Just a random thought, people can say what they want about it, it just sort of came to mind. Do you think it might be time for TDC, especially if we're prepping for new people, and making updates to the site, to add a Thumbs system to comments and posts? Rather then having a 4 word limit for example, make it so that people can vote Thumbs up or Thumbs down for a comment, especially for anything submitted. Then anytime the vote starts to dramatically tip one way or the other after a certain number of votes, that comment will be hidden unless you decide to click "View" and if the comment had a Vote in it, then that persons vote will be removed from whatever it was they voted for.
PS: This is by no means a new idea. In fact it's been demonstrated and works very well on sites like Youtube and Gamespot.
PSS: This might also be a decent way to help bring SOME sort of meaning to DC Points other then contribution. Because if you start removing points that people gained (If not more then they gained) for every post that gets bombed off the site, then the amount of points on the site will start to show some sort of significance to the quality of peoples social status here.
At first it sounds like a good idea, but then like with the star ratings people will find a way to abuse it. Anything on the site that allows a user to be decisive and judge other people's opinions is going to cause trouble and be frowned upon by people who disagree or out of immaturity. If you agree or disagree with a comment just post underneath why/why not.
At first I agreed, thinking along the lines of using intensedebate.com's system... but I agree with Adam in that eventually trouble will be caused. Not only will trolls abuse it, but if you're out to get someone for whatever reason, you could vote all their comments down, no matter how good. Then there's always the chance that your comment could be misunderstood or that it just isn't liked even if it's absolutely true. And then tons of forum threads about how life is so unfair since we added the comment system.
You could limit the amount of votes you get per day and/or per article/news/download/review/project. You could also require a rationale for why you are thumbs-upping or downing, and an admin would have to approve it first. Then those admins that don't have much to do could go approve or disapprove them. Whenever a vote was made, it would ask for a rationale, then it would appear in an inbox-like area for the admins, then they could look from there. This would also make it easier for the admins to prevent trolling. I like the idea. Would it be in the forums, though?
Yeah, and when will these DC points ever mean anything?
Just for clarification, I was saying that I like Brandon's idea, not mine. Anyway, I'd do it, because I never have anything to do. I mean, I just surf the internet all day and hover over the community project. So yeah. Just saying. Also, who says everyone is going to feel compelled to use it?
Making people add in a rational reason as to why they dislike the post and want to give it a thumbs down, seems like a pretty poor idea because it removes the simplicity. However I did like the addition of the idea of making it so that you can only vote down so many times over an extended period of time. Maybe you only get 5 down votes a week and +1 for every 2 up votes you get and -1 for every 3 down votes you get. This even further encourages good contribution while discouraging bad. Plus you will never be allowed to vote for the same post twice and accounts wont be allowed to vote until they've got a significant amount of accepted contribution (such as a 3+ star game).
I understand Adam and OMC, so I'm not ignoring you guys by any means. I appreciate the feedback. If anything, maybe we could simply refine it? Possibly even a trial run if we do come up with a system that enough agree with?
I had this same Idea with almost every same detail posted stuck in my head. I like the idea, really, but it does have it's downsides. I think a member should only be able to or only ONCE, along with why they did it. This would indefinitely spawn a large problem, however if another member finds it bad, they could report it. If the reason for the report isn't good enough, they would get a warning. This is one way to stop trolling. Or if their reason for the downvote or upvote wasn't good enough, they'd get a warning. That would stop trolling and unreasonable upvoting or downvoting.
Well honestly, think about something real quick. What's the Troll to True membership on the site here? It cant be any more then 1:3. So at the very least, no one is going to get a post that's going to be bombarded, without enough legit members here to counteract it. If anything, the 1:3 ratio allows all of our legit members to overthrow our trolls and help keep the site at least somewhat more presentable for new coming members.
It's not without it's flaws, but a trial run could defiantly represent it's potential.
Good idea, and a trial run is needed.
I think that the idea would get abused, but thats just a thought.
Maybe our community can grow up a bit and use it like its supposed to be, then it would be a great addition to TDC.
(by the way I hope no one takes the growing up part seriously, I didn't mean anything bad.)
Your just jealous that you're not as awesome as me.
(And my megaman avatar )
It's not really about how many people troll.. it's about how much effort they put into it. So, a person who casually votes for a game would give it like 4 stars. A person who hates the game's creator (and the game) will attack every single 4 and 5 star rating. The people who sort of liked it won't bother to get into a fight by voting against the low votes.
So, you'll have the non-troll votes getting negatively affected.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
Originally Posted by Muz It's not really about how many people troll.. it's about how much effort they put into it. So, a person who casually votes for a game would give it like 4 stars. A person who hates the game's creator (and the game) will attack every single 4 and 5 star rating. The people who sort of liked it won't bother to get into a fight by voting against the low votes.
So, you'll have the non-troll votes getting negatively affected.
You raise a good point. However if votes are anonymous, and people who sort of liked it, are encouraged often to get involved in the community, then petty fights might not seem like fights unless you see a pattern. In other words, non-troll users might start to get some sort of pride in keeping legit posts open by giving them a thumbs up to keep them open.
Plus, a bad post would need to get at least -10 votes, which might be pretty hard for a troll to do. This means that it's only a bad post if enough legit people pitch in as well and say 'alright, this post was uncalled for' and vote it down.
Advertisement
Post Reply
Edited by Silveraura
That's rather absurd, actually.
A trial run...
only ONCE, along with why they did it. This would indefinitely spawn a large problem, however if another member finds it bad, they could report it. If the reason for the report isn't good enough, they would get a warning. This is one way to stop trolling. Or if their reason for the downvote or upvote wasn't good enough, they'd get a warning. That would stop trolling and unreasonable upvoting or downvoting.
)
