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.

1 members found this post helpful.

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.

1 members found this post helpful.

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.

1 members found this post helpful.

@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

1 members found this post helpful.

How long has it been in place?