Hmmmm, if using the up vote or down vote button, automatically opened a reply, (and wouldn't register the vote unless you posted the reply) you would solve those who object to anonymity. Maybe it could be autoconfigured to post "I agree" or "NFL-Solomon is right", er umm, I mean or "I disagee" maybe increasing apparent activity for your sponsors.
That would definitely take care of the anonymous vote downs but from the beginning the karma feature was basically the opportunity for someone to respond in a quick fashion. It surprised me when I noticed that people would spend all day thumbing down posts from people they held personal grudges towards. I think the idea that Will suggested is solid in that it gives the ability to count both cheers and jeers in separate totals. Although I would like to see the possibility of having a users name attached to their vote. It will all come down to the coding and what is feasible. Similar to your suggestion with the quotes there is some aspects that are possible and others that cause conflict with other bits of program that are already in operation.
Tim as i stated in the hockey thread, i like you having absolute power over anyone and can kick people out who are troublesome or trolls. just stay on them and kick them out and that's a large majority of our problems on here.
I'm not sure this is a good idea and I don't understand the benefit of ignoring someone. As things are, I can just ignore someone as it is. Even tho there are some post's/posters that bug me, I'm cool with someone expressing themselves. Guess I'm just saying that I already have the ability to ignore someone.
I'm just hashing ideas since I cannot speak to the technical feasibility of any changes. I really enjoy that I see when there's a fresh message on a board. (For one, I see the Sabres awesome crest.) I try to keep all boards clear so that I know I should jump on any new message. To me, the idea of an ignore feature is that I would not be alerted if it was Joe JackOff that posted.
Tim-when you want to edit your own posts, the option is hidden underneath the word edit. if you put your cursor there it will find it, but bf it was clear to make a simple edit. now the choices are hidden...
It's a css issue that I was working around on the new layout. I'll shut it off for the time being while I'm still finishing that up. You should be able to edit in the original manner now.
If you're going to eliminate the vehicle to voice displeasure then eliminate the thumbs up button as well. Without the opportunity to cast a negative, the whole Karma number becomes a joke. Didn't realize that adults on a web site forum needed a safe space.
We're looking at eliminating the Karma and replacing it with a different system. Until the 'thank you' option can be corrected for mobile users the 'thumbs up' option has been left in place.
So, in other words, users will be able to quickly agree with someone via a "thumbs up" or a "thank you" but won't have the option to quickly disagree??? Gee . . . let's all sing Kumbayah.
It was a suggestion that I have heard from Babyfan, another moderator and some members. While I'm looking to see if another option is possible I'm willing to give it a trial run for a couple weeks and get some feedback.
Like I have told you in more than one PM, it's your site. I see someone agreed with your last post. I don't agree but then, I don't get to vote now do I.
At the moment no, but nothing is written in stone and the new system I am looking at will have the ability to agree or disagree with a post similar to what the karma system does. Either way, the ability to disagree will be available once I determine whether or not the new program is feasible.
Tim, are you looking to integrate the new system into what's already in place? Or, will this be a new system starting a point-zero for everyone? In other words, as far as I understand the conversation to date, you're looking at having a Cheers and a Boo button - and the two will not be netted with each other. So, will the Cheers simply replace and build on past Thumbs Up? Or (again), will everyone start at zero when the new system is implemented?
It will probably depend on which exact direction I take it in. The options I have up on the board now include having a total for +/-, having no profile totals just post totals, and potentially eliminating the totals altogether while removing anonymous voting. What I would like to have is a total count per post, not per profile, with the ability to see who voted. Solomon's idea has me intrigued. Having it so that before you can submit a vote in disagreement you also have to reply would be a very interesting way to spark conversation. It's the most difficult of the coding workarounds but I believe I will be starting there and working down from that point till I get to whatever is most feasible.
Why not require a reply for both a "cheer" or a "jeer"? Why for only a negative? I think you will end up skewing any +/- tally if you only require additional effort for a negative response. And what good is a skewed result?
The results are already skewed, severely in some instances. It's an interesting thought. I'll put it up on the board to look at the pros and cons for having it on both.
This is a great idea. Truly brilliant. I love that people would be 'encouraged' (if not forced) to comment before they can leave a value stemmed from their opinion.
Having to submit a response was Sol's idea and I think that it's a solid one. It makes two things happen. 1. It leans more towards spurring conversation and less towards 'I don't like you, so there'. 2. It removes the anonymity of the vote and makes it so that you can't just stalk someone relentlessly. If I cannot get it to work with submitting a response, at the very least I am going to make it so that your name gets tagged to your vote.
