Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 26th Dec 2012 00:32 UTC
OSNews, Generic OSes Now that the holidays are upon us (happy holidays!) and the year is about to end, we at OSNews thought it time to finally lift the veil a little bit on the next version of OSNews - OSNews 5. I've hinted at this next version of OSNews here and there in the comments, but we think it's time to make it all a little bit more official by taking in some initial feedback.
Thread beginning with comment 546392
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Thu 27th Dec 2012 05:50 UTC
MOS6510
Member since:
2011-05-12

Why not only allow a down vote if the voter gives a motivation?

It's not uncommon for comments that are correct and/or just someone's opinion to get down voted just because someone doesn't like an opinion.

If one can't explain why one casts a down vote one should not do it.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by MOS6510
by Alfman on Thu 27th Dec 2012 06:18 in reply to "Comment by MOS6510"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Votes are just that: opinions. People need to only read into them as such and not take them too seriously. Still, I think it should be fixed by making it much more transparent and ditching the you-are-prohibited-from-voting rules, which are an anti-feature IMHO.

Can this be put to a vote? ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Thu 27th Dec 2012 06:25 in reply to "RE: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Votes are indeed opinions, but currently when you down vote you have to choose between 'inaccurate', 'troll' and 'off-topic'. It doesn't include 'I don't agree' or 'I don't like you'.

To keep things simple I don't think there shouldn't be any categories, because for one nobody ever sees the results. If these were dropped I wouldn't object to people down voting without giving a written motivation.

I do agree that it's rather difficult to cast any vote sometimes, because there seems to be an extensive set of rules of engagement which I have never encountered before.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510
by Bobthearch on Thu 27th Dec 2012 06:27 in reply to "RE: Comment by MOS6510"
Bobthearch Member since:
2006-01-27

There are currently several different reasons given as choices to vote someone up or down. What I'd like to see are the reasons people chose for voting my hypothetical comment up or down. Did the comment readers thin I was wrong, or was I trolling? Was I insightful, or funny? And it would be interesting to see how many voters chose + or - to come up with the final score.

Then again, maybe I don't want to know. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510
by Neolander on Thu 27th Dec 2012 10:04 in reply to "RE: Comment by MOS6510"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Considering that the vote score is now hidden, the website could just silently ignore what it considers as abusive downvotes without this dictatorial "you are prohibited from doing that" warning ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510
by kwan_e on Thu 27th Dec 2012 10:55 in reply to "RE: Comment by MOS6510"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

ditching the you-are-prohibited-from-voting rules, which are an anti-feature IMHO.


I think the comment-XOR-vote system is a good thing. Either vote, or write a comment to influence voting. Most people won't say anything that hasn't already been said, so they can just choose to vote. Commenting influences votes much more than an anonymous vote, so it's a matter of balance that commenters shouldn't be able to use both comments and voting to abuse their power of influence.

Reply Parent Score: 2