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.

Post History

33%
+0 −2
Q&A Categorical or criterion-based voting

I am starting to strongly lean towards that votes should pretty much always come with explanations. I wonder if it is not such a radical change in system design to replace the universal or generic ...

1 answer  ·  posted 8mo ago by Julius H.‭  ·  last activity 8mo ago by Canina‭

#3: Post edited by user avatar Julius H.‭ · 2024-02-25T22:58:14Z (8 months ago)
  • I am starting to strongly lean towards that votes should pretty much always come with explanations. I wonder if it is not such a radical change in system design to replace the universal or generic upvote/downvote with a category-based reaction system. In its simplest iteration, it could focus on a small, tight set of criteria that the Codidact admin consider fundamental to Codidact content. For example,
  • - Is it answerable / Does it answer the question?
  • - Is it emotionally kind, neutral, or unkind?
  • - Is it clear, edited, polished, and succinct, or “needs work”, messy, turbid, unfocused, etc.?
  • - Is it accurate, and is its accuracy verifiable in some way? (Citations, or simply sound argumentation.)
  • These can be summarized in four simple terms: **precision, accuracy, neutrality, clarity**.
  • Here is a question for an example:
  • [Is Kant's categorical imperative applicable to Q&A sites like Codidact?](https://proposals.codidact.com/posts/290906)
  • I don’t want to simply upvote or downvote this question. My initial reaction is that I like the general intention behind the question, yet immediately am also struck by that it is not as “answerable” as it could be. The easiest way to engage with it would be to react with, “not sufficiently answerable”. The user would then see that as a form of constructive feedback. They - or anyone - could try to refine the question. Then, I could come back and it would be easier for me to answer.
  • We could still have a numerical score for questions based on the criteria, as a weighted sum.
  • The format could be similar to how people nowadays react with emoji to GitHub Issues or Discord messages. You can choose to react with a certain badge, essentially - one of a few ones offered.
  • I am starting to strongly lean towards that votes should pretty much always come with explanations. I wonder if it is not such a radical change in system design to replace the universal or generic upvote/downvote with a category-based reaction system. In its simplest iteration, it could focus on a small, tight set of criteria that the Codidact admin consider fundamental to Codidact content. For example,
  • - Is it answerable / Does it answer the question?
  • - Is it emotionally kind, neutral, or unkind?
  • - Is it clear, edited, polished, and succinct, or “needs work”, messy, turbid, unfocused, etc.?
  • - Is it accurate, and is its accuracy verifiable in some way? (Citations, or simply sound argumentation.)
  • These can be summarized in four simple terms: **precision, accuracy, neutrality, clarity = CNAP**, pronounced “snap”, as in “keep it snappy”.
  • Here is a question for an example:
  • [Is Kant's categorical imperative applicable to Q&A sites like Codidact?](https://proposals.codidact.com/posts/290906)
  • I don’t want to simply upvote or downvote this question. My initial reaction is that I like the general intention behind the question, yet immediately am also struck by that it is not as “answerable” as it could be. The easiest way to engage with it would be to react with, “not sufficiently answerable”. The user would then see that as a form of constructive feedback. They - or anyone - could try to refine the question. Then, I could come back and it would be easier for me to answer.
  • We could still have a numerical score for questions based on the criteria, as a weighted sum.
  • The format could be similar to how people nowadays react with emoji to GitHub Issues or Discord messages. You can choose to react with a certain badge, essentially - one of a few ones offered.
#2: Post edited by user avatar Julius H.‭ · 2024-02-25T22:56:50Z (8 months ago)
  • I am starting to strongly lean towards that votes should pretty much always come with explanations. I wonder if it is not such a radical change in system design to replace the universal or generic upvote/downvote with a category-based reaction system. In its simplest iteration, it could focus on a small, tight set of criteria that the Codidact admin consider fundamental to Codidact content. For example,
  • - Is it answerable / Does it answer the question?
  • - Is it emotionally kind, neutral, or unkind?
  • - Is it clear, edited, polished, and succinct, or “needs work”, messy, turbid, unfocused, etc.?
  • - Is it accurate, and is its accuracy verifiable in some way? (Citations, or simply sound argumentation.)
  • Here is a question for an example:
  • [Is Kant's categorical imperative applicable to Q&A sites like Codidact?](https://proposals.codidact.com/posts/290906)
  • I don’t want to simply upvote or downvote this question. My initial reaction is that I like the general intention behind the question, yet immediately am also struck by that it is not as “answerable” as it could be. The easiest way to engage with it would be to react with, “not sufficiently answerable”. The user would then see that as a form of constructive feedback. They - or anyone - could try to refine the question. Then, I could come back and it would be easier for me to answer.
  • We could still have a numerical score for questions based on the criteria, as a weighted sum.
  • The format could be similar to how people nowadays react with emoji to GitHub Issues or Discord messages. You can choose to react with a certain badge, essentially - one of a few ones offered.
  • I am starting to strongly lean towards that votes should pretty much always come with explanations. I wonder if it is not such a radical change in system design to replace the universal or generic upvote/downvote with a category-based reaction system. In its simplest iteration, it could focus on a small, tight set of criteria that the Codidact admin consider fundamental to Codidact content. For example,
  • - Is it answerable / Does it answer the question?
  • - Is it emotionally kind, neutral, or unkind?
  • - Is it clear, edited, polished, and succinct, or “needs work”, messy, turbid, unfocused, etc.?
  • - Is it accurate, and is its accuracy verifiable in some way? (Citations, or simply sound argumentation.)
  • These can be summarized in four simple terms: **precision, accuracy, neutrality, clarity**.
  • Here is a question for an example:
  • [Is Kant's categorical imperative applicable to Q&A sites like Codidact?](https://proposals.codidact.com/posts/290906)
  • I don’t want to simply upvote or downvote this question. My initial reaction is that I like the general intention behind the question, yet immediately am also struck by that it is not as “answerable” as it could be. The easiest way to engage with it would be to react with, “not sufficiently answerable”. The user would then see that as a form of constructive feedback. They - or anyone - could try to refine the question. Then, I could come back and it would be easier for me to answer.
  • We could still have a numerical score for questions based on the criteria, as a weighted sum.
  • The format could be similar to how people nowadays react with emoji to GitHub Issues or Discord messages. You can choose to react with a certain badge, essentially - one of a few ones offered.
#1: Initial revision by user avatar Julius H.‭ · 2024-02-25T22:54:06Z (8 months ago)
Categorical or criterion-based voting
I am starting to strongly lean towards that votes should pretty much always come with explanations. I wonder if it is not such a radical change in system design to replace the universal or generic upvote/downvote with a category-based reaction system. In its simplest iteration, it could focus on a small, tight set of criteria that the Codidact admin consider fundamental to Codidact content. For example, 

- Is it answerable / Does it answer the question?
- Is it emotionally kind, neutral, or unkind?
- Is it clear, edited, polished, and succinct, or “needs work”, messy, turbid, unfocused, etc.?
- Is it accurate, and is its accuracy verifiable in some way? (Citations, or simply sound argumentation.)

Here is a question for an example: 

[Is Kant's categorical imperative applicable to Q&A sites like Codidact?](https://proposals.codidact.com/posts/290906)

I don’t want to simply upvote or downvote this question. My initial reaction is that I like the general intention behind the question, yet immediately am also struck by that it is not as “answerable” as it could be. The easiest way to engage with it would be to react with, “not sufficiently answerable”. The user would then see that as a form of constructive feedback. They - or anyone - could try to refine the question. Then, I could come back and it would be easier for me to answer.

We could still have a numerical score for questions based on the criteria, as a weighted sum.

The format could be similar to how people nowadays react with emoji to GitHub Issues or Discord messages. You can choose to react with a certain badge, essentially - one of a few ones offered.