[655321]

jillybean, on 2011-January-21, 13:07, said:

What I find concerning is the intolerance

[TylerE]

The system on StackOverflow works supremely well. The thing that imo makes it work is that downvotes cost. Roughly speaking, a downvote costs the voter about 1/10th the rep they receive for an upvote, so people can't just go around mass down-voting people they mildly disagree with.

[hotShot]

Quote

Our Board Statistics

Total Posts521,190
Total Members9,393

There are almost 9400 members, but about 20% of the total posts are made by the Top 10 active poster.
We have 6 posters with more than 10000 posts.
If you order the members by total posts, you can see at the end of page 5, that the forum member at position 100 by total posts has written 1,156 posts.
The poster at position 50 has 2,482 posts on his account.
I would guess that about 80% of the posts are made by about 100 people.
(In fact some have more than 1 ID in the top 100...)

So I guess it would also be the same 100 persons up and down voting posts.
I guess they will often give the same preferences and dislikes again and again.

[the hog]

The fact that one very rude and objectionable reply to Cascade's complaint about spamming has received 5 upvotes is evidence enough of the tribal posting that is evident amongst some on this board.

[jillybean]

655321, on 2011-January-21, 15:36, said:

Let me rephrase that
What I find concerning is the intolerance shown by rude or sarcastic replies to those who have different views.

[gwnn]

I think you are intolerant towards sarcasm.

[cherdano]

jillybean, on 2011-January-21, 11:54, said:

Do you think the voting system will in effect give the general membership moderating powers to anonymously and without reason indicate that other bbf’ers contributions are unacceptable, and do you think that is a good thing?

Downvotes would give the general membership the power to express that they don't like some posts. I would expect downvotes would hit annoying whining off-topic rants just as a much as their flamewar-starting responses.
(I agree, though, that it would be better if downvotes are public.)

[Antraxxx]

Why is it better to have to hijack threads and start flame wars in order to express lack of approval towards a post?

[helene_t]

jillybean, on 2011-January-21, 13:07, said:

I'm not concerned with people liking or disliking contributions, although it seems rather pointless to down vote an opinion or posting style without offering a reason or alternative.
Isn't that the fundmental purpose of a discussion forum?

What I find concerning is the intolerance, the use of sarcasm and the up voting the sarcasm.

That is exactly Arend's point, maybe with the slight difference that he talks about calling someone out, rather than making a "sarcastic" response.

I think it makes perfect sense to just upvote or downvote posts rather than writing a motivating text. Sometimes, people just want to say "I agree with X" and nothing further. Then it is better just to upvote it. But especially downvoting would be a great improvement. Downvoting a post is much less disturbing than writing a response only to express disagreement with another post.

[pirate22]

well well Forums-expicit purpose is to get other persons point of view.
upvoting/downvoting????????? newish jargon.this system not reqd.
also anyone replying to a question or a point raised does not have to be
an expert-be they yellow red/blue or green. now "Sarcasm" has crept in.
Definition Oxford Dictionary-with due respect to Wikapedia,and any other
dictionary's is as follows.

"The use of bitter words or wounding--to tear flesh"
So if the writer feels some hurt,probably best to ignore it.

Does down/up voting claify any grievance's

[Free]

Just throw the whole damn voting system away. Like the masterpoint system, when you can only gain points/votes, you don't get an accurate rating from your score anyway. It's just a popularity contest at the moment, nothing else.

Adding downvotes won't help, it would still be a popularity contest. But when people get too many downvotes, they'll just use another nickname and start all over again. Or they'll create several nicks to upvote themselves.

Less is more. We don't need a facebook approach with friends, we don't need rating systems, we don't need votes for posts,... We only want to discuss bridge, have a decent quoting system, have our avatars displayed, and have a fight from time to time because someone posted something ridiculous when he was drunk.

[hotShot]

helene_t, on 2011-January-22, 06:17, said:

That is exactly Arend's point, maybe with the slight difference that he talks about calling someone out, rather than making a "sarcastic" response.

I think it makes perfect sense to just upvote or downvote posts rather than writing a motivating text. Sometimes, people just want to say "I agree with X" and nothing further. Then it is better just to upvote it. But especially downvoting would be a great improvement. Downvoting a post is much less disturbing than writing a response only to express disagreement with another post.

I can accept that an upvote is better than a "I agree with X" posting, but if we assume that most people do not intentionally post nonsense, than a written explanation why something is wrong is a lot more helpful than a downvote.

[JLOGIC]

Cherdano is a genius he just makes these posts to get + voted, well played sir

[Phil]

JLOGIC, on 2011-January-31, 11:35, said:

Cherdano is a genius he just makes these posts to get + voted, well played sir

He is.

I do find that my funny posts get upvoted a lot. Does this make me a better player ?

[cherdano]

JLOGIC, on 2011-January-31, 11:35, said:

Cherdano is a genius he just makes these posts to get + voted, well played sir

+1

[mtvesuvius]

cherdano, on 2011-January-31, 12:27, said:

+1

Is it bad that I just upvoted that?

I had a period of 3 or 4 days where everything matmat posted I thought was amazing (not that his other posts are not, just these were exceptional), and I found myself upvoting everything he wrote!

[Bbradley62]

jillybean, on 2011-January-21, 13:07, said:

What I find concerning is the intolerance, the use of sarcasm and the up voting the sarcasm.

Suppose X makes a very rude post and Y makes a sarcastic reply post to call X out on it. I would like to be able to downvote X's post, but the system does not allow this. Therefore, I upvote Y's post to show disapproval of X's post. Would we both therefore be happier if downvotes were allowed?

[Bbradley62]

pooltuna, on 2011-January-19, 12:18, said:

I suspect you might get this passed if you are required to state why a down vote is warranted subject to moderation as well as you may not remain anonymous. The moderation point is a problem, a real stickler as none of the yellows want to take much time with this kind of moderation.

Suppose there were two separate downvote counters (which count equally), one to disagree with the content and the other to dislike the attitude. Would that work?

[Bbradley62]

I'd also like to be able to retract an upvote that I awarded rashly. If that's not feasible, then allowing downvotes would provide a way to offset a rashly-awarded upvote.

[mtvesuvius]

Bbradley62, on 2011-February-18, 21:17, said:

I'd also like to be able to retract an upvote that I awarded rashly. If that's not feasible, then allowing downvotes would provide a way to offset a rashly-awarded upvote.

JUST KIDDING! I don't really like your post, I just wanted to see the green counter go up one.