Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

New Feature Test: Post Ratings

Status
Not open for further replies.
skunk said:
But you aren't. You are moving it by 2. And it's inconsistent.
Click to expand...
Vote count before you vote: 2
Vote count after you vote down: 1 (net change: -1)
Vote count after you vote up: 3 (net change: +1)
Vote count after you vote down, then up: 3 (net change: +1)
Vote count after you vote up, then down: 1 (net change: -1)

The net effect of you voting is only a +1 or -1. Remember, you don't know who else clicked the vote button on that same post just before you did. When you load a page, the current vote loads. If you take a minute or even a few seconds to read a post and vote, others could have voted during that time. The vote counter doesn't dynamically update every time someone votes; it does only when you vote or refresh the page.
 
I think I'd prefer a system where only upvotes ("likes") are allowed (e.g. Engadget). That way you can still see who's got the most positive/popular posts while not opening it up quite so much to abuse or the negative connotations associated with a negative score.

Another forum I visit (RedFlagDeals) has a similar system where people can be "thanked" for particular posts, and then their user profile shows how many times in total people have thanked them. It helps show who is the most helpful or who has a good reputation for providing useful advice.
 
It may be that the backend has a different value stored than what displayed in your cached version. Honestly I know about as much of the system as you do. I haven't seen that behavior exhibited but I do thank you for bringing it up so that it can be looked into.
 
Could have been worse guys, they could have put in a Facebook "Like" button. :D
 
On IE7 I just tried to vote a post "up" and the counter incremented +2. I then tried to undo this by voting it "down" and the counter incremented +2 again. Now post #50 is at +5, when it should be at +1.

I tried a different post and the expected behavior ensued. Weird.

Edit: And now I just tried this post. I could increment up then down to get to -1, but couldn't change my vote after two instances.
 
SilentPanda said:
It may be that the backend has a different value stored than what displayed in your cached version. Honestly I know about as much of the system as you do. I haven't seen that behavior exhibited but I do thank you for bringing it up so that it can be looked into.
Click to expand...
I clicked on a post rated 0 and it went to -2. I clicked on another post rated 0, and it went to -2. I clicked - again and it went to -1.
 
GGJstudios said:
Vote count before you vote: 2
Vote count after you vote down: 1 (net change: -1)
Vote count after you vote up: 3 (net change: +1)
Vote count after you vote down, then up: 3 (net change: +1)
Vote count after you vote up, then down: 1 (net change: -1)

The net effect of you voting is only a +1 or -1. Remember, you don't know who else clicked the vote button on that same post just before you did. When you load a page, the current vote loads. If you take a minute or even a few seconds to read a post and vote, others could have voted during that time. The vote counter doesn't dynamically update every time someone votes; it does only when you vote or refresh the page.
Click to expand...

So it's a like/dislike system that nets the like/dislikes to a numerical value, assuming the dislikes are negative. That is why when you change from a vote down to an up, you are removing your dislike and adding a like. Correct?

EDIT: Counts are update after you make a selection so it may appear that your vote was not counted but the count may not be accurate on your page when you make the vote. Got it.
 
Last edited:
flopticalcube said:
So it's a like/dislike system that nets the like/dislikes to a numerical value, assuming the dislikes are negative. That is why when you change from a vote down to an up, you are removing your dislike and adding a like. Correct?
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
skunk said:
I clicked on a post rated 0 and it went to -2. I clicked on another post rated 0, and it went to -2. I clicked - again and it went to -1.
Click to expand...

Are you doing it in this thread? because I suspect that lots of people are voting on every post to try stuff out. Go and find a dormant post to test it on.
 
skunk said:
It is against forum rules to simply reply "+1": what on earth is the difference between that and clicking a button to say "+1"?
Click to expand...

I never knew that... Oops I have done that once or twice (but only once or twice) just to say that I agree.


rdowns said:
Could have been worse guys, they could have put in a Facebook "Like" button. :D
Click to expand...

Yes, Facebook really needs a dislike button!!!!

P.S. (I finally figured out how to do multiple quotes in a post!) :rolleyes:
 
skunk said:
Very inexactly. The system is borked.
Click to expand...
Before you assume that, try xUKHCx's suggestion. In testing on dormant threads, where others aren't voting constantly, it works accurately every time. This thread has 67 posts but 341 views... you don't know how many of those viewing are clicking to vote on various posts.

I do agree that you should be able to remove your vote, rendering a net change of zero, but otherwise, it appears to be accurate.
skunk said:
The Arabs invented 0 some time ago.
Click to expand...
http://www.thegeminigeek.com/who-invented-the-zero/
 
skunk said:
Very inexactly. The Arabs invented 0 some time ago. The system is borked.
Click to expand...

It's only because the page is changing so quickly and the vote count you see may not be accurate at the time you place your vote but your vote is included and the vote count refreshed after you make a vote.

dejo said:
With fancy quote handling...
Click to expand...

And I went through all the trouble of deleting the tag. Well thought out, MacRumors!

PS can we add a consecutive post auto join next? :eek:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would imagine this thread is getting a lot of -1 votes simply because the feature is new and people want to point at the thread to show that the system will mostly produce negative votes.
 
Sorry, this idea is horrible. People are going to downrate posts because they disagree with someone's opinion, not because it's a bad post.

I can easily see the fanboys downrating anyone who mentions Microsoft, Android or any of Apple's competitors in a positive light.
 
yg17 said:
Sorry, this idea is horrible. People are going to downrate posts because they disagree with someone's opinion, not because it's a bad post.

I can easily see the fanboys downrating anyone who mentions Microsoft, Android or any of Apple's competitors in a positive light.
Click to expand...

I just buried down voted your comment because I disagreed with it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back