|
|
Post by ausador on Mar 10, 2009 19:29:27 GMT -5
The night before last I noticed a sudden change, quote submittals that would have gotten delete votes before suddenly had lots of approvals. A post on R.R. by a poster with exactly 1 post who couldn't be any more obviously a troll if he was trying suddenly gets approved? WTF? It is on the mainpage now and almost everyone yawned and said 'troll' as they should. Why did we vote for it, I sure didn't. www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=60404Suddenly even the crappy quotes are getting a lot of approval votes, what changed? |
|
|
|
Post by Distind on Mar 10, 2009 20:22:10 GMT -5
The night before last I noticed a sudden change, quote submittals that would have gotten delete votes before suddenly had lots of approvals. A post on R.R. by a poster with exactly 1 post who couldn't be any more obviously a troll if he was trying suddenly gets approved? WTF? It is on the mainpage now and almost everyone yawned and said 'troll' as they should. Why did we vote for it, I sure didn't. www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=60404Suddenly even the crappy quotes are getting a lot of approval votes, what changed? I want that to be a poe, but I can't know for sure off the top of my head. Checking the vote stats it doesn't look like a lot changed, but my bet is we're getting more submissions again, and thus, more crap. We had a nice thing going for a bit, so I've been letting the axe hang for a while. Looks like I'm really going to have to drop it this week... That said, there's still only three or four people on the list(though I'll afford them some additional checking, could be they found the good ones and missed the crap), but removing them would have removed over 500 approval votes from the last week alone. |
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 10, 2009 22:00:16 GMT -5
Distind, just a suggestion. Leave the voting blind, I think it affects the way people approve or delete. Just a thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by MozMode on Mar 10, 2009 22:41:30 GMT -5
Distind, just a suggestion. Leave the voting blind, I think it affects the way people approve or delete. Just a thought. I agree with this. |
|
|
|
Post by caretaker on Mar 11, 2009 4:45:04 GMT -5
When I realised you could see how I voted, I got too scared to keep going >>; *Coward*
|
|
|
|
Post by Lady Renae on Mar 11, 2009 5:59:52 GMT -5
No. If we were to re-blind the voting it would hamper our ability to help Distind weed out the issue voters. For instance, if I were unable to see how many votes had been cast in either direction, I would not have been able to warn Distind about the people who had approved the horrendous submission now linked in the .. er.. another thread. Also if people are pressured to vote a certain way based on how other people voted, they shouldn't be in PubAd to begin with. "Darndest" does not require that you be popular, and it is the popularity of certain submissions that caused the problem we are now working to correct.
|
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 11, 2009 10:00:42 GMT -5
Unfortunately, LR, the fact is that people will follow the crowd. I have seen really unworthy of the mainpage quotes with 20+ approval votes, and a few minutes later, they pop up on the mainpage. This follow the crowd instinct is all too human, and blinding the voting would help curb this instinct. Perhaps there is a way for the mods to see the tallies, but not the voters themselves. That way you can have both.
Being able to see the "trend" will influence approval voting, whether we admit to it or not. Like during elections, the "front runner" will gain steam, simply by being the front runner.
The idea of blinding the voting to the voters is sound, though, for the reasons outlined above. You can't have it both ways, ie, unbiased voting and visible tallies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lady Renae on Mar 11, 2009 10:41:18 GMT -5
The mods don't have time to be sitting there watching the tallies and drudging through the PubAd looking for things that got approved that should never have even been submitted, and they certainly don't have the time to go trawling through the rubbish bin to see who approved the quotes that died when those quotes get defeated so they can re-check who should and shouldn't be having rights. Yes, there are post-approval methods of dealing with this stuff, but again it's primarily on the end-users to report these things.
Additionally, being able to see the tallies has helped Distind with debugging. There was a quote that had received more than the number of approvals it should have yet hadn't gone through to mainpage. Now, that got fixed, but there may be issues in the future, especially since Distind isn't done coding yet.
An alternate solution may be to "hide" instead of "blind" the vote tally. If the voter actually wants to see the tally for a particular quote, they can select the option, and the tally will become visible. The tally will then disappear for the next quote, and they would have to select the option again for every quote. Most people won't bother with this and will just vote. The people who actually use the tallies to help Distind and the mods will be able to do so, and these people are less likely to have their judgment clouded by popular opinion. This will especially work if it's an unassuming button or whatnot that you actually have to look for to know it's there and isn't just staring you in the face saying "click me!" so the Alices of FSTDT will be less tempted.
|
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 11, 2009 10:46:26 GMT -5
LR, that is a much better approach to the problem then an arbitrary "NO".
I do understand the problems that Distind is facing. I also understand that there is a reason why democracies, universally, rely on a secret ballot. I am glad that you see this, too.
The OP asked the question "what changed?" and the answer was that voters can see the trend in the voting. That skews the results, and unworthy quotes gets approval. The check the tally function could be disabled until AFTER the person votes, ie the vote allows the voter to then check the tally. Totally eliminates the problem, no?
Thanks for listening.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lady Renae on Mar 11, 2009 11:00:51 GMT -5
I understand your reasoning for post-vote, but in my opinion that would only be reasonable if the post-vote view contained a link to the quote in question such that resources could be provided to Distind or whomever as needed. Additionally, having a post-vote view would add an extra step in the PubAd process, which means even more extra code for Distind. A discrete viewable hidden count serves, in my mind, as the best medium.
Also, if a vote is really bad but about to reach its required approvals for mainpage (or if it's really good but has editorializing and whatnot that causes people to vote for its deletion and is about to be lost) and needs to be acted upon before it gets there, knowing that before one votes can be essential, as you can simply sit on the quote, thereby preventing it from getting anywhere before action is taken. If you'll notice, no matter how long you sit on a quote, it doesn't pass to mainpage or total deletion until YOU act on it, one way or another.
As an aside, I apologize for the abruptness. I am told I can be a bit terse first thing in the morning. I have actually had to apologize for two posts now for that same reason... erg...
|
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 11, 2009 11:15:22 GMT -5
I have no problem either way, LR. I merely answered the question the OP raised. How it is dealt with, I can only suggest. I would hope, as a long time member of these boards, under various names, that my input would be considered as having merit, though. Take the suggestion as you will.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by Lady Renae on Mar 11, 2009 11:42:42 GMT -5
I meant in no way to suggest your opinion was anything less than valid. I was merely presenting my point of view and making alterations to my ideas as your comments revealed their weaknesses. It is the sort of discourse I rather enjoy, actually, and I am glad I was able to have it with you.
If, however, as I stated before, I in any way suggested that your opinion held less merit than mine, I apologize for it was not my intention. I, too, was "only suggesting".
|
|
