Not totally anonymous - Ken Knows ALL!  Muhahahaaaaa

I like that people can't see who voted up/down on a post.  It prevents against potential vendettas.  Some people take on grudges way too easily.

I also like the idea of specifying WHY you voted NO on a post.  It could help the admin decide quicker if it's a warranted NO vote and also force the vote caster to justify and re-eval if it's really warranted.

Specifying WHY to a YES vote is simply a waste of time.  There's no negative to it except to maybe fluff the recipient if the can view it.  It also introduces the ability to remove the anonymous aspect of it because they could put in "Dr. K. here, you rock!"

Quote:
Quoting Dr. Killpatient:
Not totally anonymous - Ken Knows ALL!  Muhahahaaaaa

But he won't tell us 

Quote:
I like that people can't see who voted up/down on a post.  It prevents against potential vendettas.  Some people take on grudges way too easily.

IMHO those vendettas are much easier for anonymous posters...

Quote:
I also like the idea of specifying WHY you voted NO on a post.  It could help the admin decide quicker if it's a warranted NO vote and also force the vote caster to justify and re-eval if it's really warranted.

...and it could help the posters as well to verify what he did wrong...

Quote:
Specifying WHY to a YES vote is simply a waste of time.  There's no negative to it except to maybe fluff the recipient if the can view it.  It also introduces the ability to remove the anonymous aspect of it because they could put in "Dr. K. here, you rock!"

I don't think that it must be a waste of time. A reason for a YES vote could give the poster a hint for his argumentation 

Quoting kahless:

Quote:
Hello dvd lovers out there,

the brandnew reputation feature is now on air for a few days. There have been many discussions about many aspects of this feature. I would like to publish my very subjective (!) impressions concernig this:

What has changed now?
Obviously many users think twice before posting something. The style of the postings now seem to be very moderate. This could be considered as an advantage. But well, let's be honest, with a threat of getting a  negative vote for our posting (with all consequences) we are not very spontaneously when posting something critical or arguable. But Spontaneity is sometimes essential for an active discussion.

What can't be changed?
We all should be aware that we are a global community of dvd collectors.
Thus we have to face the fact, that we emanate from difderent culture areas. That means that we may have other pain barriers concernig jokes and political correctness. Another problem, what should not be underestimated is that we mostly speak other languages. For me peronally it's very hard to understand every verbal side blow. And on the other hand I'm not able to translate all my thoughts accurate in a foreign language. And that's my point:
Therefore I'm not able to give any negative feedback for postings. Even if some postings are with borderline values; I would not presume that any user intends to offend other users just for fun! Some discussions simply got beyond control just because of misunderstandings (IMHO).

[b]What could be changed?
At the moment it's possible to give reputation votes anonymous and without any justification. I think it would be a good idea to proceed like votings on contributions. A reason for a yes vote is optional, a reason for a no vote is a must! And we we do not hide behind an anonymous voting system, we would like to see the names of the voters. [/b]

Just my 2 cents and of course an animation for a fearless discussion (concernig our reputation)! 

An absolutely grand idea, it is easy to snipe anonymously. I understand ken's rationale, some users clearly have a poersonal issue, they even carry it through to their voting and sometimes even their Contributions. While the comment James mentioned is useful. rebuttal of said comment is also equally important, in the justice system it is called the right to face your accuser. The bad part about this whole premise is that I have Profiles to edit, Contribute vote on and postings to respond to which sadly is all too often involving drivel or nonsense of one form or other. I don't have time to play games and I won't. I will from this point forward, should I record any negative votes, I will post it right here in the forums with an explanation of why I believe such a vote was warranted, I do NOT EVER want anyone to go vote negative based on that, but I believe it is important enough that the user be aware of why he drwe the vote for his OWN benefit. PM might be preferable and I may decide to use that, but right now this seems the more logical answer.

Skip

Quoting Dr. Killpatient:

Quote:
Quoting kahless:

Quote:
IMHO those vendettas are much easier for anonymous posters...

By it's very definition, a vendetta needs a target.

I made a mistake, I did not mean the poster but the voters! At the moment it's very easy to spread no-votes with a shot gun without any justification.

E.g. I would be able to give you a no-vote for this posting. You would never find out that I was the bad boy     

(only kidding, I do not give any no votes  )

Edit:
of course I have to give some no votes (for bad contributions...) but I don't give negative reputation votes. (Obviously I'm overstrained at the moment to think German and writing in English - I better take my night cup and go to sleep for today - CU tomorrow!  )

Then we agree Kahless, we both think that no votes should have to explain why they view it deserves it.

So far, I've received one no vote but it didn't bother me any because I knew it wasn't warranted and would eventually be removed - and it was.

Quoting kahless:

Quote:

What has changed now?
Obviously many users think twice before posting something. The style of the postings now seem to be very moderate. This could be considered as an advantage. But well, let's be honest, with a threat of getting a  negative vote for our posting (with all consequences) we are not very spontaneously when posting something critical or arguable. But Spontaneity is sometimes essential for an active discussion.

You can have an active discussion whilst considering your comments. If they are that bad that some thought means you don't write them - then they were not worth saying.

I'm on plenty of forums where there are very active discussions - and it is also possible to report posts to the moderator (which is what this is in effect doing). In fact these are the only forums which I belong to where there wasn't already the ability to report a posting.

And this system is not censorship. Anyone can still say what they want.

Quoting kahless:

Quote:


What can't be changed?
We all should be aware that we are a global community of dvd collectors.
Thus we have to face the fact, that we emanate from difderent culture areas. That means that we may have other pain barriers concernig jokes and political correctness. Another problem, what should not be underestimated is that we mostly speak other languages. For me peronally it's very hard to understand every verbal side blow. And on the other hand I'm not able to translate all my thoughts accurate in a foreign language. And that's my point:
Therefore I'm not able to give any negative feedback for postings. Even if some postings are with borderline values; I would not presume that any user intends to offend other users just for fun! Some discussions simply got beyond control just because of misunderstandings (IMHO).

Why would you presume that some users don't wish to offend others for fun? Why do you think some new visitors to these forums get a aggressive reception?

Although you don't feel able to report a posting which crosses a line, others will be able to. And as I've said - most other forums have always had the ability to report posts. And that's what a negative rating is effectively doing. (I believe Ken spelt this out in one of his posts on this subject).

Quoting kahless:

Quote:


What could be changed?
At the moment it's possible to give reputation votes anonymous and without any justification. I think it would be a good idea to proceed like votings on contributions. A reason for a yes vote is optional, a reason for a no vote is a must! And we we do not hide behind an anonymous voting system, we would like to see the names of the voters.

Just my 2 cents and of course an animation for a fearless discussion (concernig our reputation)! 

I believe Its essential to maintain anonymity for those who give votes on posts. As soon as you lose that then that is censorship (by fear of reprisal or 'outing' to the group at large.) And the worst kind of censorship is self censorship!

I always thought that we should have to give a reason for a negative vote and suggested this in the main discussion on this new feature.

I also thought that the rating of contributions should have been disabled. This feature should only be for the forums - not the profile contributions.

I've been really interested to view the impact of this new feature. I think very early on there were some people already saying they saw abuse, although I couldn't see much of anything at that point. A few days later and I've evolved my own mixed opinions. Don't get me wrong, on balance I think that it will be excellent, but I am seeing the effects of some flaws.

One flaw I'm picking up is that some people might be a bit click-happy. There have been a few people that have said they've got negative votes, and I honestly can't see why. Ken also said that he removed a number of negatives. I think there needs to be a bit of the novelty wearing off so that more reasonable voting starts to occur.

I can't help but agree that a 'negative' reason would be an improvement based upon my own confusion at some of the votes. I'm not sure if free text would be a good idea (you're already saying something bad - adding a personalised comment might cause the person take the vote much more personally), but a 'categorised' reason might help someone understand why, and even identify some of the bad-negative votes.

I've not given a negative yet, but I can imagine giving them for:
- being rude (e.g. telling someone to shut up, "maybe you should learn how to read", etc.)
- outright insults
- persistent hostility (e.g. "I'd expect that from YOU")
- deliberate attempts to derail a discussion / question
- excessive repetition where there should be evolution (e.g. I have no argument, so I'm just going to say my opinion lots)

I'd also give quite a bit of leeway on these (i.e. give someone the benefit of the doubt one or twice) or forgive the odd slip (e.g. a first post in anger, but not a second).

If there were some categories something like them, that might be an improvement (... might not!).

Someone (I forget who, and I'm too lazy to go look) said that some visitors may not get the purpose of the positive and negative votes, and may simply be giving a negative to show they disagree with a point rather than because it had no place in the forum. Obviously this is wrong, and you could weed them out by having that as a 'negative reason' and automatically informing anyone who selected it that the votes were not to be used for that purpose and canceling the vote.

Another down side is that people are walking on egg shells at the moment. There are even some people saying that they think it's being used to suppress the expression of one's opinion. That should NOT be happening. It should be in no way about stopping people from expressing opinions, but simply ensuring that their opinion are expressed in an acceptable way (e.g. "I disagree because..." vs "you must be an idiot").

Frankly though, the current idea works well - any change would just be icing on the cake. Besides which, I can't help but feel that it should be pretty obvious why you're getting a negative vote, almost to the extent that I might think it was worth totally ignoring the first negative on any one post.

Speaking of positives, I think that any further break down is fairly mute. I've given a fair few so far for:
- helpful or informative posts
- well formulated arguments (i.e. informative again - regardless of whether I agree with them or not)
- deliberate and substantial attempts to spread happiness

Once the novelty wears off, I think the atmosphere will be much more positive and still as bust, with a freedom to express opinions without fear of being persecuted for them... maybe...

Stuart

Quoting goodguy:

Quote:
Unfortunately, it appears to me that the calming effect the announcement and test implementation of the reputation system had is already wearing off.

From what I've read today I would have to agree with you. If it keeps up I guess we will see if the system actually works.

My guess is the readers of the forums are very tired of it and will not hesitate to vote accordingly. If enough of them don't like the bickering and or attacks and voice their opinion using the votes then the system should work. Time will tell.

As far as the anonymity issue, Ken has set up the voting to be anonymous. Keep in mind he has also decided to not let us see who has a negative rating. I'm sure he has his reasons for both. That's all I need to know. I would say leave it as is and give it some time to work.