Content Voting FAQ
Submitted by Joη on Fri, 02/11/2011 - 14:46Hia,
We can now vote on forum topics and comments.
"But what does this do?" I hear you ask:
- Group consensus has a better chance of being determined.
- Community Self Moderation: Low voted comments will be minimized after a certain point.
- Metrics for Ranking: I've added some new views to the sidebar so un-front-paged gems may shine for all to see on the front page, whose algorithms are currently:
- Top Recent Topics shows the highest voted non-front-paged (non-off) topics posted in the last 3 hours, recalculating every 5 minutes.
- Top Topics Today (and other timeframes) ranks all topics by vote, for a bigger picture of group preferences. This one will take some time to mature and be useful.
- Less bumping, better content: Voting is a simple way to dis/approve something instead of populating replies with "bump" etc. I may be going out on a limb with this one, I know.
Try clicking on my below "bad comment" to see if min/maximizing works in your browser.
As usual, open to suggestions.
Something in particular: Scott (down below) doesn't want the voting to be anonymous. What do you say? Cast your votes.
For reference, here's what else has been said so far
for: http://www.dailypaul.com/...
indifferent: http://www.dailypaul.com/...
and against: http://www.dailypaul.com/..., http://www.dailypaul.com/...
Content Voting Test
One day after posting:
http://www.dailypaul.com/226895/why-do-all-the-kids-love-ron...
Zero vote gaming = zero votes, zero comments, zero embed, and certainly low visibility.
For an excellent video, I know many here will love once they take the time to see it.
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
creator's work has already been front paged using same setup
http://www.dailypaul.com/224420/will-ron-paul-ers-vote-for-r...
"You underestimate the character of man." | "So be off now, and set about it."
That one may have been gamed
The circumstances were obviously different.
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
After using democracy more, I admit I'm becoming dependent
I'm becoming lazy. I no longer browse the Daily Paul forums much anymore for topics that interest me. Instead I've become dependent upon democratic clicks to decide what is important to look at.
I find myself only looking at the top Recent Topics more and more, and exploring the forums and interesting topics less and less. It's like irresistible human programming; if people are voting for something, then it must be good, right?
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
Bad democracy
And a lot of useless topics get upvoted because they're short, simple, positive (often excessively/unrealistically so), or other people are upvoting them.
Moreover, I'm decently confident that sock account use has increased in order to manipulate vote counts.
+ Follow the Cooperative principle
+ Civility first
+ Constructive comments
I don't know if this is any constellation, but......
My daughter's school class had a mock vote with the following results: Out of thirty children, 28 voted for Ron Paul and 2 for Mitt Romney. It occurred yesterday.
That is incredible
What type of school and where is it located?
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
"a cool new feature?" or Internal Friction
At first I liked the voting feature because it seemed like "a cool new feature," but after taking it for a drive, I'm not so sure it's beneficial anymore. It seems to be causing internal struggles among Daily Paul members, and added friction, where before we would would read and discuss things, because that was the only option.
It's also very open to gaming (deception), i.e. create 10 accounts and vote away, or have friends vote your comments up just because you are friends rather than the merits of the comment. It is also causing misunderstanding, and may even result in less participation and thinking, because people may merely vote up a comment, whereas before they would have to think more before writing, if they actually participated.
The only real benefit I see overall, is being able to get a general view of what is news worthy. But as mentioned previously, that view may be distorted.
It essentially turns Daily Paul into a mini Digg, and Digg sucks at providing good news. The only thing Digg is generally good for is viewing what caught the immediate attention of the lowest common denominator.
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
Voting is not only good, but necessary!
http://www.ftrain.com/wwic.html
Excerpts:
"Why wasn't I consulted,” which I abbreviate as WWIC, is the fundamental question of the web. It is the rule from which other rules are derived. Humans have a fundamental need to be consulted, engaged, to exercise their knowledge (and thus power), and no other medium that came before has been able to tap into that as effectively.
***
The obvious example of WWIC at work is Wikipedia, created for free by unpaid labor. It tapped into the basic human need to be consulted and never looked back.
------------------
Adding voting, and voting of comments, is the best way to ensure that everybody is consulted about as much site content as possible. It also helps alleviate moderation problems because users enjoy and see it as their duty to moderate content.
Voting or democracy is not good, unnecessary.
Much better to respect the fact that everyone has a right to an opinion, rather than trying to judge everyone's opinions with some arbitrary vote count.
It's the same problem with our government. We are supposed to have a republic where individual rights are protected by the law, rather than a democracy where only the majority has rights and may impose their will on the minority.
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
causing internal struggles?
or are you using it to cause internal struggles?
http://dailypaul.com/159887/war-no-3-us-launches-missile-att...
I remember another ~flip out~ of yours about someone having an opinion that you didn't like. Maybe it's you pal.
I'm seeing conflicts between members everywhere.
The voting is being used maliciously, I dare say, democratically. People are voting for or against people, instead of content. And grudges are being held.
For example, I hate you f-Buzz, I will probably vote down all of your comments every time I see them, without even reading them. In fact, I think I will track all your comments and vote them all down en mass.
Want to address anything else beside 2 words from my comment?
Say, f-buzz, while voting down your posts, I noticed that 15% of them have been deleted by moderators. Care to explain why?
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
Track page voting stats...
Possibly adding the total votes on the track page? So we know how some posts we comment on or created are doing?
Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto. - T. Jefferson rЭVO˩ution
"Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone.” - BASTIAT
How many votes?
Could we see the number of votes up and down? If 1 person vote a post up and another person votes it down it shows zero. If one hundred people vote it up and one hundred vote it down it would show zero. Showing the number of votes would give it more context.
Also the number of views of the post would add feedback info.
I Vote Ron Paul!
My News Twitter http://twitter.com/sharpsteve
My YouTube http://www.youtube.com/user/sharpsteve2003
I thought about this too
and I personally don't want to clutter everywhere with numbers, and had to redo the current voting widget to display the sum (+&-) to my liking. The drupal-provided both-sums widget is on the bottom here. Maybe I should just make an efficient tiny version of that.
You're probably someone who likes numbers. I am too, but I bet most here aren't.
The opposite argument, which I also thought someone would bring up, is that there should be no numbers at all, to minimize preconceptions and let people vote more "freely".
But you're right: contentious subjects appear innocuous in the current view.
As for view count...I haven't even looked into that. I think fake viewcounts are easy to count, and valid viewcounts are hard (that is, server-intensive) to keep credible. It could also answer the basic question "do people care", though. I'll look into it.
"You underestimate the character of man." | "So be off now, and set about it."
The voting thing
is changing the feel of the site. I don't like it. It keeps people from voicing their opinion. You just click up or down for like or dislike and nobody voices why. I don't like it. That is my opinion. Some change is good and some is bad. I don't like this one.
I dislike the down-grade function.
People are using these buttons to merely express agreement or disagreement with the posts -- they are NOT thinking of themselves as moderators deciding whether to censor a post which violates Michael's guidelines. I have no problem with voting up comments worthy of special notice, but I dislike the idea of censoring/minimizing those ideas with which one simply disagrees.
I see you've already considered this problem, and left a default mode where nothing is minimized unless the member enters a number in his "site preferences." Pretty good. But I have a hard time visualizing a situation in which minimizing a comment would be a good idea -- unless it were cleaning out content-free bumps. The problem is, if the system is established, there is no way to limit its use by wannabe censors.
Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.larkenrose.com/store/34-books/2019-the-most-dange...
annoymous makes sense
Well, the least amount of aggression the better. an item like this will always get abused and if people take it to seriously they can get angry.
Secondly, I have no edit option under my account on firefox mac is that part functioning yet?
Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto. - T. Jefferson rЭVO˩ution
"Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone.” - BASTIAT
MMmm, you should be able to edit your account
My Account > click the "edit" tab > click on "site settings" under the tabs, then there should be the field.
I tend to agree on the personality thing.
"You underestimate the character of man." | "So be off now, and set about it."
sweet
it's there now! Thank Jon! excellent improvements
Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto. - T. Jefferson rЭVO˩ution
"Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone.” - BASTIAT
It occurs to me that this is a great topic: voting
Th issues Thomas presents involve the same old problems:tyranny of the majority and tyranny of the minority.
A majority on the DP could hide comments of an unpopular user.
This will back fire if the username of the hidden comment is visible. I can click on their username and look at a list of their recent comments and make up my own mind.
A coordinated effort by a minority could censor comments they want hidden for personal reasons. Perhaps a ratio of likes/dislikes combined with a minimum negative would work.
A coordinated attack (-7 in an hour) that hides "important" comments could be dumped in the moderators lap for a quick review. Certain users could even be immune to hiding by vote. Like maybe User #1 and friends.
Another way would be to delay it being hid giving more chance for a savior to come along.
I am taking for granted that all posts follow the swearing, smearing guidelines.
Maybe we should just play with it for a while and see what works.
Free includes debt-free!
Vote button doesn't work on Ajax-version DP.
Have you given up on that version, Jon? Too bad, I love it.
Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.larkenrose.com/store/34-books/2019-the-most-dange...
correct. Like I said before
http://www.dailypaul.com/155987/latest-youtubes#comment-1649432
In principle, I'd like to re-implement that function, but DP is different now; it requires a different approach.
"You underestimate the character of man." | "So be off now, and set about it."
currently not minimizing for anonymous users
that was a big reason for doing this. It should do that.
"You underestimate the character of man." | "So be off now, and set about it."
http://www.dailypaul.com/156773/i-confess-i-gave-all-those-thumb
http://www.dailypaul.com/156773/i-confess-i-gave-all-those-t...
http://www.dailypaul.com/152976/diebold-vs-paper-ballots
http://www.ncel.w4sp.com/
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/
http://www.votefraud.org/
http://www.hulu.com/hacking-democracy
you were already added to the OP
.
"You underestimate the character of man." | "So be off now, and set about it."
Didn't See That Thanks Jon..
your thoughts on my main point of an enemy neocon type crew able to hide critical relevant information by the tactics of a bury brigade or do you have that covered?
http://www.dailypaul.com/152976/diebold-vs-paper-ballots
http://www.ncel.w4sp.com/
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/
http://www.votefraud.org/
http://www.hulu.com/hacking-democracy
will put in that thread
.
"You underestimate the character of man." | "So be off now, and set about it."
OK
thanks...
http://www.dailypaul.com/152976/diebold-vs-paper-ballots
http://www.ncel.w4sp.com/
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/
http://www.votefraud.org/
http://www.hulu.com/hacking-democracy
So, should replies to minimized comments be similarly shrunken?
can't decide.
"You underestimate the character of man." | "So be off now, and set about it."