Who is voting down the posts?
Thu, 7 Aug 2008, 08:45 amjmuzz30 posts in thread
Who is voting down the posts?
Thu, 7 Aug 2008, 08:45 amI've already commented in a particular thread but I'm raising this as a general question - has anyone else noticed recently that there are certain posts that, whilst they may hold unpopular opinions, are not in any other way derrogatory and yet they appear to have been arbitrarily voted down?
Am I jumping at shadows here?
Is there a little self-appointed censorship gang out there?
In my opinion, someone or someones are flaunting the spirit of the website and censoring posts they happen to disagree with.
If you're not a little more careful I will vote up at my discretion that which you've voted down.
Whilst I hate the trolls I believe we should be seen to be democracy in action and my fear is someone is trying the autocratic approach. I have no trouble with voting down posts which villify, mock, or are just plain offensive but what I'm seeing goes beyond that.
It makes me angry.....you wouldn't like me when I'm angry (sorry, couldn't resist the last bit).
Anyone care to 'fess up?
jmuzzThu, 7 Aug 2008, 08:45 am
I've already commented in a particular thread but I'm raising this as a general question - has anyone else noticed recently that there are certain posts that, whilst they may hold unpopular opinions, are not in any other way derrogatory and yet they appear to have been arbitrarily voted down?
Am I jumping at shadows here?
Is there a little self-appointed censorship gang out there?
In my opinion, someone or someones are flaunting the spirit of the website and censoring posts they happen to disagree with.
If you're not a little more careful I will vote up at my discretion that which you've voted down.
Whilst I hate the trolls I believe we should be seen to be democracy in action and my fear is someone is trying the autocratic approach. I have no trouble with voting down posts which villify, mock, or are just plain offensive but what I'm seeing goes beyond that.
It makes me angry.....you wouldn't like me when I'm angry (sorry, couldn't resist the last bit).
Anyone care to 'fess up?
jmuzzThu, 7 Aug 2008, 08:50 am
Damn...just realised
...you can't vote up that which has been moderated down.
Hmmmm, that's a bummer.
Still, would like to know whose voting things down. There are two comments under the "Flaming Reviewers" thread that have been voted down as an example. Anyone tell me why?
LabrugThu, 7 Aug 2008, 08:56 am
Voting up an down
I will admit to voting down those posts which are purely derogatory, slanderous, or do not add any significant meaning to a thread. I will vote up or average those posts which are constructive even if I may not agree with them.
"If you're not a little more careful I will vote up at my discretion that which you've voted down."
That is the whole idea of the system Murray, and it is in perfect alingment with your call for democracy. Someone may not like something and vote it down. Another sees nothing wrong and votes it up. The results average out. What tends to happen a lot (and I admit to some of this myself) is that many of the 'good' or 'reasonable' posts are over looked and not moderated at all. Only those posts that people disagree with get voted down.
Personally, I would encourage you and everyone else who can moderate posts (there are many) to vote up postings more.
Absit invidia
Jeff Watkins
LabrugThu, 7 Aug 2008, 08:57 am
Hmmm, true
but if you change your filter settings to "All the Rubbish"...
Absit invidia
Jeff Watkins
Grant MalcolmThu, 7 Aug 2008, 09:20 am
Democracy in action
There was uproar a few weeks back over some nasty posts with several people writing demanding that be removed.
Now jmuzz complains people are voting posts down..
I must have things just about right.
:-)
Regards
Grant
--
Director, actor and administrator of this website
DazzaBThu, 7 Aug 2008, 09:23 am
Have to agree
I have to agree with jmuzz here. I did this once because I felt that a vicious, vitriolic post was damaging the morale of the cast I was in, but as it was explained to me at the time, censoring something I don't like is not in line with freedom of speech. I took that point on very strongly, and since then I've been the target of some pretty atrocious comments, but the only posts I will vote down now are those that I feel are offensive and have nothing to do with the point of discussion. eg: those posts that turn up with reference to body parts and actions from one of the clever-little-walters out there. (I would like to note that I am not attacking all the walters, just the ones with nothing but offensive stupidity to say) Other than that, no matter how personally offensive a post is, who am I to vote it down?
Just think how annoyed you would be if someone voted down your comments because they didn't like what you had to say. If this censoring keeps happening soon there will be nothing to read!
DazzaB
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep." Scott
Adams
LogosThu, 7 Aug 2008, 09:31 am
Well
It was exactly this sort of behaviour that almost caused me to leave and certainly deprived us of Daniel Kershaw for some time. Voting down threads for no good reason and schoolyard bullying tactics will in the long term do more harm than the posts do. Do the people who use this site really want only sycophantic yea sayers to post here.
Please note Dazza I'm not having a go at you this time, what you did you did with the best of intentions.
If you silence all criticism you will end up with a useless site.
Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing.
www.tonymoore.id.au
DazzaBThu, 7 Aug 2008, 09:37 am
It's all good Tony - you
It's all good Tony - you won me over last time and I totally agree that it's that sort of self motivated censorship that will turn the people who do have constructive and interesting things to say away. I learnt my lesson ;)
I also have to say that I think Jeff makes a good point about voting up posts that you think are well written and make some constructive points - even if you don't agree with them.
DazzaB
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep." Scott Adams
LabrugThu, 7 Aug 2008, 10:00 am
Single Vote Rule
Something important to note about voting, all registered members can only vote ONCE per comment. In other words if someone votes down a posting, and you vote it back up aagain, then the original voter cannot add further 'down' votes. There's democracy in action.
You may have also noted (I hope) that you can't moderate your own posts.
Absit invidia
Jeff Watkins
Jodie HansenThu, 7 Aug 2008, 12:25 pm
Voted down
I will admit that I voted down the post that had a go at Daniel because it added nothing to the subject and was (in my opinion) a personal dig at him. If someone wants to have a go at someone else, then (once again in my opinion), they should have the balls to say it either through a PM or to their face.
My two cents worth
LabrugThu, 7 Aug 2008, 03:03 pm
Multiple Voting Down
Just a further note from me on this subject - note that when a post is voted to "Utter Rubbish" twice, it will be "removed" from the thread - hidden completely in other words. Slanderous, insulting and vulgar posts can be effectively removed in this way. Mind you, so can other posts. Vote down judiciously.
Absit invidia
Jeff Watkins
jmuzzThu, 7 Aug 2008, 04:17 pm
Yes Grant....
....you're the rock of reason in a stormy sea my friend.
I know it seems a but funny me bringing this up as a topic but seriously, there is a diff between offensive and controversial. I thought the post aimed at Stinger was a tad harsh but the heart was in the right place (I think) and as for someone asking who Walter Plinge is/was, it may seem like a daft question but then so are a lot of questions on this site. Neither warranted the treatment they got. I note both have been restored to former glory.
jmuzzThu, 7 Aug 2008, 04:24 pm
Here here
....that's the point I'm making. Vote judiciously before hitting the "rubbish" button. I myself had a hand in binning a comment aimed squarely at Kristen Twynan-Perkins a couple of weeks back. I don't know Kristen personally but I felt the post had no merit and was basically name calling for want of a better word. That's the type of post we don't need but having read the post that commented on Peter, I thought the gist of it was that it was framed as advice for Peter. He didn't like being labelled arrogant (which I can understand) so it had a certain bluntness but I think it was meant to be constructive in its own way.
I've said it once and I'll say it again....."why can't we all just get along".
Ian BlackThu, 7 Aug 2008, 06:20 pm
Posting down
I voted down based on - "Your vote contributes to whether or not this post appears on the home page."
It doesn't mention that it will hide the post completely. Assuming that by home page, and by definition, Theatre Australia means the first page your are greeted with when you arrive here.
Personally i think that there are better posts to present on the home page. Reviews, upcoming events, whats on etc. Rants are not one of them.
NaThu, 7 Aug 2008, 06:24 pm
Incorrect. The system works
Incorrect. The system works two ways: a number of people giving a post the lowest vote possible means it will be hidden. Likewise, a number of people giving a post the highest vote possible means the main thread will appear on the homepage.
'Rants' don't appear on the homepage, because they are individual posts. The main thread is all that appears on the homepage.
Finger puppets now on sale at
Puppets in Melbourne
Ian BlackThu, 7 Aug 2008, 06:29 pm
Perhaps that should be
Perhaps that should be clarified in the description then as in its present form it does not. I just assumed that it moves it away from being presented on the home page but would still appear in the forums/threads.
Sorry by 'Rants' i meant all the arguing and carry on attached to the post. I feel when the ranting and such has reached a point, the post should be moved away from the home page. Admittedly i have posted in some of these. But i don't feel its something that should be presented as a Welcome.
NaThu, 7 Aug 2008, 06:36 pm
Yes, I agree. Perhaps
Yes, I agree. Perhaps that's one of the things Grant can fix as he looks at tightening up the moderation system.
Though I have to state: people posting will still have to take the time to read the info, and just because it's explained clearer doesn't mean that people won't abuse the system or find it confusing.
This site can be hard to navigate at the best of times.
Finger puppets now on sale at
Puppets in Melbourne
Ian BlackThu, 7 Aug 2008, 06:37 pm
Agreed
Agreed. Anyway the show must go on so im off to performance.
crgwllmsFri, 8 Aug 2008, 02:39 am
Moderating in moderation
The interesting thing about ranking the posts you read is that very few will get positive rankings, unless they are outstanding. The general tendency is to be apathetic unless you hate something and vote it down. 'Reasonable' posts won't be scored at all.
A lot of people will have their filters set to hide and ignore the rubbish.
So in theory you might think if a post is unfairly given several thumbs down, you can rescue it and restore the balance by giving thumbs up. But if it's given enough thumbs down to be caught by the junk filter, you may not even see it to rescue it.
Cheers,
Craig
~<8>-/====\---------
Walter PlingeFri, 8 Aug 2008, 01:46 pm
Truth be known
Mr jmuzz. If you knew of the childish, abusive and offensive Personal Messages that have been sent to individuals in relation to the posting, it would be VERY CLEAR as to why the post has been voted down. If your view is "Is there a little self-appointed censorship gang out there?" then yes, and i am one of them.
If a smolder (a post) turns into a fire (Personal Message attacks) it should be put out PERMANENTLY.
NaFri, 8 Aug 2008, 04:36 pm
Are you suggesting, Voice
Are you suggesting, Voice of Reason, that someone is abusing the personal messaging system on this site in order to encourage/discourage the moderation of posts?
Finger puppets now on sale at
Puppets in Melbourne
jmuzzFri, 8 Aug 2008, 05:29 pm
Riddle me this.....
...what exactly was it about either post that was offensive?
That's my question. How does that turn into someone sending offensive personal messages? How did they get the email details of the people they sent the offensive messages too?
Not doubting your integrity on this matter but it obviously leads to further questions.
Walter PlingeFri, 8 Aug 2008, 05:36 pm
Personal messages
I think that the voice of reason might have been referring to the private message function on this website.
Correct me if I'm wrong, of course.
Walter PlingeFri, 8 Aug 2008, 05:50 pm
Reply
Being PM'd in an abrasive rude and to some an offensive manner to remove a post because simply because the author didn't like or didn't agree with the replied post isn't right. That is what is happening behind the post in question.
There are better ways to address such a request. Losing credibility rudely and offensively in the process certainly isn't how i would conduct myself. Its also in my eyes an abuse of the PM system.
You don't need someones email details to PM, I never said email but i understand the privacy concern/question you have. But if you include this in your profile its there for all to see which can be used in the wrong way. Unfortunately there is no way to stop that its public information. But in this instance its PM's in question.
NaFri, 8 Aug 2008, 06:20 pm
Emails
In your account settings, you can choose whether or not people can send you emails (to your yahoo, hotmail, whatever account) through this site. Alternatively, people can still message you through the PM system on this site; which doesn't go to your personal email address, but instead you have to read them directly here. You have to be a registered member to have either of those; so all someone has to do is find the appropriate member's profile and click on the link to email them.
Finger puppets now on sale at
Puppets in Melbourne
NaFri, 8 Aug 2008, 06:23 pm
Unfortunately, there's not
Unfortunately, there's not much we can do about people sending those kinds of messages. My advice is to keep an eye on them, and if they continue, send an email to Grant to perhaps have the member banned.
Finger puppets now on sale at
Puppets in Melbourne
Walter PlingeFri, 8 Aug 2008, 06:25 pm
Sorry for the Mr... in my
Sorry for the Mr... in my opening. No offense meant. Heat of the moment. Disclaimer: No i was not PMd to apologize. A matter of correction and courtesy on my behalf.
jmuzzFri, 8 Aug 2008, 06:45 pm
Hmmm....sounds serious
Don't like to hear of ppl being bullied. I think you've answered the question well and it probably allays my fears (although the voting down of the "Who is Walter Plinge" question still mystifies me). I too agree with Na - if there is that abuse of the PM system, consider reporting it and trying to get that person banned if the abuse warrants it.
My sympathies - idiots abound and we appear to be a magnet for them.
Bass GuyFri, 8 Aug 2008, 07:47 pm
Why vote?
I've been intrigued that there is a function on this site that enables us to "vote down" certain comments.
Why is this even necessary? What was the reasoning behind its installation? What purpose does it serve?
I ask not to be a smart-arse for once, but out of genuine curiosity. I just don't see the point of being able to vote that I dislike/disagree with someone's opinions/drivellings- I'd rather let my views be known in this format instead.
El
"It ain't braggin' if you can back it up."- Jaco Pastorius
NaSat, 9 Aug 2008, 12:23 am
It could be the way the
It could be the way the site programming works. For those who many not know: the site uses an 'out of the box' free program. This means that many functions, if not most of them, come pre-coded to work a certain way. (Although Grant would have to confirm whether or not he set it up to do it, or whether it just came preinstalled to do it)
... Besides which, there are reasons for voting down, just as there are voting up. I often vote up posts that are helpful or insightful, and when I do vote something down, it's because it's just the opposite.
I think again it comes back to the issue of transparency; we don't know who or why people vote the way they do. At least at Wikipedia, there are tabs which show the history of each article, and the edits (granted, not quite the same thing, but you get my point) are clearly tracked and reasoned out.
Finger puppets now on sale at
Puppets in Melbourne