- This topic has 26 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 14 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
In my awesome opinion, it’s stupid. It doesn’t serve any purpose and Vusys seems to want to make vutales like-ish reddit, and reddit doesn’t do this.
herp derp.Vusys said: Gives votes more of an impact.I see.
I lie. I don’t see it. It’s stupid as hell. If I want to change my vote, I will change my vote, and a 15 minute limit is stupid and arbitrary. I’m waiting for tarheel to come and show me some random webpage that shows that our mind does things every 10 minute so a 15 minute limit is the ‘natural’ thing and that if I feel that it is not it does not make it any less natural.
What about comments, then? Will you give it another 15 minute limit?
On the other hand, you could give us the option to like a blog once every three years, that gives it more impact. Also write blogs in Impact or arial black, that will give it even more impact.
Lol, why so cynical?
It’s true that you used to be able to like/unlike a blog after a while, but what if someone writes a really good blog, then gets hacked, the blog gets replaced with troll stuff, and people suddenly come in and look at it, and say, this is what the community likes?
Probably won’t ever happen, but I don’t see why there’s a limit on up/down voting either. :p
David said: Lol, why so cynical?It’s true that you used to be able to like/unlike a blog after a while, but what if someone writes a really good blog, then gets hacked, the blog gets replaced with troll stuff, and people suddenly come in and look at it, and say, this is what the community likes?
Probably won’t ever happen, but I don’t see why there’s a limit on up/down voting either. :p
Let me tell you, if I ever hacked vutales, the least I would do is change a blog.
Nass said: Well if you liked the blog why would you change your mind anyway?That’s the point, if you ever decide to dislike a blog, because you don’t understand it or anything, and something changes, like, the blog is edited or suddenly you understand it, you should be able to change your mind. And albeit you are right, there is a low chance that you want to change your choice, it should not restrict you. It just adds unnecessary complexity to the database table and the source code.
If you don’t get it, don’t rate. Instead ask the writer about what they meant, when they explain themselves then you rate.
Rating without fully understanding is almost as dumb as buying something and not know wtf it does.Nass said: If you don’t get it, don’t rate. Instead ask the writer about what they meant, when they explain themselves then you rate.
Rating without fully understanding is almost as dumb as buying something and not know wtf it does.Not understanding is not limited to the feeling of confusedness, there’s also something called misunderstanding. Because you misunderstand an argument, you may be against it. Because you misunderstand a blog, you may downvote it.
And let me tell you, this is not about why would you change your mind. It’s about the feature being arbitrary and superfluous.Also, vusys, if you wanted to give the “likes” feature more impact, you wouldn’t have let authors vote their own blogs. It is either that, or you being an hypocrite here.
I didn’t mean hack the database, I meant hacking the user/forgetting to logout, and someone dicking around. 🙂
Joaco said:Nass said: If you don’t get it, don’t rate. Instead ask the writer about what they meant, when they explain themselves then you rate.
Rating without fully understanding is almost as dumb as buying something and not know wtf it does.Not understanding is not limited to the feeling of confusedness, there’s also something called misunderstanding. Because you misunderstand an argument, you may be against it. Because you misunderstand a blog, you may downvote it.
And let me tell you, this is not about why would you change your mind. It’s about the feature being arbitrary and superfluous.Also, vusys, if you wanted to give the “likes” feature more impact, you wouldn’t have let authors vote their own blogs. It is either that, or you being an hypocrite here.
Then just rate on how the blog was presented. And ramble in the comments.
If someone brings an interesting argument to the table pre-V3. You would only like it if you agreed with it yes?
Well now if the same thing happened then you can just rate it up if it was well-written and shit. And then write your opinion in the comments.Joaco said:Nass said: If you don’t get it, don’t rate. Instead ask the writer about what they meant, when they explain themselves then you rate.
Rating without fully understanding is almost as dumb as buying something and not know wtf it does.Not understanding is not limited to the feeling of confusedness, there’s also something called misunderstanding. Because you misunderstand an argument, you may be against it. Because you misunderstand a blog, you may downvote it.
And let me tell you, this is not about why would you change your mind. It’s about the feature being arbitrary and superfluous.Also, vusys, if you wanted to give the “likes” feature more impact, you wouldn’t have let authors vote their own blogs. It is either that, or you being an hypocrite here.
Joa, I speak only for myself, but I’m pretty sure I mirror Vusys’ feelings when I say I welcome constructive criticism. However, the entitled, arrogant way you go about addressing anything you don’t like is immature and inappropriate. You want to be taken seriously? Don’t try to talk like you own the damn place. It just turns people off to you and whatever you’re trying to say. Try talking about stuff in a mature manner, that is, one that is cool and respectful.
There are a variety of reasons the system is set up like it is.
1) As Vusys said, it gives more impact to the voting process. Getting this community to take stuff seriously is kinda hard. We want voting to be an important part of the site. There’s an increased likelyhood that people would dick around with their votes if they could change them at any time. *random person logs onto MSN group* Lol, let’s all downvote Nass’ blogs and make him rage, then we’ll tell him to relax cause we’ll tell him we’ll change it later. I’m not saying that would happen, I’m just given an extreme example of how something loses its importance if it can be changed at any time.
2) It’s easy to mess with the number of likes to various effects (i.e. wait till someone gets on the front page, and then change your upvote to a downvote).
3) QotW. It would be chaos should people ever get competitive. One guy downvotes the other guy who’s right there with him for the most number of likes, despite initially enjoying his blog. Of course, that situation could get worse from there.
4) Similar to 3, people could use their vote for things other than judging to blog. Say somebody gets in an argument with someone else, rages, and changes all their votes to downvotes on all their blogs.
5) It encourages people to write better blogs. If somebody throws out a random three sentence string, they’re going to get downvoted for it, and that’s that. “Fixing” a blog shouldn’t be a viable alternative to writing the blog how it should have been the first time.
6) It encourages people to read the blogs better. You vote can’t be changed after 15 minutes, so you have to make sure you really want to up/down vote something when you go to do so. Liking/disliking isn’t about whether you necessarily agree with the person, it’s about how they presented their thoughts, how they recounted their story, etc. (i.e. David might dislike one of Nass’ blogs because he sees him as bragging about his pot exploits, not simply because it has pot in it).
There are more reasons we talked about that I can’t remember. TL;DR Bryan didn’t just pull this policy out of his ass. Just like the decision to move the sidebar to the right wasn’t arbitrary. The site hasn’t even been live for a week yet, and you’re already complaining about stuff you haven’t even gotten used to. Give it a chance, and if you still don’t like it, you can complain in a couple weeks. Next time, though, please do so in a more respectful manner.
I disagree. People that abuse should be banned. People that organise to do things en masse should be banned. If you were to make the system more ‘serious’, you wouldn’t have the option to downvote or upvote your own blog. Regarding the qotw, without downvotes that would not happen. Regarding 5), so what? if I write a 141-character-blog, it gets downvoted. If I do not give the users that downvoted my blog another chance to like my blog, so that I edit it and they can like it, I’d just delete it so it doesn’t receive more dislikes.
If you don’t care enough to read a blog, you don’t care enough for your vote.But whatever, it’s your site, do whatever you want with it. I couldn’t care less.
Joaco said: I disagree. People that abuse should be banned. People that organise to do things en masse should be banned. If you were to make the system more ‘serious’, you wouldn’t have the option to downvote or upvote your own blog. Regarding the qotw, without downvotes that would not happen. Regarding 5), so what? if I write a 141-character-blog, it gets downvoted. If I do not give the users that downvoted my blog another chance to like my blog, so that I edit it and they can like it, I’d just delete it so it doesn’t receive more dislikes.
If you don’t care enough to read a blog, you don’t care enough for your vote.But whatever, it’s your site, do whatever you want with it. I couldn’t care less.
You can vote for your own blog because everyone can vote for their own blog.
You’re not meant to write a blog, then massively edit it afterwards.
Everything else you raised is either answered by Tarheel or irrelevant. And has Tarheel said, your attitude is crap.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.