LONGECITY

 fback.png   67.73KB   1 downloads

we may have the option of a more nuanced feedback for posts.

Each feedback would still fall under positive/negative/neutral classifications, but it could be more specific e.g. a button for

positive:
-informative
-knowledgeable
-well researched
-cheerful
-great point

Neutral
- agree
- disagree

negative:
-ill-informed
-needs references
-aggressive
-poor quality

thoughts? This thread may be moved for members consultation later.

Let's do it!

moving to public for a last chance to feedback

Um, have the positive ones being these might be more right? 

-Correct (meaning think is correct or appears to be correct)

-agree

-helpful

And then: incorrect, disagree, unhelpful.

To add 2 to each one to make 5 & 5 you could add these like this:

(Positives)

correct

agree

helpful

cheerful

nice

(negatives)

incorrect

disagree

unhelpful

uncheerful

unnice 

Are these malleable to suit our choice? We just put the button there and label it however we like? Will the "ratings" be stored in a database that can be used to find the most knowledgeable, informative, well-researched posters & posts?

I'm in agreement with @Mind. I think that finding a post based on the greatest # or % of votes (i.e., Well-researched) is critical. It can be as simple as a keyword search, with a "Sort by" function.

This has now been implemented, in partial trial mode.

Unfortunately, the new system no longer allows for automatic awarding/subtracting of thankyou points. We may need to decide whether that is too high a price to pay.

₮

People should be aware that users are now notified of every rating you make, with your name attached to the notification, so the system is no longer anonymous.   This prevents people from being honest in their ratings, or might lead to some damaged relationships if the rater is not aware that the system is no longer anonymous. 

apologies! it was and remains the intention that ratings will be anonymous, and I did not think about PM's during testing.

We wouldn't want that in any event, as it would clog up the PM system.    

It was a bit tricky to fix, but it should work now. 

This new system is awesome, but automatic awarding and subtracting of 'Thankyou' points is an important part of showing people's post reputation. Is there no way to include this feature?

Don't know how to make post feedback better as long as it is kept anonymous, except allowing only positive feedback.

Look at the example of post feedback I was notified yesterday - all from the same person and within 1 min only - hardly enough time to read these posts, or even the thread in which context they were written:

  ... rated your post dislike Sent Yesterday, 02:10 PM

  ... rated your post dislike Sent Yesterday, 02:09 PM

  ... rated your post Ill informed Sent Yesterday, 02:09 PM

Admittedly, one week ago I encouraged that same person in an other thread to continue to down-vote me as much as he likes - as a response to his vulgar language towards me and his demanding me to just shut up.

I just feel a bid too old to keep up with such teenager stuff.

From http://www.longecity...stem-explained/

 

-- NEGATIVE votes are for low-quality contributions only, do NOT vote a post down simply because you disagree
(this is so important that we'll think about putting in in the user agreement. Come on, you are grown ups, vote on quality, not sympathy)

This seems based on the assumption that we are all grown ups, but with this 'nuanced' post feedback system actually encouraged.

From http://www.longecity...stem-explained/

 

 

-- NEGATIVE votes are for low-quality contributions only, do NOT vote a post down simply because you disagree
(this is so important that we'll think about putting in in the user agreement. Come on, you are grown ups, vote on quality, not sympathy)

 

This seems based on the assumption that we are all grown ups, but with this 'nuanced' post feedback system actually encouraged.

 

 

• unsure x 1

 

Well, in 'reputation system explained' it says not to down vote simply because you disagree. But now we have like, dislike, agree and disagree buttons which encourage to be clicked, but which only tells about the voters position (who remains anonymous) than the post thus voted for or against.

In the new system agree and disagree (thumbs up or down) are both rated neutral. That means they don't cost or earn a user reputation points.    

In the new system agree and disagree (thumbs up or down) are both rated neutral. That means they don't cost or earn a user reputation points.    

But like or dislike do? I had the impression the reputation counter is broken anyway? At least with all the down-voting my counter didn't move at all.
 

Like and dislike are 'legacy' buttons that we need to keep in case we want to revert to the old system.  They are a stand-in for the old up/down buttons. 

The reputation counter is not broken as such, you can check out your 'nuanced  reputation in your profile (but it will not show the legacy downvotes, only new ones) -- what is no longer working is the link between reputation and thank you points.    

Ah, now I understand. So up- or down-voting reputation is frozen.

Now we have to open each profile to see all the slander ..what an improvement

Don't know how to make post feedback better as long as it is kept anonymous, except allowing only positive feedback.

 

Look at the example of post feedback I was notified yesterday - all from the same person and within 1 min only - hardly enough time to read these posts, or even the thread in which context they were written:

 

  ... rated your post dislike Sent Yesterday, 02:10 PM

  ... rated your post dislike Sent Yesterday, 02:09 PM

  ... rated your post Ill informed Sent Yesterday, 02:09 PM

 

Admittedly, one week ago I encouraged that same person in an other thread to continue to down-vote me as much as he likes - as a response to his vulgar language towards me and his demanding me to just shut up.

 

I just feel a bid too old to keep up with such teenager stuff.

I'd like moderators to be able to see who is rating who so we can keep people from abusing the system or giving several negatives for a disagreement on a single post. We should also be able to moderate and reject some feedback if we find that someone is casting negatives for the wrong reasons or illicit reasons etc. I know I've gotten alot of negatives for arguing about bad pot research which is really just manchurian candidate viral marketing. 

I'd like moderators to be able to see who is rating

 

I totally agree, although it puts a burden on the moderators.  I like the upside of this system.  But it's also an open invitation to trolls with too much time on their hands, looking for a new activity to fill their whole long day with.

 

I'd like moderators to be able to see who is rating

 

I totally agree, although it puts a burden on the moderators.  I like the upside of this system.  But it's also an open invitation to trolls with too much time on their hands, looking for a new activity to fill their whole long day with.

Don't think that's doable unless you hire paid moderators. But then, what is the upside to this 'nuanced' voting system? So that we don't have to think and research it ourself? - Wanna hire someone who does it for you?

Good sources, arguments and logic or its lack in an individual post speaks for it self. And everyone has weak moments. Why give away the freedom to decide and choose with each item on its own merits?

Well, good question.  I guess it's the entertainment value for the most part.  I for one love how they dislike and disagree and off-topic me ;-D  

But seriously here in Silicon Valley we have this concept of "gamification".  You give people points for whatever it is that they're doing, and a high-score table, and they'll be entertained and do more of it and get clicks.  It works fabulously even in areas as seemingly dry and boring as scientific paper publishing.  Look up an "impact factor".  That's how an entire industry manages to milk billions from academic scientists, using little other than gamification.  I think it can work on a small scale for Longecity's ad revenues.  

But I do see your point.  It absolutely dilutes the focus and usefulness of academic publishing, and very effectively prevents a lot of folks from thinking for themselves in that are.  I'm sure you've seen me raving on these fora about exactly that kind of problem.  So very good point.  There, I'll give you a "good point" rating for it :-P.  I guess it depends on what the goal is, and how big each of these effects really is.  I suppose that's why it's called a beta-test right now... 

You changed my mind a bit.  I'm now back to neutral.  Thanks.  

I've suggested in the Leadership>financials forum that we start fundraising in additional ways. It includes fundraising for an operational budget which would allow us to pay our mods at least a stipend and keep content HQ. 

But seriously here in Silicon Valley we have this concept of "gamification".  ..There, I'll give you a "good point" rating for it :-P.

I had more the mass-mobbing during the Third Reich in mind... exclusively positive-voting is a completely different animal.

You know, I really appreciate your written response. While those 'good points' are cheap to give.

Maybe we could start a page of shame, where we post the profiles of those members we accidentally come across, and who needed out of proportion cheap down-voting for feeling better them self?

Oh yeah!  "Positive only".  That might well be the magic formula that makes us humans get along like it's all candy and unicorns.  "good point !!"

This has now been implemented, in partial trial mode.

Now we have to open each profile to see all the slander ..what an improvement

Maybe we could start a page of shame, where we post the profiles of those members we accidentally come across, and who needed out of proportion cheap down-voting for feeling better them self?

The rogue which gave me 3 down-votes within 1 Minute received within the last 10 days 30 / 20 / 23, and gave 31 / 45 / 88 points at the same time. Anyone came across a profile more angry?

Abuse: As before, if you think someone is abusing the system you can alert a moderator. The votes ARE anonymous, even to moderators, but administrators have the option to look 'behind the blind' if they actively choose to do so.

Only positive votes: I was waiting for someone to bring this up as a suggestion. I can see that some users take 'negative' votes to heart to the point where they would feel socially excluded and/or less inclined to contribute worthwhile information. This is why many other platforms have decided to allow only positive feedback. My own view is that critique is an important part of the feedback system. It can serve to elevate the level of information and discussion. I also notice that where only positive feedback is possible, contributions that are popular for some reason 'shine' whereas it is more difficult to register discontent. However, I'm open to persuasion on this point. If we decided to go to a positive only system, we would revert to the old 'non-nuanced' option (a simple 'like' button) for technical reasons.      

We could just strip the points off of the negative side or allow negative points to fall off with active days where no negatives are received at some rate or another. I often see things I'd like to downvote on FB, but as they don't, I'm more likely to express my opinion in words which means additional discussion of things. Can we turn it on and off in different forums and see if we get more or less activity?