Printable View
The people who are posting good content don't need encouragement or incentives to do so. Upvotes will do nothing WRT them posting more good content.Quote:
Originally Posted by prosper12
Those who consistently don't post good content are a different story altogether.
Interesting. I've found the opposite to be the case. I didn't people afraid of adding good replies or posts back when we had the downvote. I did see less toxicity and less creation of threads that shouldn't be created. Did you feel like there was a monkey on your back such that you were afraid to type up a post? I never felt that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by prosper12
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2222
i totaly agree, it also creates artificial inflation of forumers sitting on one side of a polarising issue. My rep goes up more than is deserved, not because I am a super friendly and knowledeble forumer, but because I get the advantages of being involved in a debate that gets heated, without any negative affects from the other side. As long as I dont get so toxic as to get my account band, my rep will keep bilding up despite the fact that at least half the forum thinks i'm a complete idiot. unfortunatly for me the die was caste early on in the debate and allthough my opinions and attitude has changed a lot since then, i'll never escape my roots.
i think 2 fixes are needed:
1 bring back the down vote, even if not often used, it will be used a bit to counterbalance the above problem, more importantly it certainly cuts out 80% of the low level toxicity on the forums (stuff not quite desserving of an infraction)
2 very importantly we need a third option, a half rep, that you give someone when you simply agree with their posts. Full reps should be for good content or good attatiude, to get a full rep simply becuases people are on your side doesnt make sense. The possibility of a negative quarter should also be considered, to make the option more used, a quarter rep less so harsh, more sends a signal than anything.
Not that I have a very high rep, or that anyone really cares, but it sorts embaresses me, when I see some incredibly respectable forumers languishing on lowish reps because they refuse, quite rightly, not to get dragged into engineering squables and similar.
its working great for some, aspex and 2222 are good exemples of this. i used to hate Aspex, but the vote system makes you pay closer attention to all the persons posts and the quality of each, and I found myself through clenched teath given Apex a few upvotes, and i'm yet to find a post of his worthy of a downvote, forcing me to reasse him. Now I only throw up a little bit if I find a post of his that is desserving of an upvote. So I think if we just bring back the downvote that is enough, but a half point upvote (for when you want to show agreement) and a quarter downvote when you dont feel the post deserves a full downvote, I think would make a very interesting impact on the forums.
Even with the downvote, though, I think your reputation is likely to climb. Taking a stance on an issue but taking it without toxicity makes your reputation go up. Sure, you get a few downvotes from those opposed, but you get a lot of upvotes from those in favor, and if you aren't toxic, you will also get upvotes from people on both sides and those who don't care either way. Your posts aren't toxic. They get upvotes, simple as that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vikingchief
But should people get full upvotes just because people agree with them, surely having a full vote for good content or good attitude, and a half vote for when you simply agree with the poster. You could make it 1 point and 2 points if you wish. And then i think their needs to be a soft option for the downvote, you could have a half option and a full option, or a 1 point or 2 point system, to encourage people to use it more.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2222
another option is to make the half/ lesser point options annonomous. They true thing that presents the downvote. i think my lack of downvotes is based on the impression I am likely to retaliate. I would not, I value honest feedback, but if there was a lessor counterbalance annonomous option (mods could see) that would encourage its usuage.
The downvote needs to be brought back. But with it there needs to be a required length for the "feedback" written. Just saying "trolling" or "I disagree with you" is not enough. It should be a legitimate reason so the person getting the negative rep can read and understand what they are doing.
If someone is being toxic, I don't want to have to write a paragraph explaining why I think their post is in bad taste. I'll give an explanation though.Quote:
Originally Posted by ribeye
I've written "toxic" on downvotes before. In fact probably the majority of my downvotes said either that or "spamming". I'm not sure that either really needs a lot more explanation?Quote:
Originally Posted by ribeye
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don1971
before i saw your replies I was thinking, great suggestion. I think it gives the OP more of a chance to understand the concern, and it will seam less like personal issue or trivial slap. It shows, if not toxiciy written, that you downvotes for a genuine reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by OnyxDS
It also puts a higher standard on the downvoter, and makes revenge vites much harder. Its easy just to rike 'todic' or 'rude' as a comment to a downvote that was fast in revenge or for personal reasons, but if you have to get specific, it makes it much harder to give, and even more importantly defend, not warrented downvotes.
sometimes a short phrase or word is all thats needed, other times a longer explanation can do a lot of good.
agree 100, with idea and also great suggestion.Quote:
Originally Posted by ribeye