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

1 answer · posted 10mo ago by Julius H.‭ · last activity 10mo ago by Canina‭

Question feature-request voting

#3: Post edited by

Julius H.‭ · 2024-02-25T22:58:14Z (10 months ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

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

Julius H.‭ · 2024-02-25T22:56:50Z (10 months ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

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

Julius H.‭ · 2024-02-25T22:54:06Z (10 months ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

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.

feature-request voting

Communities

Post History