Discussion for Proposed New CR4 Voting Feature

One issue that occurs to me is that similary questions and issues may be put out there for voting, as lots of people do not research their questions prior to posting, and so it is fair to assume that many will not research existing votes prior to posting a vote. I think this would be epecially true amongst unregistered participants (Guests)

Therefore I suggest that voting should be limited to registered participants, but perhaps they could or should still conduct voting anonymously.

I further suggest that voting posts could be cancellable by an accumulation of user votes, where existing votes are cited as the reason. (as per sample voting dialog image below) This will then allow community policing and not burden admin with the responsibility of assuring the validity of each voting type post.

Perhaps statistics could be compiled as single thread per category (ie; automotive)

Perhaps statistics could be compiled as an additional listing in each registered user's profile, if they posted the voting post.

I also think this voting capacity might be a useful addition to the blogger's suite of tools, allowing greater powers to the blogger. that is another discussion though.

Chris

A good idea from Garthh (post 1842 in the original thread, with my suggestions following in 1843) for your "Project-based NGO" and a test case for the voting idea...

Chris,

Your suggestion holds a lot of merit. However, I have seen several really weird answers to questions/comments and one or two valid, logical answers. I think taking polls is logical but we just have to be careful how we interpret them aside from just looking at numbers. I think that I'm interpreting your suggestion correctly but, if not, please let me know. I'm used to that. I've been married for 38 years.

Later,

Don

Hi Don,

I'm thinking that the need here is really to resolve small questions in the context of a larger discussion, so it can move forward. It is not intended to replace discussion. I've been hearing a lot of "let's act on this issue" without a solid clear idea of what the group opinion is, so you don't really know what you are agreeing to.

If you think in terms of designing a product, then voting would probably be on a feature-by-feature basis.

I think it should not be used in scientific discussions, because we don't have the ability to conduct experiments. We wouldn't want to perpetuate the idea that science and opinion are intermingled.

Any time this group of participants wants to take action on an issue, as diversity permits, then what I'm proposing makes sense for consensus building.

A group that can discuss only, and never decide anything shall be eternally be relegated to the backwaters of any kind of activism. I think decision making is a function that is absolutely critical to mental health, and critical thinking.

"The greatest power that a person possesses is the power to choose." J. Martin Kohe

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" Benjamin Franklin

Chris

Coming from "outside" the other thread and having not read through the issue being discussed there I provide the following comments.

Firstly, I see CR4 as an interesting site where I can interact with multiple other Engineers in a manner that provides effective brainstorming opportunities that open alternative views and opinions for ME to consider. I can provide opinion to others and allow them to (maybe) avoid some pitfalls that may have been seen in my experience.

Secondly, I would NEVER rely on this site alone as the source of a conclusion or direction for decisions that I am responsible for. The advice is great, but I am still the Engineer responsible. The input is always fantastic, and the occasional light hearte responses provide a "reality check" to some of the more serious issues.

Finaly, I ask "What is the potential for any outcome of decision making that is finalised on this forum?"

Are we going to "decide" that nuclear arms should all be dismantled. Such a decision would be futile since we do not have influence to cause the decision to be implemented.

I do believe however that as responsible Engineers in this world, right now (and every day) we do have a responsibility to influence our governments and the people at large with our educated opinions as to what seem to be the better alternatives, since we have the training and experience to provide better advice than most of the general public.

This forum can help us to each form an opinion.

I notice that the linked thread refers to public housing. There are many models functioning in Australia. There is no "one model fits all" situations.

A decision making process may lead to a belief that that outcome/idea/decision is the best option in every circumstance and even discourage us from "thinking through" each varied situation as we encounter it.

I agree with you. I'm thinking in terms of a group of engineers and thinkers making "Recommendations" which would have to be carefully worded as to their qualified applications. (ie, engineering calculations)

However, there are lots of engineering sites out there where information is simply posted as fact by a single contributor, and there is no debate or opinion offered. I think what I'm proposing still allows plenty of opportunity for active debate, and if anyone disagrees with a certain topic being voted on, then they can vote "Disagree" and/or post a lengthy rant description of their perspective on the issue at hand.

All in all, I think there are more positives than negatives.. lets have a show of hands...

Chris

Thanks, but no thanks.

Far too much complication with no demonstrable difference in what the OP does when he signs off. Or just doesn't come back after the first post.

It ain't broke. Don't try to fix it.

Don't take offense. I think you are a great asset to the community.

noted, and no offense taken.

thank you.

Chris

I would be leery of anonymous voting, because there have been incidents where some have logged on as Guest just for the purpose of shooting barbs at some personality with whom they take issue. If you aren't willing to sign your name, your opinion should be discounted...

agreed! no guests for sure. and no barbs. those types of votes can be cancelled as by voting so, as I suggested in #2.

Chris

Forgot to sign that (post #17)

Kyzine

I knew who you were from the first line. lol You have an unmistakeable style. (Nouveau Ranté )

as for funny answers.. that is outside of my scope, as are GA's and off topics.

You are 'special case' when it comes to being a registered member, and one can only hope that after you serve your time, that you will regain your membership status. It is beyond my control. Perhaps they should make you a moderator? Perhaps a quick review of Netiquette would help speed things along for you.

At any rate, I still think that unregistered guests should not be able to host votes, but I can't see any reason why that would stop them from being able to vote, so you would still have equal opportunity to vote, and to comment/discuss. If we make guests able to vote, then random people will come on and use CR4 as an opinion polling site. What I'm proposing is to create tools that will help registered CR4 participant make better recommendations, possibly as a prelude to other extracurricular actions.

In statistical quality systems, the counting of non-conformities and conformities are compiled into a report for business decision making. I tend to throw a lot of ideas into the mix here, and not all of them are valid. The voting method would help sort them out.

As for admin inviting me, I first wrote to them showing my post on the Shipping container thread, and they asked me to create this thread to avoid having to wade through 1800 posts on that thread, in order to assess the validity of this idea. fair enough. It's a pain for everyone.

Chris

Actually, the idea of using PM's as a ballot box sounds like a pretty good idea to me. The ID of the voter is available only to the moderators, "Guests" willing to identify themselves can vote, and one can contribute modifiers to the vote as well ("I agree almost, but I think you also need to consider..."). That's how some of us tend to think...Most questions are not black and white.

Just a way off the top of my head to use existing structures

If I could change something here I wouldn't let Guest's start threads

I try to ignore discussions started by guests

unless they are to good to pass up

The stuff Chris would like to do is probably better done off site

another option would be invite only chatrooms

If guests can vote, then their votes should be noted seperately.....

to avoid having to wade through 1800 posts

erm, what happens if this thread exceeds 1800 ? What if we don't log in/vote ? Doh, just ignore me, it's Sunday and I'm confused.

Kris

I thought you spent sundays having a break in a bath or something?

but to answer your question, I'm hoping it won't take 1800 posts for you

to explain how you want it to work. (but given that bath thread, it just might. )

Chris

We're still waiting for proof of dear departed bath's demise

I fall back on a post for a gate. The OP gave feedback with photographs. Why should the OP in first instance not be able to vote when the solution he receives is most appropriate? Also when signed in as Guest.

I personally think he should be the first to be able to vote. Even when it is months later, when he found out what has been the "best" solution. How much do we get paid for a good answer?

An other issue that bothers me more is the capability of understanding the original post, because it is a puzzle, or lacks information. Some of the guests don't even reply when more specs. are asked for.

I think he should log in with an identity too.

Hi Kyz - has your post been hacked? I'm assuming that there was a previous #17 which has been taken out, otherwise the current #17 (and Chris's reply) don't make an awful lot of sense.

Hi JD, correct, but #6, 10, 15, 16, 21, 29, 30, fairly well say it; No ID = No value

Nouveau Ranté

A really good point.

I actually feel that guests should not be able to pose questions either.....

Sorry, but I have the feeling this system is too complex and not as fair as we could expect it to be: among the participants (as in the real world) you will find geniuses, average IQ´s, complete fools, communists, anti-communists, believers, non believers... etc. Let´s say an idea is supported by 100 jerks, and the opposite by 17 geniuses.. but, as we do not know who voted for what; what decision will be taken? PROBABLY THE WRONG ONE! When things get into such a scale, one way of doing things right is to vote for representatives who will vote representing their voters. (as in real democracy). Having reached this point, I must admit that I probably have gone TOO far not wanting to offend anyone... just kidding! BTW let me recommend you a book (or the movie shot in 2000) called Captain Pantoja and the Special Services written by a Peruvian writer called Mario Vargas Llosa. It tells how a very simple idea can scale up into a real nightmare.

1. How do you insure that your elected representatives actually do have a moral compunction to represent those who have elected them?

2. How do you insure that the geniuses get elected rather than the idiots?

3. Can you honestly say that a representative form of government always takes the right decision?

4. I have not read Captain Pantoja and the Special Services, by Mario Vargas Llosa is one of my all-time favorites. I will be on the lookout for this volume, per your recommendation...

If each vote were weighted by the voter's percentage of Good Answers....

I.e., merit-based voting.

Now there's a can of worms... lol

We'd have to vote on that one!

"People often say that, in a democracy, decisions are made by a majority of the people. Of course, that is not true. Decisions are made by a majority of those who make themselves heard and who vote - a very different thing." ~Walter H. Judd

do you want more than this

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=799

you do know threads can be rated don't you?

I think what you are looking for is beyond the scope of this site

one more option would be for say the 2 of us to use our pm box as a voting booth

as an example you take positive, me negative

or as I said on email

use replies to 2 different posts 1 for 1against as a voting booth

Hi Garth,

I did like the link you sent me for it's +/- graphics, but I just modified the existing look and feel so programmers for cr4 would be able to implement such features with less effort by using existing controls, classes and coding routines.

I am aware of the thread rating feature, and use it regularly. I think that is partly what makes me think that this would not be an overwhelming job for cr4 programmers to implement.

The purpose of this thread is gather opinion from the site participants to see if they think it would generally be useful. I created a pair of posts to gather votes on the shipping container thread, but I found it rather clunky.. whereas I think an enabled voting feature as show would be rather streamlined. Of course it is all completely optional then. If a user doesn't like a feature, they don't have to use it, and they don't have to vote either... so I think that the notion of 'too complex' is a bit off. It will not burden at all those who do not wish to use or participate.

As for PM voting, I think that will just make it harder to track stats... I don't know.

Ultimately I will not be deciding this issue, and I will not be offended if it doesn't get implemented. I posted the idea, but I think that the ownership belongs to everyone here, therefore, I no longer consider it 'my idea'. Ultimately, it will be Admin's decision whether or not to implement.

Thank you.

Chris.

It is a good idea, although slightly more complex than the current system.

I find the idea of showing the "good answer" and "off-topic" votes in clear view, although that may dissuade someone from voting a comment a good answer if there are many demerits against it... or is that your point? After all, you do see the number of votes for/against after you vote and you can always change it. Interesting idea. And I liked your helpful screen shots.

Thanks Jaxy! I like pictures.

For God so loved the world, he didn't appoint a committee.

I have an idea that I feel would enhance the "environment" for someone.

I need help to get the idea through the stages to reality.

I ask for help, after explaining the idea.

I wait to see if there is enough help offered to reach a critical mass for accomplishment.

I ignore those that say undoable, not needed, not of value.

If help > critical mass, I proceed.

If I wait until a majority of respondents wish to join the activity, with all the people that automatically say bad idea due to conflict with their pet idea, I'll never accomplish anything.

Bill

Sometimes ya gits da bear,

Sometimes da bear gits you.

I'll take one from column A and one from column C. Please don't make this mandatory, I thought the GA system was good until I saw how it was actually used, then I stopped looking at it. KISS.

Although you are right and something should be done I very much doubt that our community is mature enough for a serious decision. If some body gives a + ONLY if the comment makes him laugh!

I think that there are several steps simple ones which could be done:

an answer is good for the OP which ever opinion the other participants have, this means that in fact there should be 2 sources for appreciation the OP and the others

many good answers were not considered because although the OP gave his + other participants were not interested and did not give the second point.

I tried to make a statistical analysis to show that depending on how one participates the ratio GA/total answers has an asymptotic trend and to determine who is really a good source establishing an average level of the above mentioned ratio.

I got a lot of unpleasant comments some at the limit of the insult.

I wanted to make some thing good but it was not accepted by the community so let it be in several years may be the participants will be interested and will accept a good discussion, today it is not yet the case.

We have a lot of primadonna able to give an answer even in fields they never heard about, hyperactive and who will not accept to be quantified as quality of their participation.

So let it be you try to do a good step forwards but as said I doubt that the community will accept any serious decision. I shall be glad if I am wrong.

thank you.. yes I agree,

but let me reiterate, this is NOT a discussion about GA's.

It may be about opinion polling, but it could easily and most effectively be about technical features or the accuracy of an equations results.

Not everyone will use it, and it may get abused. I think it is a good idea, but what do kinds of refinements to a voting process can help ensure that it gets used right, and that it does not get abused? (but still is easy for cR4 admin to implement and provide stats on)

Perhaps if we could hear a bit from admin on the feasibility of implementation of various schemes, that might help focus this discussion?

Chris

But some really do qualify in various disciplines. And some are 300 years old in experience. And didn't graduate in football schools. Nothing personally but some of us are what others call old.

I hope we fall and rise again and learn out of the mistakes we make. If there is a wrong answer in the thread, it shows in the discussion.

And this makes the forum strong, not the good answers. For me, I feel no need for GA's at all.

They are very misleading and stop a dialog, because posts for more questions count also. The whole set up is just not good.

A posts 20 posts and has 10 GA's

B posts 60 posts and has 7 GA's.

There is just no logic in the system, because maybe B posted 30 questions to direct the discussion in the right direction?

What is this forum supposed to be?

a. A ego trip race?

b. an informative, educating think tank.

I strongly suggest that the first answer to a post should be an inquiry to all the parameters and circumstances the OP applies to.

It should eliminate a lot of misunderstandings and double postings.

You can all go for the GA's. I don't

I also hate the word Guru and promise not to be here that long. Maybe a relief?

I think the most beautiful value in a person is modesty, just what I lack.

are you really gonna leave in 48 more posts?

we should be able to mark posts as solved

the guys who show up & post a question & are never heard from again, might as well be guests.

I used to spend more time, helping clarify questions,

kinda gone down hill once the guys with busted taillights showed up.

"kinda gone down hill once the guys with busted taillights showed up"

Perhaps it is that CR4 is becoming more widely known, and showing up higher in search engines, which attracts more participants. The apparent decrease in the value of contribution might be like an engine taking a load, where the load here is an educational function.

It brings me back to thinking that education is a very important driver to economics, and this is a symptom of the need.

What do you think?

Chris

I love good motorhead stuff, but the automotive section?

more accurate to have a transportation section & more in keeping the supposed tone of the joint.

Most definitely I proposed this on the notion of voting on Ideas. Even though there was some notions put forward about an organization with CW as president, that was not why I proposed this voting...

Now I see why it might not be getting all the support I thought it might. I can see it could be morphed into voting for people. What I hoped for was to vote for ideas based on the merit of application, and to also perhaps evolve into a better method yet, of documenting and classifying ideas.

I'd like you to provide some more background on your statement "which is why thinkers came up with the concept of a Republic." as I don't really understand the differences, especially in the present contexts.

Chris

Dammit Chris, Now I'm forced to reread bits of the Federalist Papers, articles 10 and 52, James Madison, and Hamilton, and Jay, and then Plebuis. (Whomever, some Greek guy.)

Thanks a lot!

Basically my understanding was that in a Republic the majority was prevented from persecuting the minority, by ethics, enforced by a balance of powers. Those powers were institutions such as Executive, Judicial, and Legislative branches.

It gets real damn tricky since some people embody a set of ideas, and others are empty suits, and nothing works if the overall spirit of the thing isn't a shared ideal.

I just wanted some anarchy where everybody knew how to drive a car, or fly a plane, or farm, and now I've got to read stuff by people smarter than me, to figure out what a vote on CR4 ought to really be worth!

Dammit!

lol...

LOL!!

I set up a pole on Survey Monkey re CR4 poling.

<a href="http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/7MPZ2FN">Click here to take survey</a>

Having just set up the pole in Survey Monkey, I'd have to say that it may be a little too cumbersome for your purposes, Chris. But maybe we wouldn't be taking poles often, and using Survey Monkey would be adequate.

Ah, but responding to the poll on Survey Monkey is quite painless...I just voted.

Thanks Mr. Blink.

be sure to tell us the results.

fyi the words are "Poll" and "Polling"

because a Pole is what a stripper dances on , and Poling is done with move a raft along the river.

Chris

fyi the words are "Poll" and "Polling"

While I agree that "Poll" and "Polling" are words, they are not the words I intended, at all. See my post to Garth, in which my glorious wording is clarified.

You may find that with the intended words, properly capitalized, my posts verge on nonsensical, but that's par for the course for me.

be sure to tell us the results.

So far:

5 responders say yes, CR4 should get together for Polish food fights.

1 responder stopped by to ask where the bathroom is.

Do you mean

Polling?

Polling? -- heck no. I can hardly believe that both you and Chris could have thought such a thing. The error is not in my my spelunking, but in my capitaLIZation. I was referring to Poles.

Here, in the deep south, when we say "Let's go Poling tonight", we mean "Let's go eat pierogis." When I wrote that "I set up a pole", I should have written "I set up a Pole." I was trying to indicate that I had framed a Pole for a crime he did not commit... but in the spirit of good sport.

But did you eat the plerogls [my favorite are smoked pork w/cabbage & onions]

before he went to jail?

was there polka & beer too?

As I understand it, Jail has its own kind of pole, polka and perogies!

I don't want to mess the survey up, but (having placed a vote shortly after you set the pole up) I've just placed one vote for, one against and one undecided - as an experiment to see whether it would permit such an action. As it didn't reveal the results to date I've no idea whether they were registered, but it certainly didn't tell me that they weren't.

Results of a pole which allows multiple votes from one respondent would have to be viewed with suspicion.

I placed an undecided vote (and only that) before you did.

So I thought Blink's last post had MY vote in it

And if I voted from work and from home and my friend's house, how would the system know?

"And if I voted from work and from home and my friend's house, how would the system know?"

Agreed - it couldn't know (unless you were required to register with a password etc.). But if it could check the address from which the vote was cast, at least it would limit multiple votes to the number of PCs the cad could get to. [Don't know how practical getting hold of the address is - maybe it would have to leave a cookie or a hobnob or buttered scone or something. I dunno.]

Anyway, as it was, it seems one could sit there all day adding votes. My procedure was:

• Check a box
• Click submit
• Click "back"
• Uncheck first box, check another
• Click submit
• ......

Didn't even have to fill in one of those impossible "type the words you see in the box below" things, so it would be pretty easy to automate repeated voting - maybe at random-ish intervals of between 10 mins and 2 hrs, to make it less obvious to anyone monitoring (i.e. the pollster).

I don't think we need to worry about surveymonkey. CR4 has all the tools necessary to ensure that voters get one vote only.

I think there might also be a little bit of overkill with the concern over someone "gaming" the system- I don't think the issues that would come up would be such that would attract vicious gamers. It's not like we're apt to post a question like, "Should we promote the idea of beatifying Bill Gates?" Or other such issues that could generate strong feelings one way or the other...If one does run a poll and gaming becomes obvious (i.e., excessive number of votes, results inconsistent with the general thread concepts, etc.), the poll can simply be discarded with no harm done.

The current question, "Is there enough interest/support within our community to pursue some sort of disaster relief organization? If so, what would be the most favored form?" is not likely to cost the next president of the US his election bid. Voting in such an environment is really non-binding and costs nothing- which means there is not much to be gained by gaming the system. If there are bruised egos out there that see this as an opportunity to strike back at our pollster in revenge for some perceived slight, it should be pretty obvious. The real key to this sort of issue will be how many are willing to dedicate how much effort to realize the goal? This most likely will be determined by private communications rather than public discussion...

As far as I can establish/remember, there seem to be 3½ types of pole requested or suggested so far, to whit:

1) Should CR4 include a facility for setting up polls/editing for longer than 15 mins/adding to the speelchuck dictionary etc.?

B) Should guests be allowed to post new threads/vote/post anything?

ω) Do you want me to go away?

ω') Do you want this thread to be terminated?

While I agree that no-one's likely to have much of an axe to grind regarding type (1) polls, I think it's possible that type (B) could be swung by overenthusiastic guests, and (ω)/(ω') could be open to some "personality bias".

Maybe I just skipped a dose of my paranoia meds.

[Edit: I haven't really thought about/covered Chris's poll (see #70), and to tell the truth, it's a bit late for my poor wee brain cell to get fired up enough to think it's way out of a paper bag. Sorry.]

Poll ω'':

Do we think JDG's "poor wee brain cell" is suffering less from a temporal limiting of it firing ability but rather is slightly damp from all the reall ale that we supped in the excellent hostelries that abound near JDG's abode?

very insightful. ga

While I like to accrue votes, I distrust mob rule.

want votes, I'll sell you mine.

Survey update:

7 in favor of a polling facility, 1 not in favor, 0 fence sitters.

I am a fence sitter, I just didn't vote!! When I do something well, I do it very well!!!

I really don't have a clue as to what is best here, so rather than slew the statistics, I decided to sit and watch (from the fence!)....though its not very comfortable for long, so hurry up Guys and get movin' there Cowboys......

The only points I want to see changed are that only CR4 members can start a blog/question. One of the main reasons for this alone is that we quite often see Guests post a question again because they have no idea what happened to the first one. I also sincerely believe that many never come back, ever again....full registration might just reduce, if not fix, such problems....

With regard to the rest I am happy to wait and see.....

Voting Update:

(12 answered, 0 skipped)

8 yes

3 no

1 undecided

I gather that Andy did not go to the site -- if he had, I think he would be counted as skipped.

I would think to be counted as skipped, you'd have to click "submit" without having checked any of the options.

Any idea what happens if you submit with more than one option checked?

it won't let you

only one box maybe checked

Yupp!!

I am reading everything, but I do not want to influence anything, at least up to now I see no reason to.....

I've created a SurveyMonkey sample survey, but put in a question regarding the creation of an organization of CR4 participants to help Haiti.

It refers to the running thread on the use of Shipping Containers for Shelter.

Some background information here, here and here.

Chris

Well that (3) being the limit then, as CW says, embarrassingly correctly, that makes it A or B or "other" (~ = "none of the above").

So you need to carefully think what the opposing essences of A and B are.

E.g. You could survey NFP verses VBC, and other would tell you if many are waiting for a better approach. One would assume on publication that "other" would then be the focus of discussion. You could then survey A & B approaches within the 'winner'.

My second wrong was to "quantify" Geoff's idea (as above, or at all) - I've actually no idea what the structure is, or the 'type', or if it's stand alone or umbrellaed or "other".

So, you might add to your protocols; check the Q. synopsis with the key proponent/s.

Kyzine

thank you for the insights. It is valuable to be able to configure the poll to tailor it to the application with regards to the type of question, expected answers, and originating people to be consulted if other than a single source.

Perhaps a method of the original questor being able to grant other users to be able to moderate a questionaire/vote.

Chris

Survey Upate, this my last:

9 yes

3 no

1 undecided

thank you for your efforts!