0 members found your post helpful. How did this happen with downvotes disabled?

1 members found this post helpful.

Quite easily as it has not actually been disabled, just hidden from view.

1 members found this post helpful.

If you can give neutral/negative reputation, then as "Nominal Animal" suggests, it would be helpful to have to add a reason. Might I suggest a reason which reads something like: "Responder has not read or understood the original question correctly."? I haven't seen this suggested in any of the other posts so far.

My experience of forums on many different types of topic is that posters sometimes respond after only a cursory inspection of the question. These posters often have a high status ("Maestro" or similar) which is based on the number of posts they have made. I suspect that they have made a superficial scan of the question followed by a quick posting related to one point in the question. I would be reluctant to suggest that their motive is to increase their score and thereby their status, but the system can reward that behaviour. It might help everyone including the poster if they could see that this was happening.

Please note that I do no intend to suggest that this applies to the majority of high status posters - who are of course well intentioned and do read the question!

1 members found this post helpful.

I just did a test, and I was able to downrep your post. Sorry, it was just a test. It can be done just copying the link and changing 1 to 0 ... maybe it should be fixed ...

I just did that with a random post in this thread too. Sorry, H_TexMeX_H, but it was the post above this one. I'm going to send Jeremy an email to have it reversed.

I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that all of the (mostly reasonable) suggestions about requiring an explanation for a downvote will lead to one major side-effect: additional time investment on the parts of both forum members and moderators.

In short, it's a bandaid for a sucky feature. Not inline with LQ's values (as I perceive them) or the encouragement of intelligent discussion.

Consider all the cultural differences, communication challenges, and expertise levels, and it's easy to understand why a "popularity system" is destined to fail. Upvotes, great -- even if they're not accurate, they're at least positive reinforcement. Downvotes, terrible -- makes it feel like Slashdot here. IMO, the sign of a generally "good system", application, or feature is that you don't have to spend hours defending it or arguing about it.

3 members found this post helpful.

I haven't spent much time here on LQ yet
I'll share some things I like on other forums
Don't much care for quotes being the only way to see which post is being replied to, it can be confusing

Not helpful could be reclassified as Off Topic

here's an example of both
http://cr4.globalspec.com/comment/79...our-Job-Secure

members can vote good answer or off topic
that site allows you to mark your self OT off topic, which gives you a score of 5

I attached a screenshot to show what it looks like
good answers are indicated at both the top of the page & on individual posts

I like the hybrid display posts are displayed chronologically & you can tell what post is being replied too
sometimes on forums like LQ, I will start with
IRT [in reply to]

Attached Thumbnails

 

No problem, I forgot to mention it was I who tested on donrc's post, sorry donrc.

Before anyone panics, it doesn't downrep as far as I know (not even when the "no" option was present), it just adds/subtracts the counter on the post itself. Negative reputation is disabled anyway.

To cut a long story short the removal of the "no" option and change in the display of e.g. "1 of 2 members..." to only show the first number (even if it's the "0" from "0 of 1") looks like a simple bit of html editing, which is easily circumvented. To be fair though I think this is what was intended - a test run, without actually removing it completely.

That's correct, but by publicly posting it a few members have tried it now. The next member who does so earns a 24 hour ban.

--jeremy

I agree with this in the sense that instead of a 'No' there should be a dropdown menu. The choices should be along the lines of
1. Off topic
2. Incorrect information
3. Dangerously misleading
But I don't see how you can prevent misuse.

Well if I could at the moment I would downvote this post and I would explain why if it were possible.

I've been reading what you people said here and I'm surprised, it seems that some of you don't read what others have said and that some of you don't want to understand, that goes for Jeremy too.

Basically, all posters here wanted to know why would someone downvote certain post, they all want hes/her name to be shown, so where's the fscking problem?

Let me tell you, if you do not allow people to say why, no matter if it is Yes or No, then you're not doing any good to what free software and open source is all about.

anomie, you said and I'll qoute that again;

"I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that all of the (mostly reasonable) suggestions about requiring an explanation for a downvote will lead to one major side-effect: additional time investment on the parts of both forum members and moderators."

Excuse me, but if members and moderators do not invest their time in making this web site better, then who fscking else should do it? That is a complete nonsense.

And then this;

"In short, it's a bandaid for a sucky feature. Not inline with LQ's values (as I perceive them) or the encouragement of intelligent discussion. "

How on dear Earth, would explanation of why did someone found some post helpful or not lead to the "sucky feature"? How could that not be the encouragement of intelligent discussion? Is it better that members stay anonymous and downvote whatever they want without anyone knowing why and who they are? Bullsh..

Think all of you what I've said, it may some good come out of it.

1 members found this post helpful.

Case in point. Mr. alan_ri completely misunderstood my post, and intended to downvote it.

Whether or not a popularity system makes LQ better is subjective. I say it doesn't; you say it does. It's called a difference of opinion.

I am in favor of making LQ a better place. With respect: duh.

The popularity system is the sucky feature. The explanation for votes is a bandaid to a sucky feature. (Again, all subjective.) Apologies if my communication wasn't clear. I'd do well to be more explicit next time, and it may be that you'd do well to revisit reading comprehension 101.

A few comments:

*) Please refrain from further personal attacks and keep things on topic.
*) The Helpful system is in no way a "popularity system". It is a qualitative way to rate the quality of the content of posts.
*) Some members seem to be conflating "don't want to understand" with "don't agree with my viewpoint", which tends to make constructive debate difficult.

Thanks for the continued feedback, keep it coming.

--jeremy

I'd go for at least these (possibly reworded):

• Off topic.
• Incorrect information.
• Doesn't address the OP. (or maybe) Missing the point entirely

As for Dangerously misleading, I think that's what the Report button is for.

I am sympathetic to the ideals of transparency and openness, but I have inferred that Jeremy believes making such comments public will result in outright abuse of the system on a broad scale. I'm sympathetic to Jeremy's concerns as well, of course, because a community can easily succumb to vindictiveness and infighting.

I often used the Unhelpful button for posts that are really dumb and/or bad-intentioned (but not against the LQ Rules). It seems like that should be an option.

I thought that the Report button is for posts that are against the LQ Rules (spam, personal attacks, etc.).

Wht do you mean by "such comments"? If you mean the names of the people that voted unhelpful, then I agree that it could be a bad idea.

Anyway, I like the idea of being able to choose one of a few preset reasons for the Unhelpful button. As long as there's no "this post didn't fix by problem" option, it will prevent the "abuse" of the system by newbies who don't understand the purpose of the Unhelpful button, which was my main issue.