Feedback: one year and 1000 posts later.

jeremy · 12-14-2011, 04:20 PM

A very long time, why?

--jeremy

sycamorex · 12-14-2011, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Telengard

After only 3 downvotes? Seems like a harsh punishment for people who try to be helpful, but get it wrong sometimes. Did I misunderstand?

Sorry, my bad. What I meant is 3 downvotes on ONE post (not a member's total). Anyway, just a silly idea.

Aquarius_Girl · 12-14-2011, 07:09 PM

Personal opinion:

People who intend to STAY in LQ are much less likely to bait other members or deliberately abuse the system.

Anyway, perhaps a warning textbox can be added to the downvote button like:

Please make sure that you are downvoting for a legitimate reason. Baseless downvotes will lead you to the moderator's attention. etc.

Make the person click on that message, and if we still find that person trolling he can be simply taken to task by the mods.

BTW, of course few senior members are grumpy too, but explaining why and how to use the system/setting up the well defined rules, will help I think.

donrc · 12-14-2011, 07:33 PM

Instead of just no, how about this: "Thank you for your post. I tried your suggestion but it did not help". Too long?

drc

MTK358 · 12-14-2011, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donrc

Instead of just no, how about this: "Thank you for your post. I tried your suggestion but it did not help". Too long?

In my opinion, the "unhelpful" button should not be for posts that didn't solve the OP's issue, but for posts that are either bad-intentioned, or good-intentioned but contain severe, possibly harmful misinformation.

The main problem is that many newbies see it as "this post didn't solve my problem" and click it on posts that don't contain a complete solution to their problem, even if they are perfectly well-intentioned and contain useful information.

Telengard · 12-14-2011, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anisha Kaul

Anyway, perhaps a warning textbox can be added to the downvote button like:

Please make sure that you are downvoting for a legitimate reason. Baseless downvotes will lead you to the moderator's attention. etc.

Make the person click on that message, and if we still find that person trolling he can be simply taken to task by the mods.

Maybe, but IMO the terms legitimate reason and baseless downvotes abosolutely must be explicitly defined on the same screen (1).

(1) meaning in the textbox, or otherwise immediately in the face of whomever is submitting the downvote

Aquarius_Girl · 12-14-2011, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Telengard

Maybe, but IMO the terms legitimate reason and baseless downvotes abosolutely must be explicitly defined on the same screen.

Yes obviously, I wrote that with the assumption of having radio buttons with explained options like:

Wrong information Exp: Please explain your reason in the follow up post BEFORE downvoting.
Spam Exp: Report to the mods, please.
Impolite post Exp: Please explain your reason in the follow up post BEFORE downvoting.

EDIT:

Well, I am in favor of having the reasons explained in the follow up posts.

Nominal Animal · 12-14-2011, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeremy

The Helpful system needs to be quick and easy to use, while also being able to gather usable empirical data. Offering a radiobox for the "No" option may very well improve the system, and I'm interested to see what other members think of that. While I am always for as much transparency as possible, I think the "see who and why" option you propose, while good in theory, is booth too complex and also runs a very high risk of becoming a system that draws many threads offtrack with meta discussion about the who and why.

How about just "why", then? It seems to me "unhelpful" does not describe the intent. It is too easy to misunderstand. Assuming we cannot split it, perhaps we could rename it at least?

May I suggest inconsiderate?

In practical terms, this would mean that at the end of each post you'd have two buttons, similar to

Quote:

Did you find this post helpful? Inconsiderate?

that act just like the "Did you find this post useful? Yes / No before.

For "inconsiderate", it would be good to ask for confirmation. The page could state the acceptable reasons why one might mark a post inconsiderate, and the user would have to pick one (using a radio button), and confirm the selection. (This is to avoid unintentional misuse. The radio button would have practically the same function as the "Yes, I have read the license" tick box in end user license agreements, so the choice does not need to be saved anywhere, as long as the user makes a choice. We cannot force anybody to think, after all.)

That would lead to a message similar to

Quote:

1 user found this post to be inconsiderate.

at the bottom of the message. For contended messages, it could be

Quote:

1 out of 3 users found this post to be inconsiderate, 2 out of 3 useful.

The intent is to make the button useful for marking posts that are not contributing to the discussion, while keeping it polite and neutral enough to be as useless as possible for trolling or flamebaiting. "Unhelpful" is pretty neutral, but it is easily misunderstood by new members who are looking for homework solutions; sure, the answers may really be unhelpful, but the boards are not meant to help in such situations.

Note that I'm not a native English speaker, and my vocabulary is limited. There may very well be a much better suited term for the button. I also don't have that much experience with various English-speaking cultures, so "inconsiderate" may have connotations that make it unsuitable. Ideas, anyone?

timetraveler · 12-14-2011, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeremy

A very long time, why?

Why do you think?
How many years are a very long time?

newlinuxal · 12-15-2011, 01:43 AM

I think it's a good idea to disable/delete the "No" button. It is too easy to abuse. I feel that if somebody finds a reply unhelpful, off topic or dangerous, etc. they should be prepared to take the time to explain why in a reply of their own.

JZL240I-U · 12-15-2011, 01:59 AM

I think I have made it quite clear that I dislike the reputation system in the one-time original thread and I disabled it consequently. I still think it is an unfortunate mixture when reputation (of a person) and helpfulnes (of a post) get cross linked.

That said, the helpful button (or whatever label it finally gets) needs no real explanation, since the original question and the helpful post are there for all to read and hopefully learn from.

It is regrettably that trolling and flame-baiting forestall giving name and reason for any "down-grading". I'd still like to have it mandatory go give the reason. So I'd suggest that after clicking on unhelpful (or whatever label that one has in the end) an editor window opens with a clear request to state the reason(s) but without making an obvious connection to the act of downgrading itself when the new post is finally displayed (keep in mind that it is not necessarily the immediate next post).

jlinkels · 12-15-2011, 05:16 AM

I am in favour of keeping the option of downvoting, but augmented with a reason and the person who downvoted it.

jlinkels

cynwulf · 12-15-2011, 06:06 AM

I think Jeremy raises valid points about a "public" post rating system and a comments box feeding trolling and causing more problems than it solves.

If the no option were to be brought back, functioning anonymously as before, but with an additional comments box, as some people seem to want, it would actually be even more open for abuse. Not only could posts be down voted, but anonymous personal attacks could also be left... a very bad idea and I honestly don't think those proposing it have given it any more than a few minutes of consideration.

Making the whole thing public "resolves" this one problem but would open up a whole set of others - with certain people voting for each other and cliques forming and increased trolling, etc.

The best solution in my very humble opinion is what is in place now. A anonymous "yes", without the "no".

Quote:

Originally Posted by dugan

The correct response to a post like this cannot be anything but a downvote.

The correct response such posts is usually the report button. Clicking the "I don't like you" button won't resolve anything in a situation like that.

Aquarius_Girl · 12-15-2011, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caravel

I think Jeremy raises valid points about a "public" post rating system and a comments box feeding trolling and causing more problems than it solves.

Indeed posting in the comment box won't be helpful. Reasons if given, need to be "discussed" and sorted out in the follow up posts.

It is not only about trolling, IMO. Asking for reasons is a way to understand where you/I went wrong so that the same faults don't happen over and over (both from the side of the voter as well the votee).

But, if the down votes are allowed for only above 150 posts, chances of abuse may become less.

agnporto · 12-15-2011, 08:06 AM

Animal like you as you are, continue!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nominal Animal

(I have a tentative suggestion for enhancement regarding the reputation mechanism at the second to last paragraph of this post.)

First, let me tell you something about myself first. I joined LinuxQuestions almost exactly one year ago today. This is my 1000th post to LinuxQuestions, and also the first thread I've started here. I wanted to take this opportunity to offer some feedback in the hopes it is useful; to describe my experience here thus far; and to offer a thank you to the other members, moderators, and of course Jeremy.

My reason for joining was two-fold. First, I'm addicted to problem-solving. If there is a problem to solve in the Linux/GNU/free software world, especially one that is considered difficult or even impossible, I'm absolutely hooked. I do have a bit of a perfectionist streak, although I'm satisfied with durable, robust, modular solutions. (I guess you could say that usefulness is one aspect of beauty for me.)

Second reason is that I enjoy learning through debate and logical arguments. I easily get carried away, and I'm often wrong, but logic will (should!) sway me. I enjoy seeing others develop solutions that I can accept myself; doubly so when I've participated in the discussion in a positive way. I do have a tendency to lecture, because I enjoy seeing what direction others will take the new viewpoint or information. My own solutions are much better when I have the viewpoints of others to draw from.

I'm definitely not an easy member. I have had three points for infraction (inappropriate language). I tend to be quite aggressive if I perceive unfairness, or even if I perceive a knowledgeable member take an intellectual shortcut. Normally I try to be polite, though.

At LQ, I've found moderators to be quite fair in the forums I've participated in. Jeremy himself was quite helpful in clearing my misunderstandings about certain moderation practices. I wish I had realized that one can contact him directly if there are perceived issues with moderators -- I might not have made such an ass of myself early on. Simply put, I've been treated very fairly by the admins, even when my own behaviour was lacking.

As to threads started by other members: I do not mind supplying a full script as a solution to a specific problem, as long as the original poster is willing to learn (at least a bit of) how it works, and why it works. That is, as long as it is not a homework assignment.

I believe there has been at least a slight increase of new members using the site to help them with their homework. (Then again, it may be due to introductory courses starting in the autumn.) I don't mind the ones that ask for help to locating a bug or overcoming a problem in their solution, but there seems to be quite a lot of "Please send me teh codez" -types of threads. I have zero tolerance for the ones that say they're in a hurry, just need something to submit, and are utterly unwilling to show any kind of effort themselves. I do not believe LQ exists to facilitate such .. cheaters. I wish we had a way to flag such threads and users.

That is actually a bad segway to the one feature in LQ which I believe needs fixing. Somehow.

Two posts of mine, this and this, have been marked as "unhelpful". I know that many members disagree, and that I may be even wrong (in one or both cases), but I'm utterly baffled and constantly wondering the reasoning behind the 'unhelpful' tag. (To me, it means something like "you're detracting from the discussion", and not "I disagree".)

I understand that that is an insignificant detail to most, but for someone like me (for whom being useful is a major reason why they participate in LQ) knowing the reason their post was marked unhelpful is very important. I am tempted to ask moderators to find out if possible, but that would be unfair to other posts where such marking is questionable -- unless, of course, the moderators or Jeremy is willing to facilitate checking such "unhelpful" marking whenever requested?

Perhaps the reputation system could be modified so that neutral/negative reputation would have a reason attached ("unhelpful", "homework assignment", "flamewar", "out of topic"?). To avoid abuse, the assigning user name would be shown along with the mark in the thread view (perhaps with the user name(s) in the tooltip). It should be noted that this feature would help members to ignore behaviour they dislike without adding a lot of users to their ignore list, to keep the discussion on track. As such, I think seeing the assigners username would help readers in making the decision.

Thank you for your site, your problems, your arguments, your solutions, and for your suggestions thus far. I hope we can be mutually useful in the future, too.