Next Question
Mahalo is adding a tip to all questions that don't offer a tip.
M¢25 Funded By Mahalo ? |
February 23, 2009 01:04 AM
RSS
I like your efforts to figure this one out, though!
Permalink | Report
1) Seems over-complex. A sledgehammer to crack a nut.
2) Hopefully friends and fans can be more useful features in the future than they are now. For example, in the future when there's a lot more activity, I'd like to use them to make sure I see the Q&A by people that I want to follow.
3) Foe is not great terminology. More than that, there might be perfectly good reasons for marking a particular persons answers unhelpful more often than usual. Maybe they actually don't write good answers.
4) If there is going to any kind of publicly identifying that one person doesn't rate another's work, I'd be a lot happier with knowing what precisely they didn't like. There is not much use in knowing that X doesn't rate Y highly, and the info is likely to cause bad feeling. Knowing that X found answers A, B & C unhelpful could be constructive and useful. At least it could be a basis for discussing a disagreement. Presenting it a general dislike rather than as specific cases is more likely to lead to people actually becoming foes.
In short, I think this could be a very bad move.
Permalink | Report
The Sheriff's Department could maybe monitor this, and if someone was habitually negatively marking someone's questions or answers as uninteresting, take some kind of action. I think it could potentially start flame wars if it was visible to all.
I also marked this as an interesting question.
Permalink | Report
Though I have clicked some question as uninteresting but I have never clicked any answer as unhelpful. My suggestion would be unhelpful button to be limited to purple Belts and above that. The reason is after that period people have stayed in Mahalo for a while (they will know the importance of unhelpful button).
Permalink | Report
Answered Question
Mahalo is adding a tip to all questions that don't offer a tip.
Suggestion: A possible solution to biased "Helpful" votes ...
It seems like there is a bit of an internal debate going on in the Mahalo HQ around the display of votes for Interesting Questions and Helpful Answers.
From what I've heard by reading the questions posed by J.C. and the gang, some folks think that user names should be publicly displayed for voting while another group thinks that voting should be anonymous.
Here's my (albeit meaningless) suggestion:
1) Revise the "Fans" member area section & functionality.
Right now, Fans are folks who haven't been accepted as friends. I suggest that Fans become people who have been identified by an algorithm.
If I regularly vote a the questions of a particular user interesting and / or the answers of that user interesting, I become their Fan.
2) Create a Foes member area section.
I'm not huge on the word "Foes" but it's a throwback to the Slashdot member areas and one that will likely be familiar to some folks.
Basically, users in the Foes section would be identified using a similar algorithm to the Fans section but would calculate the negative unhelpful and uninteresting question votes.
WHY I THINK THIS WOULD SOLVE THE PROBLEM
On one hand, an anonymous voting system should encourage democracy and fair (on average) system. On the other hand, folks view the M$'s and points offered as currency; rallying, down-voting and other underhanded tactics are almost to be expected along with competition.
An algorithm could be used to show both up-voters and down-voters. This algorithm could be refined as different methods to "game the system" are uncovered along with new features.
Publicly displaying both "Fans" and "Foes" would publicly discourage biased votes and expose offenders without identifying each and every vote. These two new sections would also add a feature to users who always vote on the up-and-up; I'd be interested to know which users I habitually voted for or against and especially which users habitually voted for or against me. I'd take that information and consider what I could do differently to improve.
Anyway, after deeply considering this problem (because it bothers me), this is the solution I would employ. In my mind the solution adds more to the system then it takes away and would effectively discourage problem voting.
From what I've heard by reading the questions posed by J.C. and the gang, some folks think that user names should be publicly displayed for voting while another group thinks that voting should be anonymous.
Here's my (albeit meaningless) suggestion:
1) Revise the "Fans" member area section & functionality.
Right now, Fans are folks who haven't been accepted as friends. I suggest that Fans become people who have been identified by an algorithm.
If I regularly vote a the questions of a particular user interesting and / or the answers of that user interesting, I become their Fan.
2) Create a Foes member area section.
I'm not huge on the word "Foes" but it's a throwback to the Slashdot member areas and one that will likely be familiar to some folks.
Basically, users in the Foes section would be identified using a similar algorithm to the Fans section but would calculate the negative unhelpful and uninteresting question votes.
WHY I THINK THIS WOULD SOLVE THE PROBLEM
On one hand, an anonymous voting system should encourage democracy and fair (on average) system. On the other hand, folks view the M$'s and points offered as currency; rallying, down-voting and other underhanded tactics are almost to be expected along with competition.
An algorithm could be used to show both up-voters and down-voters. This algorithm could be refined as different methods to "game the system" are uncovered along with new features.
Publicly displaying both "Fans" and "Foes" would publicly discourage biased votes and expose offenders without identifying each and every vote. These two new sections would also add a feature to users who always vote on the up-and-up; I'd be interested to know which users I habitually voted for or against and especially which users habitually voted for or against me. I'd take that information and consider what I could do differently to improve.
Anyway, after deeply considering this problem (because it bothers me), this is the solution I would employ. In my mind the solution adds more to the system then it takes away and would effectively discourage problem voting.
Interesting Question?
Yes (4)
No (0)
- In Mahalo Answers Suggestions |
- |
- Report |
-
Share
RSS
Other Answers (5)
February 23, 2009 11:43 AM
I've mentioned before that I think the negative "no" helpful answers and "not interesting" votes could be completely removed without consequence.
I'm not huge on the "foes" wording but since it's used in a similar way on Slashdot, I thought it would be good for the illustration.
Report
I'm not huge on the "foes" wording but since it's used in a similar way on Slashdot, I thought it would be good for the illustration.
February 23, 2009 03:18 AM
I'd rather be on record with my votes than be listed as someone's "foe". The most diligent among us can be occasionally uninteresting and unhelpful. I can deal with that. I'm against the information, though, not the person. "Foe" is a bit harsh! I like your efforts to figure this one out, though!
Permalink | Report
Reply
February 23, 2009 11:52 AM
Exactly.
If you occasionally voted my questions and answers down, you wouldn't appear on my "foes" list. However, if you made a habit of voting me down, you would.
When the results of the algorithm are publicaly avaliable on the member page, users would conciously ask themselves, "is this the right decision" because they wouldn't want to regularly appear as a foe.
Again, I don't like the word "foe" but you get what I'm saying.
Report
If you occasionally voted my questions and answers down, you wouldn't appear on my "foes" list. However, if you made a habit of voting me down, you would.
When the results of the algorithm are publicaly avaliable on the member page, users would conciously ask themselves, "is this the right decision" because they wouldn't want to regularly appear as a foe.
Again, I don't like the word "foe" but you get what I'm saying.
February 23, 2009 03:46 AM
I'm not keen on this for several reasons. 1) Seems over-complex. A sledgehammer to crack a nut.
2) Hopefully friends and fans can be more useful features in the future than they are now. For example, in the future when there's a lot more activity, I'd like to use them to make sure I see the Q&A by people that I want to follow.
3) Foe is not great terminology. More than that, there might be perfectly good reasons for marking a particular persons answers unhelpful more often than usual. Maybe they actually don't write good answers.
4) If there is going to any kind of publicly identifying that one person doesn't rate another's work, I'd be a lot happier with knowing what precisely they didn't like. There is not much use in knowing that X doesn't rate Y highly, and the info is likely to cause bad feeling. Knowing that X found answers A, B & C unhelpful could be constructive and useful. At least it could be a basis for discussing a disagreement. Presenting it a general dislike rather than as specific cases is more likely to lead to people actually becoming foes.
In short, I think this could be a very bad move.
Permalink | Report
Reply
February 23, 2009 11:57 AM
1) Complexity
I don't think so. It is however a complicated explanation of a simple feature set. I wanted to clearly illustrate my thought.
4) Itemized identification.
There are two sides of this coin. To display or not to display.
My idea is a compromise that would take the best results from both and add a few interesting features to boot.
Report
I don't think so. It is however a complicated explanation of a simple feature set. I wanted to clearly illustrate my thought.
4) Itemized identification.
There are two sides of this coin. To display or not to display.
My idea is a compromise that would take the best results from both and add a few interesting features to boot.
February 23, 2009 03:17 PM
Mmm... of course it's a matter of judgement.
But I think you are taking the worst results from both, not the best.
Benefits of anonymity = no fear of reprisals, freedom to express views that might not be well received, reduced risk of votes being taken personally
Benefits of disclosure = accountability for one's behaviour, clarity on who thinks what and why, the possibility of constructive dialogue grounded in the facts
If you want to fuel mistrust and dislike, a great way to do it to publicise that person X does not rate person Y without going into the details.
Misunderstandings and paranoia are how conflicts develop, and getting to understand why people did what they did is a key part of how a successful conflict resolution process unwinds the hostility.
As for complexity... I think it is overkill. You've had 14 unhelpful votes out of 372 answers over 60 days. I wouldn't be surprised if all 14 were undeserved, but it doesn't look like anyone is out to get you! If they are, they're not trying very hard. :)
But we get upset about it anyway, and start thinking up "solutions" for something that didn't need a solution in the first place.
CORRECTION: It's 14 net unhelpful votes. So I guess the number of votes that have been cancelled out could be a fair bit higher, and no way to tell other than going through the 372 answers and checking.
Report
But I think you are taking the worst results from both, not the best.
Benefits of anonymity = no fear of reprisals, freedom to express views that might not be well received, reduced risk of votes being taken personally
Benefits of disclosure = accountability for one's behaviour, clarity on who thinks what and why, the possibility of constructive dialogue grounded in the facts
If you want to fuel mistrust and dislike, a great way to do it to publicise that person X does not rate person Y without going into the details.
Misunderstandings and paranoia are how conflicts develop, and getting to understand why people did what they did is a key part of how a successful conflict resolution process unwinds the hostility.
As for complexity... I think it is overkill. You've had 14 unhelpful votes out of 372 answers over 60 days. I wouldn't be surprised if all 14 were undeserved, but it doesn't look like anyone is out to get you! If they are, they're not trying very hard. :)
But we get upset about it anyway, and start thinking up "solutions" for something that didn't need a solution in the first place.
CORRECTION: It's 14 net unhelpful votes. So I guess the number of votes that have been cancelled out could be a fair bit higher, and no way to tell other than going through the 372 answers and checking.
February 23, 2009 03:39 PM
Right, so you'd rather just leave things as they are.
That's cool and all. There's defiantly an argument for that.
I think it's quite discouraging to receive negative votes without any real justification. I also think that highlighting the username of everyone who votes for or against a contribution is counterproductive and likened to micromanagement.
Philipy, this was just a suggestion (one of many) that I put forth as a regular contributor. While I'm glad that you're contributing to my answer... don't take this to be anything but me trying my hardest to be helpful.
Report
That's cool and all. There's defiantly an argument for that.
I think it's quite discouraging to receive negative votes without any real justification. I also think that highlighting the username of everyone who votes for or against a contribution is counterproductive and likened to micromanagement.
Philipy, this was just a suggestion (one of many) that I put forth as a regular contributor. While I'm glad that you're contributing to my answer... don't take this to be anything but me trying my hardest to be helpful.
February 24, 2009 04:48 PM
I think the system can be improved, and it bugs me to get my answers marked unhelpful for no readily apparent reason too. But I don't think any system is going to be perfect.
Please do keep thinking of suggestions. I just think this particular one would backfire.
Of course when I question a particular suggestion, I'm not questioning the value of making suggestions in general, or suggesting that your motives are not good ones.
As they say, in order to have great ideas, you have to have a lot of ideas. Just be willing to discard the ones that on further inspection aren't going to work well. :)
Report
Please do keep thinking of suggestions. I just think this particular one would backfire.
Of course when I question a particular suggestion, I'm not questioning the value of making suggestions in general, or suggesting that your motives are not good ones.
As they say, in order to have great ideas, you have to have a lot of ideas. Just be willing to discard the ones that on further inspection aren't going to work well. :)
February 23, 2009 04:14 AM
I do like the idea of an algorithmic-determined fans section. Perhaps the Sheriff's Department already has something like the foes section, and I don't mind them having it, but I wouldn't want it out there for everyone to see. The word "foe", while traditionally the opposite of friend, is a bit harsh for the MA spirit. Maybe some other terminology could be found to express it. The Sheriff's Department could maybe monitor this, and if someone was habitually negatively marking someone's questions or answers as uninteresting, take some kind of action. I think it could potentially start flame wars if it was visible to all.
I also marked this as an interesting question.
Permalink | Report
Reply
February 23, 2009 04:30 PM
Well I agree with tracebooks. It could result in flame wars. I have not marked this question as interesting because in a way what you are trying is to make the community as an better one. It is an helpful suggestion but (according to me) not an interesting suggestion. Though I have clicked some question as uninteresting but I have never clicked any answer as unhelpful. My suggestion would be unhelpful button to be limited to purple Belts and above that. The reason is after that period people have stayed in Mahalo for a while (they will know the importance of unhelpful button).
Permalink | Report
Reply
Answer this Question
Related Questions
No questions found.
Ask a Question
Buy Mahalo Dollars with Credit Card or PayPal
Top Members
Most Popular Tags
Categories
- Anonymous
-
Arts & Design
-
Beauty & Style
-
Books & Authors
-
Business
-
Cars & Transportation
-
Consumer Electronics
- Coupons Deals
-
Education
-
Entertainment
-
Environment
-
Fitness
-
Food & Drink
- From Email
- From Iphone
- From Twitter
-
Health
-
History
-
Hobbies
-
Home & Garden
-
How Tos
-
Humor
-
Jobs
-
Legal
-
Local
-
Love & Relationships
-
Mahalo Answers Community
-
Money
-
Music
-
News
-
NSFW
-
Parenting
-
Pets
-
Science & Mathematics
-
Services
-
Shopping
-
Social Science
-
Society & Culture
-
Sports
-
Technology & Internet
-
Travel
-
Video Games
Welcome New Members
- naim_ontu, December 08, 2009 09:58 AM
- jazzme, December 08, 2009 09:34 AM
- mzarrarbutt, December 08, 2009 09:31 AM
- adress_cute, December 08, 2009 09:14 AM
- malouaureliobal..., December 08, 2009 09:10 AM
Mahalo Dollars are the currency of Mahalo Answers.
Each Mahalo Dollar costs $1.
Once you earn more than 40 Mahalo Dollars, you can request to be paid via PayPal. Each Mahalo Dollar is currently worth $0.75 when paid out via PayPal. Learn More
