Not many can claim 25 years on the Internet! Join us in celebrating this milestone. Learn more about our history, and thank you for being a part of our community!
Hi,
Many Discussion Forum writers surprised by the voting system that does not provide any explanation why the message was rated plus/minus.
I think it is even worse that evaluations arithmetically summed up and not visible voting history. Therefore, I propose a separate ballots to count the votes plus and minus separately.
What do you think?
What you are proposing is actually done already, however that information can only be accessed by people with reputation of 1000 or more.
I believe the reason for this is that it assumed that members who have been here long enough are less likely to use the information about who down-voted them to go on a revenge down-voting spree.
90% of the time however, if a post has been down-voted it is because it either contains misinformation or did not in any way contribute to the topic at hand.
What you are proposing is actually done already, however that information can only be accessed by people with reputation of 1000 or more.
GDNET+ paid subscribers accessible through premium membership (i.e. paid subscription). Reputation score is irrelevant.
Crossbones+ obtained via reputation (it used to be automatically at 1000 rep however I believe that this is now amended at a moderator level)
Moderators
Staff
are the rank tiers which can see who downvoted/upvoted posts.
Edit: Am not sure whether Marketplace Sellers can or can't though.
Edit: Am not sure whether Marketplace Sellers can or can't though.
I could, as a Marketplace Seller before I became Crossbones+.
However, I don't think that's what the OP is suggesting. Showing the plus and minus ratings as two separate values doesn't mean normals users also have to see who made those plus and minus values.
@OP: As a useful aside, you can click on any user's rating score (including your own) at the top of each post and see what recent events have affected the rating. Sometimes the rating text description is blank by mistake - those are from journal/article comment ratings.
OP said why, not who.
What you are proposing is actually done already, however that information can only be accessed by people with reputation of 1000 or more.
Many Discussion Forum writers surprised by the voting system that does not provide any explanation why the message was rated plus/minus.
Even if you have 1000 rep you only get to see who voted, not why.
Many Discussion Forum writers surprised by the voting system that does not provide any explanation why the message was rated plus/minus.
I haven't seen any decent ratings system that also requires feedback. If you know of one, link to it. I'll admit I don't like it either when a reddit link I share ends up with a 0 score and no comments but... meh
OP said why, not who.
Actually, what he said he wants is to see how many positive and how many negative votes, not just a summation. The current system already shows us this (it also just happens to include the who).
Even if you have 1000 rep you only get to see who voted, not why.
Most of the time, it's pretty obvious why.
The only useful reason for seeing the number of votes for and against a post rather than the sum is when a post has gained large numbers of both, which shows that the point is contentious. This rarely happens though.
Hi,
Many Discussion Forum writers surprised by the voting system that does not provide any explanation why the message was rated plus/minus.
I think it is even worse that evaluations arithmetically summed up and not visible voting history. Therefore, I propose a separate ballots to count the votes plus and minus separately.
What do you think?
Perhaps this will help:
http://www.gamedev.net/page/resources/_/gdnethelp/reputation-system-point-breakdown-r2925
sharing this for your jollies..
yesterday i saw a comment i disagreed with, and voted it down.
the comment was roughly that (re: crowd generation) how things look is more important than how they act.
this concept is near and dear to me as a physical audio modeler - i find (in my context) a poor timbral model can often be more convincing than one that is articulated poorly. and, my objective in games is to focus on dynamics instead of appearance. simple case of feeling that "-1" vote articulated voicing for my position.
i did not intend to hate this person or exterminate them or their genetic line.
logged in today and found my score was down by -18 points.
someone had been through my old posts from ~2012 and voted them down.
the punchline, is that one of the comments they voted down was
"if you continually focus on the way in which my statements can be misunderstood instead of how they apply to context, (.......) you're gonna spend a lot of time on this forum."
bon appetit mr. vote-me-down dude.
