Voting system updates - Call for suggestions

[PlatinumZealot]

There is a serial downvoter on the loose. His next targets are people without avatars. I dont blame him. Avatarless users make reading the forum a pain.

[Cold Fussion]

the downvoting on the forum is going out of control. i get the feeling we have a lot of sensitive toes and shins here and people despite handing out blows can't take one back, and then become childish and downvote with rediculous reasons, and some go as far as to make sure they keep downvoting on a daily basis out of some feeling of wrath.

i think personally, the voting option should be abolished and there should be a system that new members can only post after 3 days of membership, and after 7 days a new topic.
that way you filter out the spambots.

i'd rather see the amount of postcounts over 'voting points'.

It's amusing you complain about people are overly sensitive when probably a third of your posts are you moaning about being downvoted.

[Manoah2u]

the downvoting on the forum is going out of control. i get the feeling we have a lot of sensitive toes and shins here and people despite handing out blows can't take one back, and then become childish and downvote with rediculous reasons, and some go as far as to make sure they keep downvoting on a daily basis out of some feeling of wrath.

i think personally, the voting option should be abolished and there should be a system that new members can only post after 3 days of membership, and after 7 days a new topic.
that way you filter out the spambots.

i'd rather see the amount of postcounts over 'voting points'.

It's amusing you complain about people are overly sensitive when probably a third of your posts are you moaning about being downvoted.

perhaps you have failed to notice that this comment is about a lot of recent downvoting behaviours. some members here actually get labeled with the weirdest reasons for getting a downvote for something that's actually factually correct and not asking for a single downvote at all, so if you think this is moaning about 'myself' then you're dead wrong. the fact i'm actually being vocal about it doesn't mean it's merely only my opinion or happening to me.

i do not care about getting upvotes, nor about downvotes but what i do care about is when these downvotes go paired with seriously doubtfull reasons and when you start to notice certain members get downvoted twice every 24 hours after they made a comment - again, not even me personal - that hit the wrong note for somebody then it's just plain old silly.

essentially this is hapening:

"Look at the Ferrari in the corner, that is planted amazingly solid, we have a very strong Ferrari here"

then you get downvoted as such:

reason: fanboy. / ferrari is slow / liar / redbull is better / waste of bandwith

i don't think it needs explenation why those comments are rediculous.

i think if somebody feels honestly about discussing a reply/topic, they will do it -civilly- by replying to the very post. the voting system however gives you somewhat of a free 'hatercard' and as it's also anonymously, only asks for abuse - which is exactly what's happening. people seem to get offended and then 'i'll get you, here, eat a downvote'.

which again brings me to the point that i really don't see the use of the downvoting function, at all.
worse actually, a new member might mention something that people either misunderstand or because the poster isn't up to knowledge enough, and then gets a mutli-downvote-shower and due to his -10 status essentially is labeled like an outcast and 'not worthy'.

i think the upvoting system is not bad per sé, as members like Wizari bringing actual knowledge and very valuable information to the table definately deserve upvotes, but then again at the same time, the informations is more important than the 'voting'.

but anyway thanks for expressing your 'amusement' in your comment. anything more valuable to add to the discussion then?

[J.A.W.]

Because

- That's how it works
- That's how it was agreed among a number of long-term members and mods
- That's how we decided to limit votes
- Everyone is subject to downvotes to avoid them spawning nonsense continuously

So Steven, given recent events, can we shortly expect an update to announce changes - re: acceptable voting guidelines?

[Steven]

Because

- That's how it works
- That's how it was agreed among a number of long-term members and mods
- That's how we decided to limit votes
- Everyone is subject to downvotes to avoid them spawning nonsense continuously

So Steven, given recent events, can we shortly expect an update to announce changes - re: acceptable voting guidelines?

What do you deem "acceptable voting guidelines"?

It's been said many times that whenever an improper vote is found, the relevant post can be reported to the mods, so we can take a proper look.

I admit there is still the problem that the Rating FAQ is not showing up though. Is that what you're aiming for?

[Cold Fussion]

Could it be possible in future to separate ratings for technical and non technical posts? Currently there a few users who have 100's of vote rating yet have never made a post with any meaningful technical contribution, meanwhile there a few members who post little but have a few technical posts which are golden. I also feel like the post count should be brought back so we can properly evaluate how meaningful a user's vote rating is; because currently, the only logical conclusion that can drawn from the user rating is that posters with a higher rating have a better level of contribution, and this is objectively not all true.

[Phil]

Could it be possible in future to separate ratings for technical and non technical posts? Currently there a few users who have 100's of vote rating yet have never made a post with any meaningful technical contribution, meanwhile there a few members who post little but have a few technical posts which are golden. I also feel like the post count should be brought back so we can properly evaluate how meaningful a user's vote rating is; because currently, the only logical conclusion that can drawn from the user rating is that posters with a higher rating have a better level of contribution, and this is objectively not all true.

Is that important? Do you read posts differently depending on the number of votes that member has received?

It's always the post that should count, not by whom it is. And I do not believe that the members who frequently post in the technical forums are "worth" more than the others who simply visit the race related topics. Sure, this is a technical forum, so I can understand the logic in wanting to promote a certain group of posters that add more value to this particular aspect, but I don't believe that those who do post valuable information do it just to achieve a higher voting count.

IMO - the mistake is trying to attribute meaning to the number besides a members name. It's just a number.

[Cold Fussion]

Could it be possible in future to separate ratings for technical and non technical posts? Currently there a few users who have 100's of vote rating yet have never made a post with any meaningful technical contribution, meanwhile there a few members who post little but have a few technical posts which are golden. I also feel like the post count should be brought back so we can properly evaluate how meaningful a user's vote rating is; because currently, the only logical conclusion that can drawn from the user rating is that posters with a higher rating have a better level of contribution, and this is objectively not all true.

Is that important? Do you read posts differently depending on the number of votes that member has received?

It's always the post that should count, not by whom it is. And I do not believe that the members who frequently post in the technical forums are "worth" more than the others who simply visit the race related topics. Sure, this is a technical forum, so I can understand the logic in wanting to promote a certain group of posters that add more value to this particular aspect, but I don't believe that those who do post valuable information do it just to achieve a higher voting count.

IMO - the mistake is trying to attribute meaning to the number besides a members name. It's just a number.

I'd prefer for the whole voting system to be thrown in the bin where it belongs but alas it seems very unlikely that will ever happen. With that in mind, if people don't view a post differently based on the user reputation then it's a tacit admission that the system is flawed. For example, what if a user who has farmed hundreds of votes by posting inane dribble in the non technical sections, decides they want to start posting on topics of aerodynamics. Discussing aerodynamics from looking at pictures is pretty handwavy at the best of the times, so what if said user's nonsense is taken more seriously then it should based upon the reputation they have.

I feel as though if the system is in-place it should serve a useful purpose; and ostensibly the purpose of the rating system is to highlight posters with good contribution. I feel as though the currently system does not achieve this at all.

[motobaleno]

please get rid of this childlish system

[Phil]

I agree Cold Fusion... it's just.... well under that premise, I don't think any system will ever work as all of them are inherently flawed. For the record; I see far too much member whoring or votes being abused/misused to use it as a tool to taint a members post in a heated debate too.

I do think though that the most valuable feature of the voting system is one that isn't that apparent - it's the subtle effect to encourage good behavior. Go off in a flame war with someone and statistically, the odds are you'll be downvoted. And the odds are also that those who keep posting in this topic (and shout foulplay when being downvoted unjustly in other topics) do care about their perceived status and voting count. So alas, the voting does serve a purpose, even if it isn't necessarily a good tool to judge a posters credibility or overall contribution to the forum.

And if it does improve the quality of posts being written, isn't it already a win/win despite the occasional bickering about if a downvote is just or not?

[Steven]

The rating system is there in the first place to rate posts. Of course, you have the noise where people use rating systems incorrectly, but if you go search through history, and you'll look up all posts with ratings more than +3, you'll find that all these posts are valuable and interesting.
The eventual idea is also to make it easy for users to rapidly find highly rated posts.

So, for this case, it serves its purpose reasonably well, even though there should be a little bit more scrutiny for a while to make sure people who unknowingly misuse the system can be informed how to do better.

The user's rating (which is currently a total of all votes on his posts) is something less relevant. It's been proposed (and provisionally accepted) before to make this more abstract, like 1, 5+, 10+, 50+, 100+ instead of the exact number.
Alternatively, it could be a value that is the result of a division with post counts or something. The problem with the latter is that the rating system is here for much less time than the forum is, so people actively posting since 2005 would get a veeeery low rating, making it not representative again. I'm very open for suggestions around this.

[Cold Fussion]

The rating system is there in the first place to rate posts. Of course, you have the noise where people use rating systems incorrectly, but if you go search through history, and you'll look up all posts with ratings more than +3, you'll find that all these posts are valuable and interesting.
The eventual idea is also to make it easy for users to rapidly find highly rated posts.

I would agree that posts that wind up at +3 (especially in the technical sections) are usually solid to excellent, but that isn't where the problem in the system lies. There are many other posts that wind up at +1 +2 etc which are nothing more then opinions and so the up votes are just people agreeing with another poster. If the intention is to promote a reddit style group think circle jerk then that's fine but I would prefer a higher standard on a technical forum.

This is where I'd prefer a 'technical' rating which is vetted by mods or some other team of people to properly indicate 'exceptional' content. I find it pretty unsatisfying that quality technical content occasionally gets as valued as highly as to what amounts to little more than re-posting a team press release.

[Phil]

I think the problem could be solved rather easily if there were two buttons essentially. A "I agree" - button and a "good post" button (although personally I don't know if the latter is needed).

The "I agree" button would serve its purpose in eliminating posts that simply clutter up space by posters who want to voice their agreement with a post. I have seen certain forums do this by adding such button (usually "like button") which then results in posters being mentioned beneath the post in small letters (or hidden) so everyone is free to see who agreed with (or who liked) this post. If there was a choice, I think I would prefer a more neutral "like" button, as it's a bit more usable in a broader context while being less "aggressive".

The other button would essentially serve the purpose in promoting good posts that add to the value of the forum and have a higher bearing on a posters perceived image and credibility. One could name it the "technical upvote" button, but IMO to only allow votes awarded for posts of technical nature is a bit limiting. You can for instance have very well founded opinions that IMO are just as worthy for an upvote. Allowing only certain posts to be upvoted or in only very few topics (the technical ones) would be akin to creating a two tier community - the elite (the techies) and the non-elite. Which IMO would be a pity since both groups add to the overall quality of a community, even a forum as technically minded as this one.

Having said that, I think most of the annoyance over voting (and thus why this topic is ever growing) is the ability to downvote. Given there is a report button right next to it, I wonder if this is really needed? If a post is inaccurate, there are other ways to show this rather than "punishing" the poster with a downvote. This is especially counter-productive if the poster has gone through some effort to write it in the first place, even if perhaps the conclusions are wrong. If the post is flamebate or against certain rules, there's a report button that should be used.

My bet is, if the ability to downvote would be removed, this topic would die rather quickly as people would become less obsessed over why there is a voting function in the first place.

[dans79]

Personally I think the problem with the voting system is that it it does nothing to penalize The forum trolls. We have a handful of trolls who almost exclusively post in the race threads [....]

[hollus]

Steven, I think that the voting system has been around long enough that a diluting effect for the members that were here before it is slowly becoming irrelevant. The few that are around since 2005 are anyways mostly awesome and would turn up with high scores anyways. It won't turn any high rating into low ratings. Not for people that continue to post anyways.