BBO Discussion Forums: Upvoting and Downvoting - BBO Discussion Forums

This may not be the right place for this topic, but I couldn't find one that really fit.

Whenever I see a post that has been downvoted for no obvious reason, I will upvote it to cancel the downvote.

I have already done this in 3 instances today.

Certain posters are using the downvote in an entirely irrational manner. I have not figured out yet whether it is retaliatory or just plain irrational. In any event, whenever I find one of these irrational downvotes, I will upvote to eliminate it.

I have noticed this a few times myself. I don't post that frequently, but maybe someone should say that downvoting is only for ill-natured posts or generally really poor advice, not going the other way in a close decision.

I notice as I type this that the OP already has 1 downvote (voted back up)

Maybe things will improve after the novelty of voting wears off but as of now I think it's a failed experiment. It creates ill-will among forum members and provides no discernible benefit.

Why are you the downvoting police? Do you also think you should be able to upvote/downvote a post twice, just because your opinion is more important? Maybe we should give you the power to just cancel out any number of reputation on a post that you feel is not particularly noteworthy in one way or the other.

You should only upvote posts you want to upvote, and downvote posts you want to downvote. If all we do is upvote or downvote when we think a post is neutral but has strayed from neutral reputation, then the integrity of the reputation system gets compromised.

Imagine this scenario:

I make a post, and 5 people hate it, 5 people are ok with it, and 1 person really likes it.

Under your system, a person who hates it downvotes me. Another person who thinks it's ok (but not good) upvotes me because he thinks I deserve 0 rep. This happens back and forth 5 times, and then 1 person who likes it upvotes me to a final rep of 1. Why should I finish positive on a post where there were 5 times as many people who hated it as who liked it?

Now take the same number of people, but the 1 person who liked it read it first and upvoted me. Now the 5 people who are ok with it read it and decide it is not worth +1, so they make it 0. Then the 5 people who hate it read it and then make me finish with -5 rep.

This is a 6-rep swing based just on the order of people who read my post.

If your point is that you think some people's "rep" votes should count more than others', so that random up/downvotes count less than up/downvotes from regular/highly repped posters, then I agree and this has been stated by others. However that is not the current system which is implemented, and trying to artificially create that system by abusing your ability to rep is not the way to go.

Obviously for this hypothetical post which 5 people hate and 1 person likes I deserve -4 rep. If we just do what you are doing, then the integrity of the reps get compromised. Something like what you are suggesting only makes sense if you think your opinion is more important than other people's. While I guess that is true for most people, it is obviously bad for the general public, on average, to support this kind of behavior.

It is my intention to upvote posts that have one rogue downvote.

I have seen a number of truly inoffensive posts that get downvoted for no obvious reason. If my upvote to eliminate those random downvotes makes me the downvoting police, so be it.

I never understood the rationale behind the upvoting and downvoting of posts anyway. There are many more constructive ways to make your opinions known.

rogerclee, on 2011-June-20, 13:17, said:

Integrity of the reputation system? You have got to be kidding.

By the way, I am not downvoting your post, although I find it to be silly.

Roger, I won't go into a lengthy reply. Of course if 5 people hate it and 1 likes it, you deserve -4. The problem comes when there are a couple of users (who I won't name) who are downvoting just for the sake of downvoting. Such actions end up misrepresenting the quality of a particular post and could lead to negative repped posts which are generally positive in nature.

manudude03, on 2011-June-20, 13:23, said:

The whole situation is funny, especially since one of those people who randomly downvote posts for no reason had, until recently, a request in their profile to explain any downvotes they may have received. hypocritical much?

I would just as soon see the whole reputation voting mechanism tossed out the window. It's akin to the bbo star system. You have some really excellent players with high reps now, which is great; but you also have some clowns who somehow managed to trick people into giving them lots of upvotes. The fact that there are several posters on here whose bridge is much much much better than mine; people who make coherent, informative comments and arguments, and who post a lot, yet have reps lower than or close to mine is ridiculous.

Anyhow...
that said, I'm not encouraging anyone to downvote me

I almost upvoted matmat's post but then realized that would just make the situation worse. If mikeh or frances writes "agree with mat" in this thread, I will upvote it, though.

They should have zeroed out reputation at the time downvoting was allowed. Otherwise reputation is, and will be for some time to come, a function of how much a person posted during the period where only upvoting was possible. Anyway I doubt reputation will ever be what matmat suggested: an indication of bridge ability or the value of the content in the person's post. Voting makes it a popularity contest and there is no reason to expect a strong correlation between merit and popularity.

+1 upvote for banishing the vote system

I think that for people with nothing to say and a bit of spare time, upvoting and downvoting is a great innovation.

AlexJonson, on 2011-June-20, 14:33, said:

Valid point.

Lurkers of the world, unite!

This is not an argument, but I was wondering what reputation (as in keeping long-term track, not per post) is good for, except for creating something to wank about. I would appreciate if someone would explain to me why having a good reputation or bad one is important on THESE forums, and if it's displayed on the forums in any other way than by clicking on someone's profile.

I would understand the concern if it showed up under username when one posts, but I don't think it does (unless I'm missing it and then would appreciate it).

I will admit that I was one of those interpreting the +/- votes as "agree/disagree", not as "agree/you're inappropriate" as others seem to, and so will amend my use of the - if that's the group consensus.

I also think that it would be nice to be able to take back one's +/- votes, especially after a post is edited. For example, PlayerX might make a post that says "Bridge is a wonderful complex game", and it could be upvoted a bunch. He could then change his post to read "I hate Fred", and then all those who upvoted would appear to be on record as upvoting the second post. In other words, it would be nice if one could take back one's +/- vote if one changes one's mind.

Elianna: you can click on the little green arrow or square to the right of any name. There will be a little pop up window that shows their reputation, and some helpful buttons.

When only upvotes were possible, I upvoted some rare posts that I thought stand out.

If someone expresses his opinion, tries to state arguments and avoids personal attacks, than I think that post is ok, even if I disagree with the poster.
When I see that such a post was downvoted for apparently no reason, I get this "Even if I think you are wrong, I'll support your right to state your opinion without being punished!" feeling.

Votes should mean something, but a lot of the voting I have seen, does not meet such a standard.
If people downvote for "a long intrest list", "bad english" or "wrong forum" the downvotes mean next to nothing and the only thing you can do about that is upvote such posts and and make the upvotes and the whole voting system meaningless.

gwnn, on 2011-June-20, 14:55, said:

Thank you, I didn't know that.

But I still don't really understand what overall reputation is good for. I mean, I guess it's good for newbies who see conflicting posts and are trying to decide who to believe, but better would be to just see the voting on those individual posts.

In other words, I like having both up and down voting, with names attached as they are now, but would prefer if overall up/down votes were not counted cumulatively, and that people could give as many as they thought appropriate for any amount of time, and could undo their up/down votes if they change their mind or more commonly, misclick (as I've already seen one person claim to do).

ArtK78, on 2011-June-20, 12:48, said:

How do you know who these folks are ?

EDIT: Nevermind... I just found out . I just clicked on the "vote" and up popped up the perpetrators.
I may have to go on a mission .

This post has been edited by TWO4BRIDGE: 2011-June-20, 15:41

Art... I have to thank you for this post.
I was wondering how my "Reputation" was arrived at.
I see now it is determined by the up/down voting in the posts.

And thx gwnn.... for putting me on to that "little green arrow" for a quick check on my status.

Looks like I'm the only one here "in the red" ( a whopping - 9 ) on Reputation .
[ Everyone else seems to be "in the green ( like at least + single digit to + 125 for gwnn ) ]

I never paid much attention to the +/- on the posts, but I will now.

In fact I got a search list of all my posts to check back.

I see I had one post where I suggested a SPLINTER instead of jumping to game.
I thought it was brilliant, but ----- it cost me - 4 ... downvotes.
Either they hate me or they hate splinters .... or both .

I think it is entirely appropriate for the first post in this thread to be downvoted - it's in the wrong forum.

If Artk78 is just talking about voting to cancel out a malicious Lurpoa downvote I don't think anyone could object, it seems to me that is entirely reasonable in such extreme cases as the Lurpoa attacks.

On the other hand, if he is talking about following the jonottawa/hotshot strategy of voting to cancel out normal votes just because he personally wouldn't have made that vote, I agree with Roger that this just seems pretty egotistical, 'nobody is allowed to vote on a post unless I myself approve' ... whatever.

Anyway at the end of the day this upvoting and downvoting is not such a big deal, I do think however that if the plan for votes was to advertise posts with high votes in BBO that this will not work. It doesn't happen that posts with excellent bridge content get many upvotes, the funny posts or posts making a non-bridge point people agree with seem to get the most votes.