This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Start revealing names of those...
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
asakawa
The problems with what you're saying are that, firstly the people who care about the site's reputation/achievement system are by definition invested in the site. The number of people who want achievements but don't care about the content of the database is therefore minuscule.
Secondly, you don't know why you received votes and just because you see several comments on a single page at -1 doesn't mean that you've seen what you're calling "drive-by" downvoting. You simply don't have enough information about the votes to be able to make any sort of judgement about it. All those -1s could be from 10 different people, on ten different days. Some could be +3/-4. You go to a page and make a lot of assumptions.
This has come up before and I always try to make the point that you need to be involved in the voting. When you saw several -1s did you check each comment and vote on it if you thought it was actually useful information? Someone gave it a -1 and as long as they read the full comment and made a judgement based on its content then that's their prerogative. If you disagree with that judgement then you need to vote too.
If you suspect abusive voting activity and particularly if you suspect that you've been the victim of abusive voting then you should contact , giving as much information as possible.
I don't think the problems are nearly as great as you're making out and in the very small number of cases where there is a problem we can deal with it if people report it. My opinion on all this is that the voting is not as different as people think it is, the issue as I see it is that with the introduction of our own user reputation page we now have the ability to see every single vote and it's hard not to take it personally.
edit: I also want to add that this doesn't need to be an emotive subject. This is about user ratings on a website. It's important that we get it right and make the database a strong resource for visitors but it certainly doesn't bear comparison to kids handling guns. I'm sure we could take it down a notch and discuss the issues rationally.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##asakawa##DELIM##
Post by
Wowpixel
The problems with what you're saying are that, firstly the people who care about the site's reputation/achievement system are by definition invested in the site.
If they care they wouldn't have a problem voting with their names, either.
It's a one way ticket to be downvoted purely by even posting (no way the person would've known what comment was associated with me to begin with).
See the chilling effect...yet?
Wikipedia also didn't think their method to improve Wikipedia was bad, either. Numerous TV, magazine and newpaper reviews of the flawed editing system and it's chilling effect says otherwise.
Post by
asakawa
Nothing about this is "chilling", no. As I said, this isn't an emotive subject so we don't need to discuss it using that sort of rhetoric.
The issue that I see with your idea to show the names of those that vote is, what would
you
do with that information? Why do you want to know?
If you did see that ten -1s on a page were given by the same person you would likely (it seems to me) assume it was somehow sinister but you still don't know that. I've seen far more than 10 comments on a single page that I've felt did not present useful information and voted.
I think that you would just go from your current state of being angry at the site for receiving downvotes to being angry and a specific user who likely does not deserve it.
As I said, if you suspect abuse in the voting system then you should report it and we can deal with it. I just don't think there's any evidence for the widespread issues you're talking about here.
Post by
Farmbuyer
Nothing about this is "chilling", no. As I said, this isn't an emotive subject so we don't need to discuss it using that sort of rhetoric.
As an aisde: my offhand guess is that the
legal definition of "chilling"
is the one intended, not the horror-movie-meant-to-induce-fear kind of "chills down your spine". It's a legal phrase, not emotive.
I think that you would just go from your current state of being angry at the site for receiving downvotes to being angry and a specific user who likely does not deserve it.
Agreed. This can only devolve into tit-for-tat downvoting between people who can't handle the concept of somebody entirely rational but still disagreeing with them. What, exactly, do they plan to do with the names of the downvoters? Call them out individually in long ranting forum threads?
Post by
hatman555
I am an active wowhead user. I vote, I post, I comment, hell I even upload some screenshots now and then.
I LOVE reputation and site achievments. I feel that if my love for collecting shiny things, and enjoyment of big numbers were anymore than it is, I might be a hoarder in real life, or have a collection of pennies or something O.o
Anways, yes, in the long run the reputation number means nothing outside of this site, but while on this site, I liked to see mine go up everyday.
I think that you would just go from your current state of being angry at the site for receiving downvotes to being angry and a specific user who likely does not deserve it.
Agreed. This can only devolve into tit-for-tat downvoting between people who can't handle the concept of somebody entirely rational but still disagreeing with them.
Off-Topic Age Poll
: Not huge sample, Not an accurate sample, but if you consider that this has a small part to play in looking at the average maturity of the people that post on this site, we are already headed in a bad direction.
Now consider the game you play and how it relates to this webpage. Topics of negativity like "
bad performance
" or "
How people kick/get kicked out of groups
" have 10 times more activity on them than any helpful thread. How threads that are sticky'ed because they contain helpful information don't even have 10,000 views.
Now just take away the website completely, and look at WoW as a game. Sure it doesn't have the short term rage that league of legends has, but who here has honestly not been in a guild or a raid that has a bad 12 year old, a incredibly rude 30-40 year old that takes the job of guild lead like its President of the United States, and everything that goes wrong is an affront to his manliness. The "U mad bro" in trade chat (lol @ the first person to quote just my saying of U mad bro).....
My point is 9 times our of 10, 95 times out of 100, you see a name that just downvoted your comment. You're going to go back and get one of his.
Not that its going to happen, If anyone ever knew where down votes came from, people would simply stop voting.
I know I would, I also know that I don't like posting on topics like this, because I feel like its putting a target out there for people just to go and downvote you.
But hell, while I'm out here, with a target on my head......
as this current system actually punishes those in adding content.
I get downvotes, sure, but I get way more upvotes. (ducks)
Cheers,
Hat
Post by
Wowpixel
Agreed. This can only devolve into tit-for-tat downvoting between people who can't handle the concept of somebody entirely rational but still disagreeing with them.
Actually, it's not worse than the current system.
At least there's more accountability with a named voting system.
Post by
hatman555
Agreed. This can only devolve into tit-for-tat downvoting between people who can't handle the concept of somebody entirely rational but still disagreeing with them.
Actually, it's not worse than the current system.
At least there's more accountability with a named voting system.
Beside the fact that I just wrote a kinda big post dealing with how it would be a bad idea. Do you really think it would be better? Better for who? People wouldn't vote on comments with a system like that.
This is why when you vote for stuff like President or laws, its anonymous too.
Cheers,
Hat
Post by
Ordayc
In this case, the votes were (A) a single user, targeting and (B) all done in ~1 minute. They literally just scrolled through their comments, not really reading or figuring out if all of them were the same problem.
Thank you for that clarification.
Post by
Scotia
You want to see comments that really get downvoted hard? Try going to rare tamable beast pages. The hunter community does not appreciate every "huntard" going in and posting, "Hay guyz, I got mine!" Spawn times are pointless due to server reboots and the general randomness of the game, and locations are marked as dots on the maps, so these posts add no value. People still whine about it, though, and make accusations like in the OP in this thread.
Point I'm trying to make is, someone's always going to be unhappy about SOMETHING.
Post by
hatman555
....does not appreciate every
"huntard"
going in and posting....
-_- *sigh*
Point I'm trying to make is, someone's always going to be unhappy about SOMETHING.
I guess we know what your unhappy about.
Hat
Post by
Nooska
....does not appreciate every
"huntard"
going in and posting....
-_- *sigh*
Point I'm trying to make is, someone's always going to be unhappy about SOMETHING.
I guess we know what your unhappy about.
Hat
I think you missed the point of the word "huntard" there, and read the post as being someone offended by being downvoted, while in actuality the post is annoyed at the whining about being downvoted for uselss information, using the rare beasts as an example.
(Heck I use the word Huntard about myself, even in my sig I think *will check when I post*)
Post by
hatman555
No, I'm pretty sure I got the meaning of the word fine, which is why I crossed it out. Its a combination of Hunter and retard. The second of which is a word, that I'm not to fond of being used in a derogatory manner. I understand his post perfectly. I am simply saddened in word choice. Especially when someone takes the time to put it in quotes.
Hat
Post by
asakawa
@Farmbuyer, that's interesting! I've never heard of "chilling effect" being a legal term, thanks for the link.
That said, while I do always like to learn new things, moving into legal terms
definitely
is the kind of rhetoric that we can avoid while discussing our views on this subject - particularly as the legal definition would surely apply to the effect of stopping people from voting at all if you name them (the other side of the argument).
The "huntard" thing is such a common phrase amongst WoW players that I don't think we should make any judgements about Scotia based on their use of it, particularly in the context they did, and we should probably steer away from too big a derail into that subject. I think that using the word "retard" (or its derivatives to a lesser extent) in a deprecatory way is probably inappropriate for the forum so it would be great if people found an alternative way to express themselves.
Post by
Nulgar
I do, however, disagree with their method--so they are warned for that and their downvotes will be removed.
The method... seeing how the user you replied to has a comment and a reply on the same page stating the very same uninformative thing, I can understand where animosity against at least those two comments would come from - blind downvotes, on the other hand, against all other of their comments are of course a no-go.
But I know I have at times browsed user pages, selected some of their listed comments, and downvoted them. Because they stated
exactly the same thing
- something irrelevant, or miseducated etc. In one read, I was able to decide my vote for all of them. Of course there are valid reasons to c&p a post across some pages connected by context, but that also means if another person deems one comment unnecessary, that person wouldn't decide otherwise for the other copies of the comment.
If that was for more than 3 comments of that type, it could look like a downvote spree to an observer, as several votes happen within a short timeframe that is only elongated by loading times.
PS: Regarding the topic in the posts above, keep in mind that no matter the wording, Scotia's argument still holds. Useless comments are useless.
Post by
Nooska
edit
p.s. I stopped asking/fighting people to stop a long time ago, but Nooska, maybe you should change or sig. Up to you *shrug*
I am curious, and since I do my best to not offend intentionally (and I currently use the word huntard intentionally, in a satirical way), I would like to ask (and try not to derail the thread too much) if there is a particular reason that you feel this way about this word (or the use of the retard-derivatives, to steal asakawas formulation).
Post by
dslg604t
Vulgar, obscene, or otherwise inappropriate material will be deleted immediately and the user responsible will be punished accordingly
In addition to applying to forum posts, this rule also covers
signatures
and profiles.
Depends if anyone views the word retard as vulgar/obscene/inappropriate.
Post by
hatman555
The "huntard" thing is such a common phrase amongst WoW players that I don't think we should make any judgements about Scotia based on their use of it.
I don't think I made any judgments about him, and just because something is common doesn't mean its still the best choice of words. It was placed in quote marks, which to me emphasizes the word when reading it even more. I don't report it, but I'll still quote for my distaste in its usage like that.
Scotia's argument still holds. Useless comments are uselss.
Oh I totally agree. And that's why we have down votes, and that's why use them.
I am curious, and since I do my best to not offend intentionally (and I currently use the word huntard intentionally, in a satirical way), I would like to ask (and try not to derail the thread too much) if there is a particular reason that you feel this way about this word (or the use of the retard-derivatives, to steal asakawas formulation).
WTB Private Messaging on Wowhead -_- (Off-Topic -->
"Retard"....insult?
)
Back on topic...
voting anonymity = good
Cheers,
Hat
Post by
benthalo
Actually, it's not worse than the current system. At least there's more accountability with a named voting system.
Accountability means nothing without the ability to *do* something about the stuff you want to hold people accountable for.
The only way to hold someone accountable under a non-anonymous voting system is to post long rants on the forums, or to engage in tit-for-tat downvoting with the people who you feel have impugned your honor somehow by disagreeing with or "disliking" your post.
In what way could those outcomes be considered "better" -- or, at a bare minimum, "no worse," -- than the current system?
Post by
MyTie
...who down rate comments so we can see exactly who the pathetic children are that run around down rating perfectly good, helpful and viable comments.
I agree. They hurt the site almost as much as the sniveling cry babies around here.
Post by
Ashelia
Actually, it's not worse than the current system. At least there's more accountability with a named voting system.
Accountability means nothing without the ability to *do* something about the stuff you want to hold people accountable for.
The only way to hold someone accountable under a non-anonymous voting system is to post long rants on the forums, or to engage in tit-for-tat downvoting with the people who you feel have impugned your honor somehow by disagreeing with or "disliking" your post.
In what way could those outcomes be considered "better" -- or, at a bare minimum, "no worse," -- than the current system?
This is exactly why we're never having names show in voting--much like Reddit, if you could see who downvoted you, it would ruin the whole purpose of voting. People would downvote each other in retaliation, people would perhaps harass the user if they found their personal information, and so on. It's simply the scope of it. Even if I doubt users in this thread would, we have a huge database of hundreds of thousands of active users. It only takes a handful to make having names a huge regret.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.