Up votes and Down votes - Poll to see what you want to see and be seen.

lapua

@msatt said: Logic seems a bit wrong e.g. a message says Thanked by (1) AnthonySmith and yet the up down is for Karma. So either it is thanks or it is Karma.

Having 'thanks/karma' shown does have the benefit of letting the poster know that there are like minded members. So either way good or bad, it could create cliques.
So my vote is changing and I am tending more towards just having a karma value without the transparency.

it would be clearer if there were no connection to karma (i dont really understand this whole karma thing anyway) and if you could just cast upvotes and downvotes. and you already know this, but i am in favor of showing the names of the upvoters as well as those of the downvoters.

ahnlak

@lapua said:

@ahnlak said:

@lapua said:

@ialexpw said: This doesn't really have anything to do with whether you can see downvotes or not though. I'm fine with downvotes as a feature, there's no "positive" reason to show who is downvoting you though - what positive outcome could come from showing them?

if you follow this logic, then there's no reason to be able to see who gave you a positive vote.

True to an extent, but you're probably going to get less drama aimed at you for upvoting someone than downvoting them.

&

@ialexpw said: This isn't true, one is a positive outcome and the other is a negative. So my comment makes sense for keeping it as-is now.

Overall though, I still think I prefer the previous "Thanks" type vote rather than the up/down vote, but if I'm just choosing based on this thread, I'd prefer as-is.

we are actually struggling with this very issue right now. there is a view (perhaps due to the current “woke” climate) that everything should be positive and must be expressed that way, etc., and that negative feedback is frowned upon because it could trigger “drama.” however, i don’t share this view and stand by my belief that mentally strong, stable people can handle both praise and criticism. and if they cant, then they should learn to do so very quickly, in their own best interest. in real life, this (new) character development will certainly be helpful as well.

You kinda lost me at blaming "woke" for everything, but...

Yes, it would be great if everyone was grown up enough not to turn a downvote into drama. Meanwhile, in the real world people are buttholes and I know that the bottom 5% will turn it into a cesspit of trolling, and so does anyone else who's met the internet.

Personally, I think the harm outweighs the benefit but as the bossman keeps saying, it's a community choice. I'll just leave the downvote button alone.

msatt

@lapua said: i don’t share this view and stand by my belief that mentally strong, stable people can handle both praise and criticism. and if they cant, then they should learn to do so very quickly, in their own best interest. in real life, this (new) character development will certainly be helpful as well.

I agree but karma does not really provide criticism, comments do. Without context -ve karma can be completely misinterpreted much more so than +ve karma.

TigersWay

If I understand correctly (please correct me if I don't), we could end up today with only 1 upvote but 3 thank-yous, which would mean 2 people downvoted anonymously.

Who does that really affect?

• The author of the comment? We're all adults here; we should be able to handle a few upvotes or downvotes.
• The upvoters? They're known, and they're happy to stand behind the words or ideas they're endorsing.
• The downvoters? If they only want to stay hidden, why should we let them? Isn't it possible that anonymity itself fuels some of the drama we're trying to avoid?

Anonymity among peers (and that's my main point) is always the devil's work.

AnthonySmith

@TigersWay said:
If I understand correctly (please correct me if I don't), we could end up today with only 1 upvote but 3 thank-yous, which would mean 2 people downvoted anonymously.

Who does that really affect?

• The author of the comment? We're all adults here; we should be able to handle a few upvotes or downvotes.
• The upvoters? They're known, and they're happy to stand behind the words or ideas they're endorsing.
• The downvoters? If they only want to stay hidden, why should we let them? Isn't it possible that anonymity itself fuels some of the drama we're trying to avoid?

Anonymity among peers (and that's my main point) is always the devil's work.

You got it absolutely right yes, functionally at least, and I fully understand your perspective.

On an individual post or user level I completely agree with you.

The reason the negative side is hidden is because it's nothing to do with the individual post or person casting it.

In the positive direction it's a case of getting a karma point and a pat in the back, however small, nothing else, no impact, no advantage, it's individual gain.

In the negative direction that is no longer true, a downvote can impact a hosts ability to continue selling, it can sink a thread or remove it entirely, it can ban someone, it can prevent access to the forum to begin with, but only collectively, not individually.

The whole point of adding the negatives was as part of a more global temperature guage on everything.

Negative things as a whole have a higher emotional price to pay, and grab more attention, it's just the way humans are built, you remember the time someone in the street shouted at their wife and called her a bitch in public, you forgot the couple holding hands 30 seconds before.

I am not great with words but that's the reason I did it this way, hopefully you follow the reasons.

I have zero doubt that if we start revealing down votes, this place becomes generally more combative. But if that is accepted and wanted then fine, I won't stand in the way and I will make the changes.

TigersWay

@AnthonySmith said:
You got it absolutely right yes, functionally at least, and I fully understand your perspective.

Great I was afraid I could look stupid!

In the negative direction that is no longer true, a downvote can impact a hosts ability to continue selling, it can sink a thread or remove it entirely, it can ban someone, it can prevent access to the forum to begin with, but only collectively, not individually.

But that could happen only after a high number of downvotes, right?

Negative things as a whole have a higher emotional price to pay, and grab more attention, it's just the way humans are built, you remember the time someone in the street shouted at their wife and called her a bitch in public, you forgot the couple holding hands 30 seconds before.

That "someone" is still an a..hole!

I am not great with words but that's the reason I did it this way, hopefully you follow the reasons.

I believe I do! But I also sometimes believe the "hiding" tribe has "good" reasons for that.

kf5ydu

Is there a way to have a more balanced approach of a report available to moderators showing total down votes by user and the frequency they are submitted? That along with the IP address should make it easier to help prevent abuse while also protecting the privacy of users not abusing the feature.

For example if a rogue provider goes and down votes everyone else's post or a bunch of down votes suddenly occur from the same IP address even if from different accounts that should highlight a potential problem.

kf5ydu

@kf5ydu said:
Is there a way to have a more balanced approach of a report available to moderators showing total down votes by user and the frequency they are submitted? That along with the IP address should make it easier to help prevent abuse while also protecting the privacy of users not abusing the feature.

For example if a rogue provider goes and down votes everyone else's post or a bunch of down votes suddenly occur from the same IP address even if from different accounts that should highlight a potential problem.

To clarify as far as the collective process is concerned the initial report could be redacted with anonymous identifiers and there could be a vote to unmask particular users if it seems there is a pattern of rampant abuse.

AnthonySmith

@kf5ydu said:

@kf5ydu said:
Is there a way to have a more balanced approach of a report available to moderators showing total down votes by user and the frequency they are submitted? That along with the IP address should make it easier to help prevent abuse while also protecting the privacy of users not abusing the feature.

For example if a rogue provider goes and down votes everyone else's post or a bunch of down votes suddenly occur from the same IP address even if from different accounts that should highlight a potential problem.

To clarify as far as the collective process is concerned the initial report could be redacted with anonymous identifiers and there could be a vote to unmask particular users if it seems there is a pattern of rampant abuse.

It's available to administrators, we have a dashboard, no one has been a dick about anything yet (surprisingly)

Ultimately though if no one uses it, it falls flat.

And if it turns out to have a negative overall impact I will remove it, nothing is permanent.

kf5ydu

@AnthonySmith said:

@kf5ydu said:

@kf5ydu said:
Is there a way to have a more balanced approach of a report available to moderators showing total down votes by user and the frequency they are submitted? That along with the IP address should make it easier to help prevent abuse while also protecting the privacy of users not abusing the feature.

For example if a rogue provider goes and down votes everyone else's post or a bunch of down votes suddenly occur from the same IP address even if from different accounts that should highlight a potential problem.

To clarify as far as the collective process is concerned the initial report could be redacted with anonymous identifiers and there could be a vote to unmask particular users if it seems there is a pattern of rampant abuse.

It's available to administrators, we have a dashboard, no one has been a dick about anything yet (surprisingly)

Ultimately though if no one uses it, it falls flat.

And if it turns out to have a negative overall impact I will remove it, nothing is permanent.

Is it possible to publish the dashboard with anonymized data? For example a different identifier for users and a hash with a salt for their IP address? That way everyone can look for patterns of abuse without knowing the actual identifies of the users they are reviewing.

AnthonySmith

@kf5ydu said:

@AnthonySmith said:

@kf5ydu said:

@kf5ydu said:
Is there a way to have a more balanced approach of a report available to moderators showing total down votes by user and the frequency they are submitted? That along with the IP address should make it easier to help prevent abuse while also protecting the privacy of users not abusing the feature.

For example if a rogue provider goes and down votes everyone else's post or a bunch of down votes suddenly occur from the same IP address even if from different accounts that should highlight a potential problem.

To clarify as far as the collective process is concerned the initial report could be redacted with anonymous identifiers and there could be a vote to unmask particular users if it seems there is a pattern of rampant abuse.

It's available to administrators, we have a dashboard, no one has been a dick about anything yet (surprisingly)

Ultimately though if no one uses it, it falls flat.

And if it turns out to have a negative overall impact I will remove it, nothing is permanent.

Is it possible to publish the dashboard with anonymized data? For example a different identifier for users and a hash with a salt for their IP address? That way everyone can look for patterns of abuse without knowing the actual identifies of the users they are reviewing.

Technically yes but that sounds like a lot of work for a problem that has not happened yet haha

kf5ydu

@AnthonySmith said:

@kf5ydu said:

@AnthonySmith said:

@kf5ydu said:

@kf5ydu said:
Is there a way to have a more balanced approach of a report available to moderators showing total down votes by user and the frequency they are submitted? That along with the IP address should make it easier to help prevent abuse while also protecting the privacy of users not abusing the feature.

For example if a rogue provider goes and down votes everyone else's post or a bunch of down votes suddenly occur from the same IP address even if from different accounts that should highlight a potential problem.

To clarify as far as the collective process is concerned the initial report could be redacted with anonymous identifiers and there could be a vote to unmask particular users if it seems there is a pattern of rampant abuse.

It's available to administrators, we have a dashboard, no one has been a dick about anything yet (surprisingly)

Ultimately though if no one uses it, it falls flat.

And if it turns out to have a negative overall impact I will remove it, nothing is permanent.

Is it possible to publish the dashboard with anonymized data? For example a different identifier for users and a hash with a salt for their IP address? That way everyone can look for patterns of abuse without knowing the actual identifies of the users they are reviewing.

Technically yes but that sounds like a lot of work for a problem that has not happened yet haha

Fair enough, it is probably a lot more work 😂