One last plea for allowing downvoting

[helene_t]

Well the system does serve one purpose: the number of one-liners and flames has been reduced because some of those people who would otherwise post one-liners now can just up- or downvote. So the threads get less contaminated. And threads that show up in the "new content" are likely to have real new content. Before the voting system, many of the new posts were one-liners.

[Free]

Ok, lets summarize what you guys want in the last few posts:

- people can only vote when they have 100+ posts (basically to avoid people making some new users to upvote themselves or downvote 1 post multiple times)

- people with a negative (or -100) reputation can't vote (basically to ignore the opinions of poor rated posters and avoid infinite flamewars)

 

By the time a newcomer gets to 100 posts, he'll have a bad reputation most of the time. Many newcomers need some time to adjust to the forum bidding style, the level that is expected,... 1 wrong/ridiculous argument and they get 20 downvotes. In practice most new members won't ever get the privilege to vote. And face it, once you get a bad name on the forums, forget to ever reach a decent reputation.

 

While both ideas have their merit, the combination is flawed imo. The -100 reputation may solve a little bit for sure, but I think it will be depressing for many newcomers because they'll get a very poor reputation in no time.

[mgoetze]

By the time a newcomer gets to 100 posts, he'll have a bad reputation most of the time.

 

Sorting the member list by most recent join date and filtering for at least 10 posts, you'll see the following reputations: -2, 0, 0, -4, +1, 0, +2, +1, 0, -8, 0, 0, +3, 0, +2, 0, +3, +1, +1, 0.

 

But I suppose it never occurred to you to check your facts before making this kind of claim.

[matmat]

Well the system does serve one purpose: the number of one-liners and flames has been reduced because some of those people who would otherwise post one-liners now can just up- or downvote. So the threads get less contaminated. And threads that show up in the "new content" are likely to have real new content. Before the voting system, many of the new posts were one-liners.

********.

[1eyedjack]

I don't "get" the multiple downvoting of this thread:

http://www.bridgebas...rious-students/

 

Rain has already posted that commercial advertisements are allowed.

 

I have absolutely no knowledge of the tutor concerned. It may be that those who are voting him down do have inside knowledge. Purely on the strength of the content of the post, however, it would not occur to me to vote it down. I might decide not to take up his offer, but hey, it's an open market. It is not as if he has concealed either his credentials or his charging structure.

 

I might be persuaded that downvoting is not so great an idea, if this is how it will turn out.

 

[EDIT 2011-06-17 00:04 BST (=GMT+1)] At the time of posting, the linked thread had a vote count of -3 for the OP and -2 for the first response

[mgoetze]

Rain has already posted that commercial advertisements are allowed.

 

Farting on a packed train is allowed too, but that doesn't mean people have to like it.

 

("Allowed" as in "legal where I live".)

[1eyedjack]

Farting on a packed train is allowed too, but that doesn't mean people have to like it.

 

("Allowed" as in "legal where I live".)

I meant allowed in the context of compliant with the rules of the forum, specifically in the context of Rain's post explicitly clarifying the matter. Sorry that I had to spell it out.

 

So what you appear to be saying (and by all means correct me) is that the forum admin have decided that this sort of post is OK but as a forum member in order to express displeasure at that decision it is appropriate to vote down any post that applies that policy. Just wanted to be clear on that point.

[Vampyr]

So what you appear to be saying (and by all means correct me) is that the forum admin have decided that this sort of post is OK but as a forum member in order to express displeasure at that decision it is appropriate to vote down any post that applies that policy. Just wanted to be clear on that point.

 

Is there something wrong with that? Or would you prefer that you get the job of filtering every downvote and deciding whether the reason is good enough?

[Vampyr]

I found it a bit unsavoury that another member chose to make his very first post in support of the guy.

[1eyedjack]

Is there something wrong with that? Or would you prefer that you get the job of filtering every downvote and deciding whether the reason is good enough?

 

Forum etiquette is what the forum decides to make it. That code could be made by the those who run the forum, or the members who participate, or some combination. If you want the votes to comprise a load of white noise then as forum members you could as a body act to that end. It is no more right or wrong than any other code, but I suggest that it would be less valuable.

 

At present there is no established forum etiquette on this matter (at least in this forum), and accordingly by definition nothing is "wrong" unless and until that is established. In most mature forums where these issues have bedded down, no individual takes on the responsibility of "filtering", as you put it. Unacceptable actions get stomped on by the masses.

[1eyedjack]

I found it a bit unsavoury that another member chose to make his very first post in support of the guy.

It is conceivable (I only speculate) that he was motivated to do so by reason of the OP receiving a vote of -3. Certainly, if I had had positive experiences of lessons with him and saw that reaction to his advertisement I can imagine that I would have posted in his defence.

[aguahombre]

So what you appear to be saying (and by all means correct me) is that the forum admin have decided that this sort of post is OK but as a forum member in order to express displeasure at that decision it is appropriate to vote down any post that applies that policy. Just wanted to be clear on that point.

 

 

Is there something wrong with that? Or would you prefer that you get the job of filtering every downvote and deciding whether the reason is good enough?

FWIW. I don't think the one-eyed person was volunteering for a monitor job. Rather, it seems he/she was saying that it is distasteful when someone posts, in accordance with the rules of the site, that person is subjected to downvotes ---which to the rest of us don't matter much, but to him might adversely affect his income.

 

And for no other reason than that the voter objects to the policy of the site and/or to professionism in-general. The analogy to a fart on a train might well be applied to the voter and his current right to downvote anything he chooses, for any reason whether others like it or not.

 

If I don't like the advertisement, I might recognize that there are others to might find it useful --and, thus simply go on to another forum.

[Bbradley62]

I found it a bit unsavoury that another member chose to make his very first post in support of the guy.

I don't have a problem with that, except for the fact that Supporter is anonymous. OP signed his real name at the bottom of his post, so prospective students can research him; Supporter did not. Maybe "real name" should be a standard (but optional) field in everyone's profile?

[BunnyGo]

And if the ones that I do want to hear from only have sufficient time to reply "agree with the pinkbunnyrabbit," then so be it.

 

Some sort of dig at me? C'mon matmat, just come out and say it. :P

[Bbradley62]

And if the ones that I do want to hear from only have sufficient time to reply "agree with the pinkbunnyrabbit," then so be it.

It takes even less time for them to simply upvote the bunny's post.

[matmat]

Some sort of dig at me? C'mon matmat, just come out and say it. :P

 

i thought you were the tealbunnyrabbit.

[Free]

Sorting the member list by most recent join date and filtering for at least 10 posts, you'll see the following reputations: -2, 0, 0, -4, +1, 0, +2, +1, 0, -8, 0, 0, +3, 0, +2, 0, +3, +1, +1, 0.

 

But I suppose it never occurred to you to check your facts before making this kind of claim.

You're right, it never occurred to me to check this because I didn't realize this was available in the search function. I stand corrected and I'm sorry, no need to get bitchy about it.