly the same, but we've been given a Golden Rule -- I think we should use it. I say let the voting be known, but perhaps everyone's previous history should be archived (in case the staff needs it for reference on an individual) and voting balances should be reset to protect some good community members who've been applying a different standard with best intentions.
"The revolution will be televised."
Let's not over-think this... let's try it out. I think the worst that will happen is members become more positive.
If we told all the TV Stations we would continually chart ad show how many positive stories vs negatives stories they ran, I think we'd see more of the under reported positive stories. I know this might be an apple and orange difference but you get where I'm going.
D. Anthony
What's the point of it if it doesn't add accountability? If I have a -500 net, aren't people going to look at me differently? It doesn't mean I downvote everyone, what if I just never upvote?
I don't think it'll add any positivity, it'll be the first thing brought up in arguments/heated conversation. It'll make people upvote things that don't deserve it just to bring their net up. Which isn't the point of the voting system.
If you never upvote, you might want to consider why it is you're visiting this site to begin with.
Agreed. I'm pretty sure I upvote >> than downvote but I'd like to see the numbers. And if I find myself "needing" to downvote more than upvote, I'll take that as an indicator I should look at other sites on the interwebs. I've heard there may be cats...
I reserve downvoting for only the most violent digital dickheads...can't see how this idea would hurt at all. Picture Ben Stiller saying "Do It" from Starsky & Hutch, as I'm having a problem with posting the gif....
The world is full of kings & queens who'll blind your eyes & steal your dreams - it's heaven & hell - Ronnie James Dio.
"YOLO" = I'm about to do something extremely ignorant/stupid & I need an excuse to do it.
Now picture an emoji thumbs up! ;)
The world is full of kings & queens who'll blind your eyes & steal your dreams - it's heaven & hell - Ronnie James Dio.
I like the idea!!
Buckeye till I'm dead
I'm sorry this is off topic but can we move the down vote button a little further away from the up vote button? I visit 11w exclusively on my iPhone and 75% of my down votes are a result of fat fingers trying to push those little buttons.
Kudos to you...
We mustv'e had the same thought at the same time.
“Right now, Michigan is not at the pinnacle of college football, and that’s all Urban Meyer cares about...He’s been there and knows what it takes to get there.”
You must have a great mind then.
I am going to go on record as saying I personally couldn't care less.
One thing, that I fail to see metioned above is that I think there needs to be a way to edit our votes, as well as our comments after somone replies to them.
I have had problems in the past. as well as numerous others, with my touch-phone downvoting while trying to upvote, and vice-versa. I know not every downvote is acidental, however, it just seems that the up & down vote icons are a little too close to each other. If we could fix this somehow that would matter more to me.
“Right now, Michigan is not at the pinnacle of college football, and that’s all Urban Meyer cares about...He’s been there and knows what it takes to get there.”
I agree with all the others who have already mentioned that the only people who need to see this sort of a thing is you, the administrators, of this great site. I think you might actually have some folks who will go looking for those who show signs of a big downvote ratio and single them out and then begin to downvote anything typed by them......Just a thought
Battles are sometimes won by generals; wars are nearly always won by sergeants and privates. Football is no different, the guys down in the trenches win the games, not the coach.
why not make it an option that the user can chose to show or not? some people like to be transparent and others do not.
not sure how complicated that would be to code.
I'm fine with it.
I've probably given out 150 upvotes, and 15 downvotes.
"YOLO" = I'm about to do something extremely ignorant/stupid & I need an excuse to do it.
Solve the issue altogether:
Put a limit on downvotes and people won't abuse them. 3/day or 5/day.
If someone has twice as many downvotes and they are called out or embarrassed (even targeted), all they have to do is go on an upvote binge for a day or two to balance it out. So then you'll have careless upvoting in addition to careless downvoting.
Those who stay will be CHAMPIONS!
~Bo Schembechler
Hail, your suggestion is great for soliciting more upvotes, but not for the integrity of the site.
As mentioned above, all upvotes is like a second grade soccer ceremony: the flower picker gets a trophy along with the hustlers. No one would express any preferences out of the box and the posts would consist of cute little videos, and "Ha Ha Ha", "That's a good one" "^^This^^", and "trust the staff"
So don't upvote those. Pretty simple. Just upvote more than you downvote. Instead of ignoring everything that isn't outstanding or awful, upvote what you want to see more of, leave alone or downvote what you don't want to see more of. If "^^This!^^" and "hahaha, good one" don't get any votes, people won't be motivated to make those comments. Motivate people to make normal, average comments if you want normal average comments.
“Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect.” - Woody
I would never upvote more than I downvote. I upvote maybe ten times a day, while I downvote substantially more based on content. I rarely find posts deserving of an upvote. Does that make me a terrible person? No. But I'm following the voting policies. Much like Buck.I.8 I vote down a lot and rarely vote up.
Well what's the upvote policy? I've never seen one. All I'm saying is being less worried about discouraging bad comments and more worried about rewarding comments in general. If everyone voted more down than up people would be scared to comment because it would most likely mean losing points. We want more comments. Lots of dumb shit in equal parts with other good stuff is easy to ignore. But if the site delves into a waste land we will eventually not want to be here. Make people feel like its ok to comment even if it occasionally is a "bad" comment.
“Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect.” - Woody
I think people need to worry less about pixels and worry more about posting well thought out posts. I downvote a lot because I was a Redditor first, and the voting policy was adopted from Reddit. There I've seen the effects of the wasteland you speak of. I don't see the commenting system as a way to reward people, perhaps because I don't find self validation in worthless pixels. I see it as a way to maintain a certain level of posting that keeps conversations on topic with valid points and well thought out posts.
And I know what your saying, I know the narwhal bacons at midnight. I'm using reddit as the example. Look what happened over there. All the commenters on the big subs are a hive mind. People downvote dissent and upvote bewbs/gifs/one-liner movie quotes. I don't want that here. I want people to make mundane average commentary, because that is what I like. I also want thought provoking, insightful, well-researched posts. I just think if the average post gets 5-10 upvotes, and the exceptional gets 30+ and the bewbs/gifs/etc get 2, that would be ideal.
I'm suggesting you keep your same philosophy on voting on posts, but sift it to the positive. Not voting =>upvoting, downvoting => not voting, and you only downvote egregious trolling hateful things.
I don't think this equates to the give everybody a trophy in kindergarten. I just think we'll be encouraging people to comment more which will make them better commenters. It would also greatly reduce the "who downvoted me, that's so stupid" type conversations.
“Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect.” - Woody
Are you my stalker that habitually downvotes me regardless of what I post? This could get ugly.
"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." Charlton Heston(1924-2008)
I apparently received down votes for sentence structure the other day.I am 53 years old and have forgot many things in my life including basic sentence structure I guess. I cannot compete with some 20 year old kid in college who is using his English skills everyday in class.I have been an Ohio State fan for a very long time and I come on here for updates on OSU and even for some of the comedic comments. Eleven Warriors is the best site on the internet for all that is OSU. If I have made any grammatical errors in this rant,then feel free to down vote me
I guess I don't see how it would be useful to the community at large. What are we going to do when we see that a certain poster has a record of downvoting a lot? The most likely reaction is that we would be more likely to downvote that person, based solely on the fact that it seems like they "deserve" it from their voting history. That takes away the main point of the voting system, which is to up or down vote a post based solely on the quality of the post. Part of the brilliance of our relative anonymity here is that you have to vote based on the post itself (aside from the very frequent posters/arguers who may be stalk downvoting people who they have a history of disagreeing with). Showing the voting totals without context is just giving us a way to be prejudiced against voters that we don't currently have; it would let us judge the book by the cover instead of the content.
When told OSU set school record for 50+ games this year, UFM said "That's good. We're gonna break that next year."
I'm for it because I would actually like to see my ratio even though I am confident it is like 50:1 upvotes:downvotes.
Do it.
Sounds like you should just get rid of downvotes. I am new to the website but it seems like the voting system creates more controversy than it is actually worth. If you have a problem with a comment you can reply to to it and voice your opinion.Personally I'd rather hear why someone agree's or disagree's with something I say.
Think of the ten or so major community annoyances that have been quashed in the past month or so alone, I think it's justified just by completing its goal.
I would say that it's far more effective than detrimental. I really don't think systematic downvoting is really an issue. If you post something well written and with some sort of backbone, it would balance out if people downvote you.
Good point. I was down voted yesterday because I provided an opinion about a recruit. The opinion was well versed and not derogatory toward any previous poster or towards the recruit. Why I was downvoted? I have no clue. There was no reply to my post, just a down vote. So if someone can't feel free to provide a non-trolling perspective because some jack*ss didn't approve of the perspective what is the point of even posting on this site? I would have loved to have seen a reply or retort (of what validity i couldn't imagine) instead of just a down vote. So I say if you downvoted, you are forced to provide a response as to why you down voted. Then people might be more accountable.
"Tough times don't last, tough people do" - Gregory Peck
At that point, though, doesn't the website then just become about the voting system. Especially, when there is a troll that gets 99 upvotes. Are the reasons going to be visible for everyone to see? Would the downvote then have to be approved by a moderator? It just seems like if you get to that kind of measures, the system becomes more of a headache and just not worth it. At that point I really think it'd be better just to give a few more level headed posters the power to be moderators who can intervene and give the banhammer.
At the same time, I understand that I have a ton of helmet stickers so if someone downvotes a good post I make, it really doesn't impact me and my ability to comment or vote on the site the way it does newer users who are trying to get to levels where they get the opportunity to vote and post content etc.
I will wait until I have enough longevity, credibility and the privilege of voting before having a strong opinion on this one.
vacuuming sucks
I am all for it - Just Do It!!!!!
I will add one suggestion that has been mentioned before. Jason, could you make it so that we could toggle the upvote/downvote mechanism? I can't count the number of posts that went something like this:
Poster 1: Sorry for the downvote. My fat fingers hit the wrong button on my Iphone.
Poster 2: No prob, man.
Poster 1: I'll upvote another one to make up for it.
Not a big problem, but one that should be fairly easy to fix. I don't know, I don't design websites.
"Because the rules won't let you go for three." - Woody Hayes
THE Ohio State University
Perhaps make it an option? For those who want to enable it, they can flaunt their big positives. I don't see any positives from showing the negatives. I'll have a huge net negative, but I follow the rules but downvote for content religiously. It's something I wouldn't choose to show, but I'm a contributing community member. I just don't see adding any accountability to the community. Some good community members will have very negative scores. Will those be looked at differently, just because they don't upvote as much? I certainly will not change my voting behavior, so I'll take whatever stigmas come out of it.
Urbz - with all due respect, when the whole thing was started, we were all asked that downvoting be used on those who are abusing the site. I.E. jerks, trolls, name calling...things of that nature. Upvoting was encouraged to be done at a much higher rate than downvotes. I hear what you're saying & understand completely but why not just downvote less? I see loads of things I disagree with, bad grammar, bad sentence structure, etc. but I just leave them alone. I don't downvote people who question downvoting, or people who mention an unpopular subject, have said something lame to me in the past or people who say "upvote" to so & so for something or other. I think people obviously take DVs personally, so I'm not going to make a persons day worse over a small thing. On the other hand, any idea I agree on, anything that makes me laugh, any post that is witty or smart or provokes some serious thought, I upvote. Kind of a little way to spread some good will, since I'm here so much & not out & about in the world as much as I'd like.
I personally could take the whole voting thing or leave it. I'd conduct myself exactly the same way with or without it. But since it's here, I use it. I guess my point is that when I look around the site, I see a lot more positives than negatives so I see more to upvote over. I respect where you're coming from & not trying to change how you do your business, just wanted to throw you my unsolicited 2 cents on what you're saying...
BTW - your thing above about having to pass a quiz on what's voted on is probably the best idea I read on the whole thread.
The world is full of kings & queens who'll blind your eyes & steal your dreams - it's heaven & hell - Ronnie James Dio.
I downvote based on content, the same way I do on Reddit. Both policies are pretty much the same. In Jason's Buckshot note to the community, it emphasized content, not necessarily only jerks, etc. To me, bad content is everything I listed, never something I purely disagree with. And yay! I <3 the quiz idea too.
The Buckshot: http://www.elevenwarriors.com/forum/site-stuff/2013/01/on-downvotes
@ Urbz: From that very Buckshot:
Yes, yet I don't, because I don't find many posts worthy of upvotes. Thus, I downvote a lot based on content. If there were more posts worthy of upvotes, I would; however, I don't often find it on here (no offense to anyone of course, I come from a certain breed of interwebz). Does that make me wrong? No, there is no clear distinction of what you should and shouldn't upvote. I'm not going to upvote just because, I'm going to upvote what needs upvoted; thus, I'm not going to change my behavior as I operate within the rules, albeit much stricter than most as I'm used to such voting systems. It says to try, and I try, but I find much more worth downvoting than upvoting on here. On Reddit, I upvote more than down, because they make me laugh.
In the end, they're just pixels. TBH, I don't think it adds accountability, it does just the opposite: it would incite argument. I would like discontinue posting at the level I do because people would bring it up. TL;DR: I'm not going to upvote something unless it deserves it. Sure I try to do it, but it doesn't happen on here.
You are just an overly negative person, evidently Urbz, if you feel the need to downvote so much. Geez. Why do you feel the need to be so damn negative? I work with people like you. Nothing positive comes out of their mouths. Always bitchin' about this and that. Never happy.
I don't blame you for being nervous about the idea of revealing how you vote, Urbz. Time to man up.
"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." Charlton Heston(1924-2008)
Out of curiosity, does the staff have the total number of up votes and down votes casted on the site? Not per user but a summation? I'd like to know the ratio and if there have been more up than down in total
This is a great idea!!! As long as it is retroactive of course!!
I like the idea a lot. There are a lot of people who just down vote anything someone they don't like says. I do think people take the up vote downvote thing way too seriously though. Inevitably 3/4ths of the threads have comments in the comment section that say, REALLY????? A DOWNVOTE FOR THAT??????
Some people view a downvote as someone else calling them an idiot, or any other insult you can think of.
"YOLO" = I'm about to do something extremely ignorant/stupid & I need an excuse to do it.
I like the Idea! I too would like to have the ability to reverse a vote I cast based on a response a person may have made in clarification, or simply stating thier case a little more. The accidental fat finger/phone scroll votes could be reversed as well.
thumbs up
yes, Yes and YES!
I doubt showing the voting habits will make anybody downvote more. People with either worry about it and then downvote less, or they won't care and won't change their habits. The staff deals with unnecessary downvoting as far as I know, so I don't see the problem with showing the upvote to downvote ratios. It's not that big of a deal if you don't show it, but I don't see the harm of showing it.
Class of 2010.
I know I have downvoted a couple statement that were horrible, but maybe didn't quite earn a downvote. I think this will be a good "gut check" for everyone when they go to downvote.
I mentioned it subtly above, but since Poison Nuts agreed I might as well make it a dedicated post. I think a way to make users more accountable/not systematically downvote is for them to realize what they should/should not be downvoting. As Jason explained here, there seems to be confusion/general misunderstanding about disagreeing with someone and subsequently downvoting them.
My solution: when a user hits the threshold to vote, they get an email saying "You've hit the voting threshold at 11W, yay! Now pass this quiz and you can vote". This will test their competency and understanding of the voting system/commenting policy, so there will be no excuse for not understanding it. Once a user has passed, they can vote.
As far as feasibility of this, I'm not anywhere near a Drupal expert, but it probably could be feasible with available modules and minor tweaks to fit with the voting system. I mean, the other option is to just have people take the test when they sign up with their account and doesn't allow them to finish registration without a 100%. Radio buttons/MC would be fairly easy.
Just my thoughts, seems to make more sense than just displaying a number that isn't always indicitive of the user.
I like the helmet stickers and the ability of the community to police itself, but I think the upvote/downvote function gets way too much attention on this site. It almost needs its own forum section for debates and complaints and new ideas. I do think showing people's upvote downvote history is a good step.
I understand your concern since you typically downvote more than you upvote, but you make good posts and it's clear you aren't maliciously downvoting people just because. I'm typically the opposite, if something makes me laugh I usually try to upvote. I only downvote if someone is insulting other people or is clearly a troll. I don't really vote all that much overall though.
What drives me crazy is that certain people have a downvote every time they post no matter what they say or do, and I think something like this could potentially curb some of that. I personally don't care much when I see a downvote or 2 on some of my posts because I have enough helmet stickers that it just doesn't matter, but there are some people who say pretty harmless stuff that get bombed with downvotes, and it just doesn't make sense to me.
There's no way to stop or cut out all of that, and at some point the staff will have to determine if the desired outcome is being attained by the system or if the system itself and all the comments about it are taking away from the overall experience of the site. I would think if they have to implement quizzes and emails it would almost be better off just taking the power away from the community and appoint more moderators that can banhammer trolls and A-holes.
I think this is a super idea.
I think if you're going to upvote/downvote, you should have to give a reason why before you do. It's not unique, but it could help this site stop some of the bickering.
"YOLO" = I'm about to do something extremely ignorant/stupid & I need an excuse to do it.
Transparency. Now if we could only get the government to do this.
Warning: Ohio buckeye is highly toxic when taken internally.
I've been struggling to figure out how to respond to this since this topic was created. I mean, there's real value to making people's overall voting record public, but, at the same time, why does it matter? All it would do is further scrutinize the voting efforts of other members, and possibly alienate those with more stringent upvoting criterion than "heh, that's amusing; upvote" (well, that's my standards, at least). As BUCK-I.8 and URBZRENEWAL have already mentioned, while everyone follows the rules, not everyone has a universal metric that distinguishes exceptional posts from egregously bad ones. Neither of them deserve the possible negative bias that their vote total could provide, and their thoughtful contributions to this site more than illustrate a possible negative side effect of this idea.
I understand accountability, but to whom? Sure, it sounds all well and good; that the community's judgment will prevent abuse of the downvoting system, but won't that create more negative bias--and possibly systemic downvoting--toward those members' contributions, whether they're worthy or not? The truth is, the community doesn't have the power that the staff and mods do--and even if we can find the rule-breakers, what kind of power do we have to stop them, other than abusing the system (i.e. systemic downvoting) ourselves?
I believe that the mods and staff here should draw a line in the sand, clearly defining voting rules for all (perhaps emailing all members, and witholding voting privelages until an emailed link is clicked, confirming understanding of the rules); and the punishments that come with the failure to follow them (i.e. systemic downvoting of threads/users should be met with, say, a warning for first offenders, and then a lifetime ban for a subsequent offense).
Eleven-Dub is an excellent internet community, and while implementation of this might force more user accountability, I believe that the potential negative side effects outweigh the "transparency" arguement--especially since said transparency would only allow for negative bias toward users and not define if, in fact, they deserve it.
This is possibly the best post on this thread. I agree entirely, 100%. I don't think it adds the accountability we seem to be seeking and will just cause further argument.
As far as I'm concerned Hodge, and I respect your opinion, but I think if 11W isn't going to show how others vote, then ditch the downvote option altogether. I suggested this before the voting option was implemented and still think it would be the best option to have no downvote option at all.
That would eliminate the Negative Ned's out there and neuter them.
"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." Charlton Heston(1924-2008)
Loser alert: I have never even looked at my profile (until just now). I see that I have some Helmet Stickers. I'll admit it. I have no idea what that means. I guess it's b/c I'm old (38), but I don't get on here to "keep score." Though, I may start, now.
I use 11W as my authority on Buckeye sports info (pretty much since they broke the UFM to OSU story) and make comments on occasion.
A) How did I "earn" helmet stickers?
B) Where can I pick them up?
Seriously... if someone could explain this, I'd really appreciate it.
Oh, and now that I know I have a profile, I'm going to go update it!
Go Bucks!
You earned stickers from comments made and blog post etc...
You can read about that:
http://www.elevenwarriors.com/forum/site-stuff/2013/01/on-downvotes
and here
http://www.elevenwarriors.com/help/how-to-use-this-site
Thank you, Pope!
@Jason, what if you display the percentage of upvotes v. downvotes rather than displaying the aggregate votes?
i.e.. if I have 15 upvotes and 5 downvotes, you'd see 75% up, 25% down...
Additionally, can this be expanded to aggregate the voting history of a user's posts as well? Not trying to go all actuary on you guys but I think that would be interesting to see too (damn, now I sound like some of the empty suits and upper management here at work..).. May be a good way for the public to more easily monitor trolls...
Just my two cents. Happy Friday everyone.
Keep Calm and Ignore the Trolls.
Actuaries figure insurance rates. Someone's total number of helmet stickers are a noisy approximation of the up/downvote history of their posts/topics -- interesting idea.
How about this: you make it visible only to yourself. Like, I can see how much I'm upvoting:downvoting so I'm aware of my ratio when I vote and check my account. That way we don't risk people getting downvoted just for downvoting when it could be for the right reasons.
If someone around here really is the Dark Knight of voting, maybe they should keep their mask on.
“Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect.” - Woody
Also a good idea; perhaps make it an option to make it publicly visible?
It might just be me, but I don't think I would ever bother to click on someone's profile just to see their upvote/downvote numbers. I'm a bit lazy. Similarly, I didn't read through all of the comments to see if someone else posted this.
I rarely check anyones profile for any reason unless it looks like they are trolling...or unless they have "sources" lol... Too soon?
It really doesn't matter to me. I would like to see the dv stalking end, but in the case of a troll, it is a good thing. On a side note, half my votes don't record anyway.
What about providing a dialogue box when down/up voting. Then people can pick from a list of reasons why they are downvoting. For Example:
Why the Downvote: Grammer/Spelling - Off Topic - Trolling - Cancel (My Fat fingers hit this by accident)
Why the Upvote: ^this - Analysis - Funny - disagree but good - Cancel (My Fat fingers hit this by accident)
Then have a popup when you hover over the downvotes on a post it would show a % of why people downvoted the comment. This would (hopefully) cut down on the irritating "Why did I get downvoted" posts and "^ upvote. you killed it" posts. It would also help with the smart phone users.
Note: Not really serious about the ^this in the "why the upvote" dialogue
I'm also in favor of showing the up/down votes. There are a lot of good posts. I don't think it needs to be a great post to upvote. If you truely do not care about the helmet stickers then why would you care whether or not your voting record was shown as well? The worst that would happen woud be that a group of people had a vendetta against you and you lost a lot of helmet stickers. But that would have to be from a group of people who (ironically) believe in upvoting over downvoting.
I say SHOW US THE UPVOTES/DOWNVOTES, or eliminate the ability to downvote altogether, like many websites do.
"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." Charlton Heston(1924-2008)
What if you could split the downvotes into two categories - valid and invalid downvotes? Valid downvotes would be for downvotes given to comments that deserve them. Invalid downvotes would be for downvotes given to comments for invalid reasons (differing opinion in a comment that is within the rules of the commenting policy, or downvoting a comment because of who posted it, etc). I think this would give a better representation of who is abusing the downvote system without having to take different voting habits into account.
Class of 2010.
That sounds like a full time job.
I would like to suggest that the leaderboard be deleted. If the voting system was put in place to deter trolling, then why pay attention to upvotes unless you need e-ego. Basically, beyond the point you get x upvotes, they don't matter. You could also have different privelidge levels then too. Level one for voting, then for gifs, then for blogs, etc. you can see where I'm going.
Every post on this thread has a down vote. Looks like there is a serial down voter on the prowl.
Yet we rarely ever see serial upvoters, which is the point of this thread
“Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect.” - Woody
I was reading this whole thread hoping to find out if they found the serial downvoter. Apparently this is relatively new as no one noticed it until the very end.
In regards to the thread, I'm in line with Hodge and a handful of others on this. I think bringing to light the voting tendencies of everyone can ostracize a lot of people who are a little more austere in regards to their upvotes and downvotes. We all have our own way of voting; as long as it falls within the rules of voting I ask who cares? Plus in the end, any sort of mass downvoting, like done on this thread, is always caught at some point by the staff and that person is dealt with. I find no reason to bring that to the attention of the community...
Do it.
I have a question, why does everyone suddenly have a downvote on this thread?
An angry fan...rooting for an angry team...led by angry coaches
Funny response, but the thread is only 8 days old.
@Smithwesson - Serial DVer, as mentioned above.
The world is full of kings & queens who'll blind your eyes & steal your dreams - it's heaven & hell - Ronnie James Dio.
Lol, that will be the last time I look at this page on my phone. My bad.
Jason, Is there a reason why I can only vote about 10% of the time?
I say show the votes. Or maybe just the votes cast in the past week or month or something.
I'd like to see the voting totals on my comments under the My Account section. So I can see my list of comments and see what ones are getting upvoted/downvoted.
“Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect.” - Woody
i have an analogy and it may be right or completely wrong. Giving us the right to vote is like fighting in hockey.. we're policing ourselves. i vote for keeping downvotes because other than saying "dude out of line" you give them a downvote, and they essentially lose buckeye stickers which could in turn if enough are dealt to prevent them from voting/expressing ideas.
i don't have a problem with showing the records, but as people alluded to earlier you wouldn't want to think someone's a jerk because they often downvote and rarely upvote. me on the other hand, i upvote a lot - my way of saying thanks for making me laugh or thinking a different way. would it be crossing the line to show what the up/downvotes were actually voted on?
I like football
Blaspehmy! I shall not take the mark of the beast! This site is obviously run by the elite trying to push the New World Order AGENDA!
I certainly dont want to step on any toes but to be completely honest I think the votes have actually caused the sight experience to take a step backwards. Same awesome website with the same awesome content but now with the narcissist coming out of the woodwork fishing for votes. That being said, I know I dont have to read the comments. Humble opinion.
I've been saying this for a while now, so it's not just you. Not the site's fault, just sometimes things don't go as planned.
Has Jason ever publicly made a decision on this or is the fact that it isn't in effect the answer?
“Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect.” - Woody
anybody else find it funny that nearly every comment on this thread about voting is downvoted
haha kinda funny
Bump again. Has Jason/Staff decided anything on this?
I'm pretty sure silence, and lack of it becoming a feature is our answer. But the State of 11W said there was a site re-design coming. So maybe we have to wait for that.
“Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect.” - Woody