13 votes

Content Voting FAQ


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/...

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Could you give some clarity on the voting up or down of a thread

I've been away for a while. Coming back to the voting system now on the site, it looks like there is confusion and inconsistency with regard to voting up or down of a thread.

In particular, it seems that when voting for or against a thread, some are voting on the ARTICLE that a thread is sharing, rather than the THREAD itself. This is occurring even where a reader is supportive of the article having been shared and the reader seems to concur with the OP.

As an example, in this thread, http://www.dailypaul.com/254897/usa-today-reince-priebus-one... , some were downvoting it based on the content of the article, yet they seemed to concur with the OP. One of the downvoters actually even thanked the poster of the thread for sharing the article.

Voting the thread down by basing their vote on the article conveyed the opposite message of what they appeared to be intending.

Are people supposed to vote for the article itself that is presented in a thread? Or is the vote supposed to reflect whether the reader is supportive of the information having been shared here?

Given some of the objectives you list above for the voting, as with group consensus, community self moderation, and vote ranking that could determine a thread's appearance in areas of recognition such as 'Top Recent Topics', perhaps some clarity could be given because the apparent misunderstandings about what is actually being voted on when voting a thread up or down may be defeating the whole purpose.

I agree With Scott - Voting should NOT be anonymous

I think that it would be useful to see who is voting down good information. It is my theory that voting down is used as a weapon and is not necessarily useful. If we could see who is voting down, we could see if there are any trends. That way, you can continue to allow the freedom of voting down - just giving transparency.

Also, I agree with listing totals - how many up and how many down.

Gene Louis
Supporting a Needed Tool for Government Feedback:
A Citizen-Operated Legal System.

Democracy has some value, but is a net negative

It's not a question of whether or not 'democracy' or simple voting is worthwhile; in some instances it is. However, overall democracy is a net negative and a poor way for people to interact.

Why promote democratic processes on a site dedicated to liberty and a constitutional republic? It's pretty ironic that we're practicing democracy to determine what is worthwhile, while trying to eradicate democracy within government. If we believe in liberty, then why not practice it with regard to the forums?

It seems the libertarian thing to do would be to allow everyone an equal voice in discussions, regardless and free of what others may superficially think. Merely clicking a button to agree or disagree doesn't add anything to a discussion but friction, and results in mob rule of information and discussions.

I still don't get what makes front page and why mine never do

For example, right now a front page has "Non-interventionism in the Spanish War" with 10 votes. Another front page today has a politico link to Joe Scarborough with just 3 votes.

Yet my essays have higher votes and I think are more relevant to the moment as to where the r3VOLution is going. See here for example.

Or this one with 30 votes http://www.dailypaul.com/240319/rp-r3volution-vs-gop-establi...

or this one with 36 votes http://www.dailypaul.com/240114/the-r3volutin-strikes-back-s...

Your my favorite post where I tie 5 essay posts all into one solid argument for the R3VOLution and why it works, why we are having such success...


Does a mod hate my writing or have I been banded from the front page or is there a more rational explanation... ???


Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

Joη's picture

re: Napolitano 2016

yes, thirty people agreed they'd like to see Judge Napolitano hold a public office. It'd probably be nice, sure. But this is not newsworthy. I wouldn't even call it a new idea (1, 2, 3, 4, etc). People agree about lots of things! Over 100 people think it's a great, circumstance-altering thing that there might be a lawsuit against Romney. But as some point out, this isn't going to change things one iota right now.

re: car crash. Car crash imagery doesn't sit well with me. That's mostly it. I'm not sure who the audience of it was. If it's to Mr. GOP conformist, you're not convincing him with a suicidal attitude. If it's to the movement, do they still need to hear that?

That's why I didn't touch those, I don't often. If someone else did, I wouldn't've minded.

I'm not trying to discourage you, but you asked, so I'm telling you. They're my opinions, and they're often overridden, which is fine.

I've nothing against you, either! Your usually bring up very good points in conversation. I don't know of any mod with anything against you.

The ultimate short answer is there's still an electoral college.

"You underestimate the character of man." | "So be off now, and set about it." | Up for a game?

It's a private editorial decision, influenced by democracy

I think it would be better if it was only a private editorial decision.

The more democratic, the more susceptible to manipulation?

It's something I've been considering - we see it in the 2012 Republican primaries where the 'votes' of the masses are manipulated through propaganda and election fraud, but the delegates are much more informed and more difficult to cheat. Thankfully, the election of president is not completely democratic or Ron Paul would not be doing as well as he is.

Anyway, another content voting observation. Today I decided to reply to a post with a good video that had zero votes and zero comments. I gamed it a little by bumping it to the top of Active Forum Topics, eventually garnering it 12 votes, which would normally showcase it in the Top Recent Topics. Unfortunately for the voters, and they may not realize it, but their votes will not count because the post is from two years ago:


Content Voting Test

One day after posting:

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.

That one may have been gamed

The circumstances were obviously different.

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?

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

Nailed It

I agree completely - the majority of the top posts are (honestly) idiotic rally rally the troops garbage that lacks any interesting or thoughtful content. I used to find a lot of interesting articles/posts/thoughts on here and now 75% of the top stories are "HOORAY FOR JESUS AND RON PAUL!"

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?

"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.

Voting is not only good, but necessary!



"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.

causing internal struggles?

or are you using it to cause internal struggles?


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?

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.

Exercise Your Rights. If You Don't Use Them, You Will Lose Them.
My News Twitter http://twitter.com/sharpsteve
My YouTube http://www.youtube.com/user/sharpsteve2003

Joη's picture

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." | Up for a game?

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 by Larken Rose

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

Joη's picture

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." | Up for a game?


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 by Larken Rose