1,105,254 Community Members

downvotes

Member Avatar
stultuske
Posting Expert
5,307 posts since Jan 2007
Reputation Points: 938 [?]
Q&As Helped to Solve: 776 [?]
Skill Endorsements: 35 [?]
Featured
 
0
 

maybe a thought: no longer anonymous downvotes. not to discourage downvoting when appropriate, but rather so the downvoted person knows who to ask at least some explanation as to the why.

Member Avatar
deceptikon
Eternally Awesome
4,684 posts since Jan 2012
Reputation Points: 1,341 [?]
Q&As Helped to Solve: 684 [?]
Skill Endorsements: 104 [?]
Administrator
Featured
 
2
 

If the voter were interested in explaining his or her reasoning, they would leave a comment rather than just vote, or reply to the thread in addition to voting. I'm not sure I see the benefit of showing who down votes, given the potential for revenge voting.

Member Avatar
stultuske
Posting Expert
5,307 posts since Jan 2007
Reputation Points: 938 [?]
Q&As Helped to Solve: 776 [?]
Skill Endorsements: 35 [?]
Featured
 
1
 

that potential is already there. chances are you know, or assume to know, who it was and downvote that person.

the point of downvoting should be: pointing out something is wrong. "-1"
doesn't really say much about what's wrong with it. usually, when they don't leave a comment, it's either a decent voter, that downvotes because it's very plain obvious why, but usually, it's someone who, as you call it, "takes revenge" on someone that downvoted them and did bother to explain why.

Member Avatar
rishif2
Posting Whiz in Training
284 posts since Dec 2012
Reputation Points: 57 [?]
Q&As Helped to Solve: 58 [?]
Skill Endorsements: 4 [?]
 
0
 

hope this thread will result in a meaninfull decision . . .

Member Avatar
deceptikon
Eternally Awesome
4,684 posts since Jan 2012
Reputation Points: 1,341 [?]
Q&As Helped to Solve: 684 [?]
Skill Endorsements: 104 [?]
Administrator
Featured
 
4
 

Let's be realistic for a moment and consider the human condition. Since you asked to know who downvoted, specifically, and not who voted in general, it's kind of obvious what the implied intention is. You want to know so that you can accost the voter, find out why they were so impudent as to downvote you, and possibly even strongarm them into reversing it. The more noble members will take the reason to heart and try to avoid similar behavior in the future, but the reality is that the vast majority will be offended and not change their ways, even for perfectly valid and reasonable votes.

I don't really feel strongly one way or another about this issue, but I feel it's important to recognize both the reason for wanting a feature as well as the likely negative effects of implementing it. However, in full disclosure, a bulletpoint near the top of my list of things to do is write an admin page for searching vote records. ;)

that potential is already there. chances are you know, or assume to know, who it was and downvote that person.

Unless that person confirms it, you don't know, you only assume to know. Even I don't know without asking Dani to query the production database. With named downvotes, you're sure, and will probably be less hesitant to go on the offensive. Please don't misunderstand that this is the only reason votes are anonymous, it's just the first possible negative effect of making them public that came to mind.

the point of downvoting should be: pointing out something is wrong. "-1"

The point of downvoting is: "I don't agree with your post for some reason". The reason doesn't have to be rational or factual. Voting is completely subjective, though for the most part people will only downvote when there's an obvious[1] flaw in the post's content.

Ultimately, knowing who voted on your posts is just mental masturbation. It makes more sense for reputation where comments are forced, but I'm reasonably sure people would be less inclined to vote on posts if they started getting private messages demanding a reason potentially every time they voted.

[1] Obvious to the voter, of course. Not necessarily obvious to anyone else.

Member Avatar
Ketsuekiame
Posting Virtuoso
1,676 posts since May 2010
Reputation Points: 793 [?]
Q&As Helped to Solve: 231 [?]
Skill Endorsements: 27 [?]
 
2
 

Would it be possible to implement a system that requires a sensibly sized comment to be entered before a down-vote is actioned whilst remaining anonymous?

Lets take an example from my account: http://www.daniweb.com/software-development/csharp/threads/289586/here-we-are-problem-with-arabic-letters#post1248925

Downvoted...Why? There's nothing wrong with what I said, if there is, I don't know of it and would like it explained; a comment could have done that or a post.
Is the downvote simply because the OP realised it was the only solution and they didn't want to implement it?

If you're going to downvote someone, you must have a reason as to why. I don't think it's unreasonable to require someone to enter that reason, even if the commenter remains anonymous.

At least if someone puts "Because I don't like you", you can just shrug it off. However, without a reason it just appears as though the answers given are bad. This also gives rise to easy "revenge" voting.

Because you can anonymously downvote without a reason, you could just find all posts by one person and downvote them. If you had to spend time writing out a reason each time (or even copy/pasta) it makes it less worthwhile. In the case of copy/pasta, it would be easy for you (as a moderator) to see and check a complaint of revenge voting.

I appreciate this might be for fringe cases, but I think it would be a nice to have; forced comments on downvotes, anonimity remains intact.

If I recall correctly how the system works, leaving a comment will also adjust rep but an anonymous vote will not. Therefore, if you allowed anonymous comments, these would not affect rep. Once you tag it to your account, it would affect rep.

Member Avatar
deceptikon
Eternally Awesome
4,684 posts since Jan 2012
Reputation Points: 1,341 [?]
Q&As Helped to Solve: 684 [?]
Skill Endorsements: 104 [?]
Administrator
Featured
 
2
 

Would it be possible to implement a system that requires a sensibly sized comment to be entered before a down-vote is actioned whilst remaining anonymous?

We own the code and designed the system, so it's most certainly possible. ;) I don't dislike the idea, by the way. In a certain sense, I'm playing devil's advocate here just to make sure that if we choose to make a change, it's been fleshed out from all perspectives.

If you're going to downvote someone, you must have a reason as to why. I don't think it's unreasonable to require someone to enter that reason, even if the commenter remains anonymous.

Your logic is selective. If you're going to vote either way, you must have a reason why, right? So why should negative votes be the only ones requiring a comment, anonymous or not? I've gotten upvotes that were just as baffling as your example downvote, yet it's somehow important that only the downvote be explained?

Because you can anonymously downvote without a reason, you could just find all posts by one person and downvote them. If you had to spend time writing out a reason each time (or even copy/pasta) it makes it less worthwhile. In the case of copy/pasta, it would be easy for you (as a moderator) to see and check a complaint of revenge voting.

All true, though a slew of downvotes from a single person as if they went down the list of posts is just as damning as the same thing using copy-paste comments. And I agree that requiring an interactive comment is a reasonable way to discourage such harrassment, but it's not a solution to the problem by any measure. You described the loophole yourself: copy-pasting a comment is only a little slower than just clicking the button. ;)

If I recall correctly how the system works, leaving a comment will also adjust rep but an anonymous vote will not. Therefore, if you allowed anonymous comments, these would not affect rep. Once you tag it to your account, it would affect rep.

Under the hood we store both votes and rep in the same table, with the difference being the presence or absence of a comment. So implementing anonymous vote comments would require one of two general approaches:

  1. The system would need to change to use a flag as the differentiator between votes and rep. With this approach we'd be able to keep the comments and query them in a list just like rep, but it involves quite a bit more in the way of code changes.

  2. The system would remain the same, and the comment would be transient. For example, instead of storing the comment in the vote, we'd just shoot off a PM from an anonymous account with the comment and store the vote as usual. I'd probably favor this approach unless someone comes up with a good reason for anyone except the voter and votee to care about the comment, barring forwarding the PM to a moderator as needed.

In both cases the UI would need to change to support voting and rep with comments (probably using two buttons on the comment panel instead of one). Of course, this risks confusion about the two options.

Member Avatar
stultuske
Posting Expert
5,307 posts since Jan 2007
Reputation Points: 938 [?]
Q&As Helped to Solve: 776 [?]
Skill Endorsements: 35 [?]
Featured
 
0
 

personally, who downvotes is besides the point, it's the why that bothers me. I assume the point is to be able to learn from your mistakes?
if I post an error, someone downvotes it and adds as reason <hypothetical>: no, what you suggest is the use of deprecated methods, ... now that I can understand, appreciate and learn from.
but when looking at this downvoted post, as I said earlier " -1 " doesn't tell me why they downvoted it, or what they think is wrong with the post, so how am I to learn from it?

Member Avatar
Ketsuekiame
Posting Virtuoso
1,676 posts since May 2010
Reputation Points: 793 [?]
Q&As Helped to Solve: 231 [?]
Skill Endorsements: 27 [?]
 
0
 

Your logic is selective. If you're going to vote either way, you must have a reason why, right? So why should negative votes be the only ones requiring a comment, anonymous or not? I've gotten upvotes that were just as baffling as your example downvote, yet it's somehow important that only the downvote be explained?

My bad for not explaining clearly enough; in my head, what applies one way would also apply the other way.

Your first way does seem cleaner. It would also allow you to "link" your downvotes at a later date should you wish. I tend to favour this model of development, however, I can't see your code so the cost may outweigh the potential benefit.

Also agree with the confusing options, however, with option one you would have the ability to link and unlink to your account so the error could be easily undone without affecting reputation.

I agree the loop hole is there, but copy-pasta would make a database search for obvious revenge attempts easy to find and undo.

I don't think there is ever a perfect solution to any problem, I think we can only do our best to make it as hard as possible to abuse :)

I'm also in the same group as stultuske. For me it's about the why not the who.

Member Avatar
deceptikon
Eternally Awesome
4,684 posts since Jan 2012
Reputation Points: 1,341 [?]
Q&As Helped to Solve: 684 [?]
Skill Endorsements: 104 [?]
Administrator
Featured
 
1
 

if I post an error, someone downvotes it and adds as reason <hypothetical>: no, what you suggest is the use of deprecated methods, ... now that I can understand, appreciate and learn from.

Once again, if the voter were interested in providing a reason, he'd use reputation or reply to your post (or a combination of vote/rep and a reply) and explain it. In this particular example, the best approach would be a reply explaining that you used deprecated methods and elaborating with what the modern methods are.

Allow me to offer an alternative example to your hypothetical downvote. Let's say that someone votes negatively, but offers the helpful comment of 'wrong', or 'blah blah'. Forcing a comment doesn't ensure that the comment will be meaningful. Even with rep you'll see a lot of comments that aren't helpful in discerning why the person in question voted.

Your first way does seem cleaner. It would also allow you to "link" your downvotes at a later date should you wish. I tend to favour this model of development, however, I can't see your code so the cost may outweigh the potential benefit.

Agreed. However, looking at the code, a fundamental redesign wouldn't be justified by what still seems like dubious benefit. The only benefit I'm seeing so far in this thread is if the voter provides a meaningful comment on a downvote, one might recognize the problem, agree with it, and learn from the perceived mistake. There are a lot of "ifs" in that process, and I'm inclined to believe that the more common reaction would be "some idiot downvoted me for a stupid reason", followed closely by requests to make votes public.

Worse, while I agree that requiring a comment would hinder revenge voters to some extent, it would also hinder legitimate voters and the voting system would fall into relative disuse much like the rep system has.

I agree the loop hole is there, but copy-pasta would make a database search for obvious revenge attempts easy to find and undo.

I think obvious revenge attempts are already obvious without any comment, keeping in mind that a frivolous vote here and there doesn't constitute abuse of the system. That's why regardless of whether we make changes to the voting system, I'm still planning on writing an admin page for searching votes when I find the time. That way I don't need to bother Dani about searching the production database or giving me direct access when the fringe case occurs. :)

Member Avatar
IIM
Master Poster
742 posts since Jun 2011
Reputation Points: 163 [?]
Q&As Helped to Solve: 169 [?]
Skill Endorsements: 24 [?]
 
0
 

yes you are right stultuske,even similar thing happened to me in that thread.
the quote i have taken from oracle site and someone disagreed with it and downvoted.
even someone downvoted the post in which i have asked for the reason why it is downvoted.check this.

Member Avatar
deceptikon
Eternally Awesome
4,684 posts since Jan 2012
Reputation Points: 1,341 [?]
Q&As Helped to Solve: 684 [?]
Skill Endorsements: 104 [?]
Administrator
Featured
 
0
 

even someone downvoted the post in which i have asked for the reason why it is downvoted.check this.

That was me. ;) Hopefully you don't need my reasoning, but I'll be happy to provide it anyway. All you did was copy paste what stultuske write in the post immediately above yours. The pointless repetition wasn't even humorous in this context, it just came off as childish and whiny.

[troll]
I chose not to upvote any of the frivolously downvoted posts in that thread because it would break them as examples of frivolous downvoting. Maybe we should add a feature that anonymously gives reasons why someone didn't vote on a post. ;D
[/troll]

Member Avatar
Reverend Jim
Noli mentula
5,409 posts since Aug 2010
Reputation Points: 746 [?]
Q&As Helped to Solve: 648 [?]
Skill Endorsements: 51 [?]
Moderator
Featured
 
0
 

I'm not sure I see the benefit of showing who down votes, given the potential for revenge voting.

usually, it's someone who, as you call it, "takes revenge" on someone that downvoted them and did bother to explain why.

You mean as opposed to the downvotes (which have been reversed) that I received here? This person did not downvote me out of revenge. It was just a drive-by downvoting which, to me, seems quite cowardly.

You want to know so that you can accost the voter, find out why they were so impudent as to downvote you, and possibly even strongarm them into reversing it.

That may be true for some people, I am open to valid criticism, but I also like a chance to respond to same. Unfortunately, without a comment or a name I have nothing to respond to so I can neither improve the quality of my posts nor reply with something like (in the above example) "more details in the question directly corresponds to a more accurate, and therefore more useful answer".

I don't really feel strongly one way or another about this issue, but I feel it's important to recognize both the reason for wanting a feature as well as the likely negative effects of implementing it.

I think a reasonable compromise is to ignore drive-by voting when it comes to a member's overall score. The actual numbers (+ or -) on the thread would reflect the views (justified or not) on that post, but would prevent what happened to (I believe it was) lastmitch who had someone go through and downvote hundreds of posts, thereby driving his post quality into the low 30s.

Member Avatar
deceptikon
Eternally Awesome
4,684 posts since Jan 2012
Reputation Points: 1,341 [?]
Q&As Helped to Solve: 684 [?]
Skill Endorsements: 104 [?]
Administrator
Featured
 
0
 

I think a reasonable compromise is to ignore drive-by voting when it comes to a member's overall score.

What is the definition of a "drive-by" voting? I'm not sure there's any way to deterministically mark votes as drive-by.

but would prevent what happened to (I believe it was) lastmitch who had someone go through and downvote hundreds of posts, thereby driving his post quality into the low 30s.

So basically you're asking for flood control. That doesn't accomplish anything as concerns the topic of this thread, which is figuring out why a post has been downvoted, but I agree thoroughly. In fact, I agree so thoroughly I just committed a patch that implements flood control on votes. We'll see if Dani approves or thinks the trips to the database will be too resource intensive (thus forcing me to get creative).

Member Avatar
IIM
Master Poster
742 posts since Jun 2011
Reputation Points: 163 [?]
Q&As Helped to Solve: 169 [?]
Skill Endorsements: 24 [?]
 
0
 

@deception: although copied the text,but the cause was same to know why someone downvoted without commenting.

Member Avatar
Reverend Jim
Noli mentula
5,409 posts since Aug 2010
Reputation Points: 746 [?]
Q&As Helped to Solve: 648 [?]
Skill Endorsements: 51 [?]
Moderator
Featured
 
0
 

Basically, I consider any down-vote without a comment and obvious reason a drive-by. Let's say someone asks a question and another user posts some dubious code as a solution. In response I post

only a moron would do it that way

If someone were to downvote me without a comment, the reason would be pretty obvious. But when I got downvoted for

Perhaps the behaviour is different in VB6 and earlier but in VB 2010 the items in the ListView are not editable. Are you sure you mean ListView and not some other control?

the reason was not obvious. I could see someone posting quickly (and this was a short question with no code) and typing listview instead of listbox. My tone was not snotty or condescending and I was asking for clarification. In this case I felt the downvote to be completely without merit. But of course, with no comment there is no way to know.

And of course, I think flood control is a good idea. Nobody should be able to downvote many times in rapid succession.

Member Avatar
deceptikon
Eternally Awesome
4,684 posts since Jan 2012
Reputation Points: 1,341 [?]
Q&As Helped to Solve: 684 [?]
Skill Endorsements: 104 [?]
Administrator
Featured
 
0
 

Basically, I consider any down-vote without a comment and obvious reason a drive-by.

There's no way to programmatically determine a drive-by according to that definition. I'm still debating with Dani about flood control for votes though. We'll see how that goes down, but our history on that topic is Dani:2, James:0. ;)

Member Avatar
Reverend Jim
Noli mentula
5,409 posts since Aug 2010
Reputation Points: 746 [?]
Q&As Helped to Solve: 648 [?]
Skill Endorsements: 51 [?]
Moderator
Featured
 
0
 

I don't expect you to detect it. That's just my rationale for abolishing anonymous voting.

Member Avatar
<M/>
Industrious Poster
4,473 posts since Apr 2012
Reputation Points: 106 [?]
Q&As Helped to Solve: 139 [?]
Skill Endorsements: 114 [?]
Featured
 
0
 

i think that the rep system should have more of a spam free setting where the user MUST enter a comment in order to add a rep or subtract a rep. I got accused of it (i come in clean hands, i did not do anything) and i am saying that it may be more effective and spam free... just a suggestion.

Member Avatar
Dani
The Queen of DaniWeb
20,554 posts since Feb 2002
Reputation Points: 1,356 [?]
Q&As Helped to Solve: 927 [?]
Skill Endorsements: 204 [?]
Administrator
Featured
Sponsor
 
1
 

i think that the rep system should have more of a spam free setting where the user MUST enter a comment in order to add a rep or subtract a rep.

That's the way the system currently works. I meant to post a long rant here earlier, but I got sidetracked. I'll do it in a bit.

You
This article has been dead for over three months: Start a new discussion instead
Post:
Start New Discussion
Tags Related to this Article