Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Welcome to Codidact Meta!

Codidact Meta is the meta-discussion site for the Codidact community network and the Codidact software. Whether you have bug reports or feature requests, support questions or rule discussions that touch the whole network – this is the site for you.

Comments on General discussion on making votes public

Parent

General discussion on making votes public

+7
−1

Make vote secrecy a per-community choice, because some communities might prefer voting transparency over voting privacy.

Side-question. Why voting is secret in other Q&A platforms?


Origins in the Community Server (direct link to conversation), raw transcript follows (but expect format inconsistencies):

Transcript

Mithical
Votes are anonymous. Scrounging vote stats on profile pages to see who's cast votes on a small site to try to figure out who's downvoted something is highly discouraged, and calling people out for it is definitely over the line.

DonielF
Why are vote stats displayed on profiles?

Mithical
uploads a pic of Shrek captioned "good question"

gs
let's read the git log about it
I traced it back to the earliest user profile pages written back 5 years ago
I couldn't identify a reason, I'd guess "just because it was easily and readily available" the first living version already had that https://github.com/codidact/qpixel/commit/90a8cb1683cc90ad8bd928742c3a32d5ee761d64

cellio
When Art wrote QPixel originally he was probably thinking more along the lines of an SE clone as opposed to a new thing. Originally Codidact was going to start fresh with all new code, building from the start what we wanted to have, but that turned out to have issues. So we decided to start with QPixel and evolve it into what we want. This is one of those underlying assumptions, inherited from SE, that I'm guessing no one thought about. I think it makes sense to show voting history only to the user, not publicly.

gs
what if we went all the way around. Instead of making everything vote-secret, make everything vote-public
excuse me I ignore if there's already a meta post about it

DonielF

what if we went all the way around. Instead of making everything vote-secret, make everything vote-public

@gs NONONONONONONO

gs
why not? I mean

DonielF
Already with reactions and “me too”‘s we’ve had people say they’re only interested in voting and the like only because of anonymity involved; they don’t want it to be personal.

gs
if voting is even moar secret than in SE, there'll always be people thinking staff cheats scores

DonielF
As if scores do anything?
Also, everything is open source
There’s no way for staff to cheat votes

ShowMeBillyJo
Well, direct database manipulation - the data isn't open source

gs

Already with reactions and “me too”‘s we’ve had people say they’re only interested in voting and the like only because of anonymity involved; they don’t want it to be personal.

aha so r you basically saying it's a community choice?
and I mean a per community choice

ShowMeBillyJo
I think it'd be an interesting thought exercise to explore fully open votes, even if it doesn't get implemented

DonielF

aha so r you basically saying it’s a community choice?

@gs I’m not necessarily saying that, but I’d be comfortable with such a policy.
Look, if y’all really think this is something that should be explored, Meta awaits

gs
I'm lazy to write the post but give me a link I can upvote

Mithical
There are also some ancient forum discussions about this.

[...]

Mithical

There are also some ancient forum discussions about this

https://forum.codidact.org/t/proposal-votes-scores-and-answer-order/385/19

Relevant forum discussion: https://forum.codidact.org/t/proposal-votes-scores-and-answer-order/385/19

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

1 comment thread

General comments (11 comments)
Post
+0
−8

Just get rid of downvoting on answers (not questions) and be done with all this squabbling. If an answer is bad, then a decent comment below it should warn people off believing the answer has any merit.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

1 comment thread

Answer ranking? (6 comments)
Answer ranking?
Monica Cellio‭ wrote over 2 years ago

Without downvotes, how would you sort answers? In particular, how would you support the "meh" and wrong answers, all of which would have zero upvotes but with variable quality?

Andy aka‭ wrote over 2 years ago

how would you sort answers - do you mean how would they appear in the list of answers under a question?

Andy aka‭ wrote over 2 years ago · edited over 2 years ago

If so, then they should appear lower down than answers that have been upvoted. I'm not saying answers can't be upvoted. Maybe also you could award some form of upvote to someone leaving a comment that points out an answer's poor quality or deficiencies? It would need thought.

Andy aka‭ wrote over 2 years ago

Or maybe only allow a downvote if the downvoter has actually left a comment explaining what the errors or deficiencies are.

Monica Cellio‭ wrote over 2 years ago

I meant ranking answers under the question, yes. Right now there are three actions somebody can take to affect that: vote up, vote down, don't vote. People who can't downvote just won't vote, which means you can't sort the merely-ok answers above the actively-wrong ones.

Tying votes to a comment requirement seems like an invitation for comments like "1rth3khadfghqr25". You'd then need a way to undo the vote if the comment is flagged and deleted.

I'm not saying the status quo is perfect and I'm open to improvements! I'm raising issues that a proposal to remove votes (or some votes) would need to address.

Andy aka‭ wrote over 2 years ago

If someone leaves a silly comment like "1rth3khadfghqr25" then they have done so in order to make a downvote so, that fulfils one aspect: downvoters are identifiable.