Feedback: one year and 1000 posts later.
 

(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.

I couldn't agree more with you. This has happened to me on multiple occasions. On a side note though, I know that sometimes I come off as harsh, but I don't try to.
I'm fully with you on that one, man. Like I just said before, I have had posts marked as unhelpful because I asked for what the OP has done so far, and that we are not here to do everything for them. I don't get it?

I second what corp769 said. I know I have posted responses that were off the mark (and once or twice just plain wrong). I don't mind it when someone points out that I've made a mistake; indeed, I try to thank anyone who corrects me. Mistakes are how I learn.

It does rankle when a post I made with the intention of helping gets marked as unhelpful because I missed the mark. I think it is because calling the post "unhelpful" seems to impugn my motives, rather than just my actions.

Nevertheless, the great majority of LQ members are a positive recommendation for human-kind, so I try to ignore the small minority who are not or who may have been having bad days.

I have also seen moderators call out members for marking posts as "unhelpful" when, in the eyes of the moderator, the member meant, "I do not agree"; the mods are not blind to this, though there may be little they can do about it.

I totally agree with everything said so far- everyone makes mistakes, but I would prefer someone correct me so I know where the mistake was made, rather than anonymously marking the post as unhelpful, but I have one more point I'd like to make on the subject: "4 out of 5 found this post helpful". WTH is that? How could it be so unhelpful to the 1 that their vote should count at all without explanation? And yet it does count, not only with that line tagged to the post, but also against your "LQ helpful quotient" in your profile.

Doesn't give much incentive to spend time here helping, IMHO.

Great post. I agree with all of that. I think that you are right, the 'unhelpful' button is not helpful as is. You should be able to see who marked your post as unhelpful and why. And, not only that, you should also be able to challenge it. From what I've seen, currently, 'unhelpful' = 'I do not agree with your opinions', and this is not helpful for anything. It does annoy me.

Given the choice, I would do away with the "Did you find this post helpful? No" link. Many posts are made with good intent but are not helpful, perhaps making a suggestion that did not work or because the poster did not fully understand the question (mea culpa for that one, many times). What benefit would there be in clicking the No link? Would it not discourage the poster?

Sometimes people accidentally click No instead of Yes and it is not obvious how to rectify the error and, as already mentioned, No is often used to mean "I do not agree/like the post".

Technically, and somewhat flippantly, the "unhelpful" button was used correctly:
Question: will you do all my work for me?
Answer: No
Response: That was no help to me at all, where's that button gone?
:)

The button isn't meant to do away with the conversational format we have here, I would hope that everyone who hits the button at least takes the time to explain politely why they think a particular answer was not helpful. Maybe the question just needs to be expanded on or an answer needs to go a few extra steps. If anyone does feel that they are being down-graded unfairly, let one of us know. We may not be able to fix it or the person's perspective, but we do have looong memories :)

Thanks for the feedback. The button was intended to address very specific cases (such as a post being dangerous, misleading or not adding to the conversation in a constructive way). It was explicitly *not* meant as an "I do not agree with this opinion" or "I don't like this content" button. While we have tried to ensure the option is used as intended (as noted the mods have addressed misuses), it's clear that the option currently isn't reaching its intended goal. While I maintain that a negative option, if used correctly, would benefit LQ; I am going to disable the "No" until we can review how it may be used in a manner more congruent with its intended goals.

--jeremy

Ah, I already wondered where it is gone before seeing this thread. Since I use that function occasionally (and I think in the way it is intended to be used), is it possible to enable it at least for senior members?
When I think about it, I can't imagine a way to make sure that is used properly.

TobiSGD,

I've moved your post to this thread to keep discussion and feedback in a single place. I do see value in the "No" option if used correctly, so we'll try to figure out a way to ensure it will be used correctly and consistently. It's possible usergroup based restrictions will be part of that.

--jeremy

Is there a mechanism in place to prevent someone from creating one or more accounts on lq and then using those accounts to boost the rep of the other accounts?

I don't pay attention to the rep system. I pay attention to the content of the post(s).
I don't even know how the rep system works and I don't care. It seems to me that it is a system that is based on what other people want to tell you to think of someone else. I like to decide for myself.

Yes.

--jeremy

Doesn't the Report button address most of those cases?

While it's certainly true that dangerous or malicious commands will be edited, there's a large gray area in the "misleading or not adding to the conversation in a constructive way" group that may not require individual immediate attention, but taken as a larger group are indicative of an issue.

--jeremy

In that case, why not make it so that, after pressing the Report button, you get a choice of severity/importance/priority of the report. Say from 1 to 5, where 1 is minor and 5 is critical, kinda like in bug reports.

If a post is misleading, maybe it should be removed, but maybe something else has priority, so you could rate it 1. If a post is dangerous, it should be removed right away to prevent damage to user's systems, so you could rate it 5. This would also tell the mods in which order to handle the posts. Yeah, it is subjective, but that doesn't mean it won't work or help. It would make the "grey area" into shades of gray.

Jeremy,

Now that the "unhelpful" button is removed, is the following going to be removed from the My Profile -> Statistics page as well:I cannot come up with a valid reason for keeping this now that there is no way of giving someone unhelpful status.

Just curious :)

If we at some point make a decision to remove the "No" option on a permanent basis, the related profile statistics would be removed.

--jeremy

Ok, thanks!

My feeling is that unrelated functions need to be disconnected from each other. The lack of parity between the two makes it obvious that yes and no are unrelated functions.

• When I click yes the person gets some reputation added.
• When I click no the person's reputation is unaffected.

If the intended purpose of yes is to highlight the best answer in the thread, then why should it affect the poster's reputation at all? It seems like you want it to be similar to sites where posts can be voted to the top, but then you don't actually move the posts to the top. Why?

The intended purpose of no seems to be to warn about misleading/malicious/unproductive posts, thus making LQ members into mini-moderators of sorts. That might not seem like a bad idea, but please make clear the meaning and effect of that no.

I'm afraid I have naively misused the system already. Sorry for that, and hope it hasn't caused trouble in any way. I don't really need the no.

I do want to continue using yes to show my approval of helpful/informative/productive posts. It should probably be disconnected from the reputation system though. And please consider giving some visual representation of the effect of accumulated yes votes.

Maybe the post which gets the most yes votes should be reprinted at the top of the thread directly below OP. I'm sure some will not like that idea, though.

How about this:

Keep the current positive-only reputation intact, but add -- for the lack of a better term -- notority points. Each notority point would also include a reason, selected from a predefined list. These could include things like "off topic", "homework", "high risk advice".

Unlike reputation points, notority points would not be anonymous. If you flag a post, your username would be shown (for example, in the tool tip) too.

At the bottom of each message, both reputation and notority would be similarly shown. For example a message might show
(There is no way to add a tooltip in a post, so I used a link instead. Instead of a link, the flags would have tooltips (HTML title attribute) listing the (first few usernames) that flagged the post that way.)

While there is a risk of some arguments arising from mislabeling posts, such disagreements could at least be discussed. Anonymous "drive-by cheap shots" would be impossible. (Giving notority points could be restricted, or tied to the reputation points, to keep its use very low. That too is important: most posts are just part of the discussion.)

Previously, there was no way (other than contacting the moderators, or asking in a new post in the thread) to find out. I believe my suggested change would facilitate better discussion, and be helpful for those (like myself) that wish to avoid certain types of posts (and threads). It may be technically difficult to implement, though.

As for myself, instead of flagging posts, I've resorted to ignoring the members I perceive as posting "unhelpful" or "homework" posts. While this works for me, there is at least one member I've ignored, but has many helpful posts I would not want to ignore. (That is, I'd prefer to ignore certain of er posts, not the poster.)

That is only because the negative aspects of the reputation system have been completely removed.

See below for the rest of the answer, but a member who very consistently posts helpful responses should be rewarded with positive reputation it would seem.

Such as the profile stats?

We have done this for a very long time now.

--jeremy

Fine, if that's the consensus then I won't fight it. I just want to point out that the two systems are unrelated, and for me they conflict with each other. Most times I click yes without even considering reputation. But then, when I try to give reputation I am not allowed.

I guess if I'm the only one too dumb to understand the relationship between the two, then just leave that part as it is.

I mean inside the thread itself.

I see the a link at the top of the reply stack. What I meant was to reprint the entire post at the top of the thread directly under the opening post. Again, probably not a popular suggestion I know.

Oh well. I like LQ and I get plenty of enjoyment from the time I spend here. Thanks for listening to my gripes.

Muchas gracias. Please consider keeping it that way indefinitely.

Unlike on some other sites, threads on LQ are more a discussion than every one trying to come up with the whole solution in one post. Pulling the best rated post to the top would take it out of its context. I see the link at the top rather to be good for a first look on the best rated solution, so that anyone that comes from a web search can see if this solution was may be already tried or is something new. I would think that it is nonetheless still recommended to read more of the posts in a thread, not only the top rated one, simply because most of the time there are earlier posts that are only partially quoted (which may make things unclear if you haven't read them) and some follow up posts that clarify some things or warn about circumstances when that specific approach will not work.

While helping other Linux users is the main purpose of LQ, I see LQ also as highly educative (at least I have learned much since I am a member here), not only a "solution distributor". Pulling the best rated post to the top will counteract that also, I would think.

I know, it isn't a great idea. I was just struggling to think some way to make the system look more like what it is intended to be. Forgive me :redface:

Me, too!

I'll add my 2 cents, based on what I have read here and from what I remember when the original thread about reputation system started, I'll say that, in my opinion, all this mess can be fixed this way;

The question should be Did you find this post helpful and why?

Options should be Yes and No and when a member clicks on either one of them his/her name should be automagically added to the list of users who voted and the lovely part;

I think a new little box should appear, something like Quick Reply box where a member would type why he or she found that post helpful or not. In my opinion "Why" should be explained and should be obligatory. Without "Why" explained, no vote should be added. There should be a link to that members list who voted and expressed their opinion within the comment box. Something like;

Voted helpful by 12 members (see who and why) <-- this is a link
Voted unhelpful by 3 members (see who and why) <-- this is a link

That way all would be transparent and would greatly improve the reputation system.

As it is now, if I go to see someone's reputation I can see when and in which thread he or she got that point, but I cannot see from whom it was and why and I can see who gave me a point in My LQ, which is also in contradiction.

Jeremy said that maybe No will be completely removed. I do not agree, because in the original reputation system thread majority of members I believe was for Yes and No. We do not need to remove things, we need to make them better.

I hope this suggestion of mine will see the light.

I was going to suggest something similar to what alan_ri did:

When someone clicks "unhelpful," present them with a dialog that forces a selection from a multiple choice menu. The menu could be designed to emphasize the purpose, as Jeremy explained it, of "unhelpful," because his reasons make a lot of sense (as always). I thought at first of a free-text form for entering a "why," then decided it might offer too much of an opportunity for bomb-throwing.

Of course an honest mistake (of which I have my share) could be construed as "not adding the conversation in a constructive way," so maybe that could be replaced by some more specific options, such as "off topic," "belaboring a point already made," "introducing unrelated issue," and the like.

Just my two cents.

As an aside, when I see "4 out of 5 found this helpful," I conclude that one clicked not helpful. Is this correct?

Again, I want to emphasize that I find LQ one of the nicest internet places to be that I have seen; almost everyone is friendly and helpful. That's one reason I decided to participate regularly, not just when I had a linux question.

Not in my opinion.
Report button can be used only for taking to task the prank, spam,
and otherwise "dangerous" posts. By "dangerous" I mean something
which can "damage" someone's computer/money.

Now, in C/C++ kind of language threads, people post their own
interpretations of the technical aspects which many times may
be incorrect.

Example: If I post an incorrect/pointless use/definition of
pure virtual functions, mods won't be able to strangle my
throat on this issue since I didn't break any "rules". I posted that
with good intentions of helping. Of course the discussions will
follow and I'll get corrected down somewhere in the thread.
BUT,
What about the newbie who just sees the senior member title
with 4000 posts and lots of green dots??
He may not understand the follow up posts, and his vision may get
jeopardized due to the title credentials ! This can lead to confusion
and a wastage of time for him.

In these kind of cases, IMO, it is "necessary" to mark the post
down (as a warning signal to the clueless folks).

This is already there. In basic terms clicking "yes" increments the "helpful post" counter on the post itself and adds to the reputation of the poster with the generic comment "Helpful Answer Positive Rating". If instead you click the "scales" icon you can add your own comment in place of that one and give positive reputation but the counter on the post in question does not get incremented. So it only works in one direction.

Personally I think the comment is important but there more so needs to be some accountability. The anonymity of the current system is it's main flaw in my opinion. Some people will just flag up the post of someone they dislike as unhelpful, because they can and they know it will piss that person off. The internet and forums in particular are full of such people, it would be naive to assume otherwise.

I would say that at the least there needs to be a record of who clicked what, even if it's only visible to moderators and/or the two members involved. But in my opinion the best solution is to leave it exactly as it is at present; anonymous, but with the "No" option disabled and rely on in-thread corrections and post reporting to deal with problems.

I see your point, but a forum is a forum, it's not an infallible guide or instruction manual. If someone doesn't read a thread properly or follows flawed or out of date information, that's simply one of the known hazards. I don't think there is a realistic way to consistently separate the accurate posts from the inaccurate ones, the "No" option in it's current forum certainly won't achieve that, and members simply need to be on their toes rather than blindly copying and pasting every bit of code they find on a forum.

It's also worth pointing out the following from the Rules:If someone blindly inputs a command or runs some code, it is something that they must accept may damage their machine. We cannot, and should not, be seen as trying to protect a user or guest from themselves.

Technical threads should always be read through in their entirety unless the viewer understands the topic already and isaware of what a change may do. And in that case, they take the consequences on themselves.

If unhelpful votes were meant as constructive criticism, then a link in my profile to see every post that other members have rated unhelpful would have been even more constructive.

This has happened to me at least twice.

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...1/#post4412016
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...9/#post4142454

I agree. If it is enabled again, at least I should be able to see who marked by thread as unhelpful and why. Then I can improve and react to it. However, you are also right in that this can just as well be done in the same thread. The one who doesn't like what I say can disagree and say why.

Yes, but you should try to protect the users from the malicious intent of others. If the command does what it says it does and user uses it to wipe his drive, there is no blame on anyone but the user if that was not what they wanted. But, if the command does something which is misrepresented in the post, then it should be removed.

Deja-vu
 

So the 'Yes' option is going to be a relabeled "Thanks" button linked with the reputation system. But then again, the "Thanks" button was also meant as some sort of reputation measurement. ATM, I do not see the point of abolishing the 'no' option.

I am also not fond of the idea of having multiple "feedback-shortcuts" like 'off-topic' or 'suboptimal solution' buttons. I prefer quoting the solution and explaining why it should be done otherwise. This yields more educational benefits.
One might also be a bit 'trigger happy' and click one of aforementioned buttons and realize later that the solution is not as bad as initially perceived. But the premature choice cannot be corrected. Besides, the poster might edit his post because he realizes that it can be improved on his own. The "score" then will not reflect those changes and a now good solution will stay flagged as "not so good".

Since we are on this topic, I think that the scale icon is no longer appropriate as reputation indicator. Initially it was meant to indicate that one can balance a members reputation with it. But most members cannot give negative reputation anymore. So there is nothing to balance any more.

Having a popup radiobox appear after clicking "No", with the specific reason for voting that way may be a reasonable way to keep members from misusing the system (be it intentionally or unintentionally).

Correct.

--jeremy

If you want to get into that type of detail, the full blown reputation system is what you should be using. 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.

--jeremy

Not a bad idea to require an explanation for a downvote. Certainly worth a try. On the other hand, I'm a big fan of KISS. Allow upvotes and nothing else, or forget the concept altogether.

I've received a total of four downvotes. None came with an explanation. (I take that back. One came with an explanation that didn't match the downvotes' intended purpose.)

With respect, I have always viewed downvotes as a "f%^# you" button. Useless, subjective wrist-slapping that adds nothing of value to a technical discussion, even when used correctly. (And it certainly isn't used correctly.)

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

No reply or explanation is warranted, because that would be feeding a troll. However, the behavior here is so blatant and pathological that it is more appropriate to publically voice disapproval than to ignore it.

@dugan: Agreed, the person should be called out for bad behavior. If it's a chronic problem, s/he probably doesn't belong here.

A downvote doesn't turn a jerk into a non-jerk. S/he feeds off attention. A downvote does irritate non-jerks who were/are sincerely trying to be helpful.

So what problem does the downvote capability solve? (None, IMO.)

It's true, a real troll doesn't care at all about down vote.

Perhaps, the deterrent would be placing this avatar for a person whose post received 3+ downvotes:)


On a serious note, I agree that downvotes don't seem to have the intended (any?) effect on the people/posts that deserve it most.

Would it be possible to just add a few links, such as in the line:

Then one can click the 4 and see who rated the post helpful, and click the 5 to see the one who thought otherwise, and/or in the member profile under stats, include:

This should not only be deterrent enough to prevent abuse of the system, but would also help weed out the ones who do still abuse it.

Any thoughts on this?

I've downvoted two posts for getting basics exactly wrong, and getting it wrong in the topic sentence no less. I think there does need to be some way of warning readers there's something seriously wrong, particularly when the consequences won't be immediately apparent.

(empahsis mine)

I'm beginning to consider the idea of requiring a comment for any downvote, and making those votes/comments public. My spin would be to make those vote/comments part of the thread wherein they occur. This would ensure that people (me) clicking no would give some thought and not misuse the system. It would also keep the discussion contained in the thread which spawned it. I believe this would be consistent with (my understanding of) what Jeremy and the mods expect from the system.

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

Maybe if the person's helpful quotient is below 50%, or some other percentage, would be more realistic.

A couple comments:

1) This would really detract from the main content of the thread, which I do not think is desirable.
2) The problem with this (and the general idea that the anonymity of the current system is a flaw) is that you are thinking like a well intentioned member who is not trying to game or abuse the system. In that context you are correct. In the context of someone intentionally trying to bait other members, abuse the system or just generally troll; the public display is actually an incentive to them and will help them in achieving their goal. It will also lead to animosity between some members, which will result in the forming of cliques, which is something we try very hard to avoid at LQ.

--jeremy

How long has it been in place?

A very long time, why?

--jeremy

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

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.

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

drc

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.