Board index » off-topic » Re: Vote -5 to +5

Re: Vote -5 to +5


2007-10-04 10:46:58 PM
off-topic3
Quote
If the same thing affects IB6 there is a chance that a report on it
would at least be opened. Could even be that it would solve the
problem for Firebird users as well.
My point was that I suggested that it would be logical to test against IB6
and was told it would not be restested against FB, which is not what I
suggested.
 
 

Re:Re: Vote -5 to +5

Quote
Then simple, lock out voting until a report is opened.
Not so simple. People will instead just give the report high ratings in
order to get it the attention they want for it rather than to reflect on how
well written it is.
Quote
The whole point of the new system was to stop even needing to look at the
bad reports by using the larger manpower of the whole community to triage
it for you.
What you want and what you get are quite often two completely different
things :-)
 

Re:Re: Vote -5 to +5

Quote
I think there should be no limit, but the "weight" of your vote should
be inversely proportional to the # of votes you've cast. So if you vote
once for one thing, that carries a lot of weight. If you vote once for
every report in QC, each individual vote carries almost no weight at
all.
If you voted for every report in QC it would have no weight at all anyway,
so there is no need for this extra complexity. Again it would just make me
think "I wont tell CG if I want that or not because it might affect the
decisions of my other voted reports". I'd prefer to be able to tell you as
much as I like.
 

{smallsort}

Re:Re: Vote -5 to +5

Peter Morris wrote:
Quote
If you voted for every report in QC it would have no weight at all
anyway
That's precisely the point. The system I propose means that the votes
you give reflect the emphasis you put on any report(s). If you only
care about 1 report, your vote weight reflects that. If you care about
100 reports more or less equally, your vote weight reflects that. If
you abuse the system by putting five votes on every report, your vote
weight reflects that, too.
Quote
so there is no need for this extra complexity.
I disagree. I think users should be able to decide for themselves how
to distribute their votes. This system lets them do that, instead of
imposing arbitrary limits (# of votes) or fixed vote weights (meaning
that folks who care about only a few reports can be overwhelmed by
people who put lots of votes on lots of reports).
There's no real complexity here; the formula is extremely simple.
--
Craig Stuntz [TeamB] ?Vertex Systems Corp. ?Columbus, OH
Delphi/InterBase Weblog : blogs.teamb.com/craigstuntz
Borland newsgroup denizen Sergio González has a new CD of
Irish music out, and it's good: tinyurl.com/7hgfr
 

Re:Re: Vote -5 to +5

Craig Stuntz [TeamB] wrote:
Quote
That's precisely the point. The system I propose means that the votes
you give reflect the emphasis you put on any report(s). If you only
care about 1 report, your vote weight reflects that. If you care about
100 reports more or less equally, your vote weight reflects that. If
you abuse the system by putting five votes on every report, your vote
weight reflects that, too.
Yep. I really like this idea. Another way of looking at it is that
it's equivalent to allowing fractional votes. You could achieve the
same goal either by allowing infinite votes with relative weightings or
by allowing people to put .0001 of a vote on a report. I think infinite
votes with relative weightings is a lot easier to manage, but
conceptually they're identical.
--
Gillmer J. Derge [TeamB]
 

Re:Re: Vote -5 to +5

Quote
That's precisely the point. The system I propose means that the votes
you give reflect the emphasis you put on any report(s). If you only
care about 1 report, your vote weight reflects that. If you care about
100 reports more or less equally, your vote weight reflects that. If
you abuse the system by putting five votes on every report, your vote
weight reflects that, too.
The way I see it is this
01: Nobody is likely to vote on all reports, there are just too many.
02: Lowering the weight of my vote will have the same affect as limiting my
number of votes.
The reason I say #2 is that I know if I have 1 bug report that is *very*
important to me then I am not going to bother voting for or against any
other reports. This achieves only one thing, it reduces the amount of data
CG have to work on.
Quote
I disagree. I think users should be able to decide for themselves how
to distribute their votes. This system lets them do that, instead of
imposing arbitrary limits (# of votes)
I am completely against fixed number of votes.
Quote
or fixed vote weights (meaning
that folks who care about only a few reports can be overwhelmed by
people who put lots of votes on lots of reports).
They will only be outweighed if lots of people put lots of votes on the same
reports and not theirs. This isn't a problem, it will accurately reflect
what the majority of users want.
Quote
There's no real complexity here; the formula is extremely simple.
Yeah, and people understand the Rating input too :-)
 

Re:Re: Vote -5 to +5

Leo Siefert wrote:
Quote
I think I should be able to
permanently indicate on each report how important the issue is to me.
I'd like to see:
1. THe number of votes greatly increased, perhaps weighted as John
Herbster has advocated.
2. A checkbox on bug reports: "I can reproduce this".
3. A radio button on Feature Requests: I want this/I don't want this"
--
Nick Hodges
Delphi Product Manager - CodeGear
blogs.codegear.com/nickhodges
 

Re:Re: Vote -5 to +5

Gillmer J. Derge [TeamB] wrote:
Quote
Yep. I really like this idea.
I do to, the more I think about it.
--
Nick Hodges
Delphi Product Manager - CodeGear
blogs.codegear.com/nickhodges
 

Re:Re: Vote -5 to +5

Leo Siefert wrote:
Quote
I know there have bee lots of suggestions for changing voting, but how
about this:
SOmething like that would be great -- the more input a customer can
make to a report, the happier we are.
--
Nick Hodges
Delphi Product Manager - CodeGear
blogs.codegear.com/nickhodges
 

Re:Re: Vote -5 to +5

Quote
>Yep. I really like this idea.

I do to, the more I think about it.
You said you don't like anything that prevents the user from telling you
what they want. Once the user knows that voting on lots of reports is
counter to their personal interests they will stop, so you are effectively
limiting them but just in a more siruptitious way.
 

Re:Re: Vote -5 to +5

Leo Siefert wrote:
Quote
Nick Hodges wrote:

>3. Ratings aren't being used by the community
>as the system intends them to be used.

True. And it's not difficult to figure out why the rating option is
misused. Four years ago I filed this report with a simple way to
improve the situation:

Report No: 6326 Status: Open
Need on-screen description of Rating and Votes
qc.codegear.com/wc/qcmain.aspx

It has a rating of 5.0 and only one vote.
Ok, maybe I'll go vote for it... Oh, wait... I'm writing the new web
client, so why don't I just fix it? ;-)
Quote

If you really want ratings to be valuable, you might consider allowing
only sysops to rate reports. As a sysop, I try to rate most of the
reports I look at. Sometimes I do not have the expertise or the
required software to test a report, but I can still rate it so I do.

- Leo
--
Regards,
Lori Olson [TeamB]
------------
Save yourself, and everyone else, some time and search the
newsgroups and the FAQ-O-Matic before posting your next
question.
Google Advanced Newsgroup Search
www.google.ca/advanced_group_search
Other Newsgroup Searches:
www.borland.com/newsgroups/ngsearch.html
Joi Ellis's FAQ-O-Matic:
www.visi.com/~gyles19/fom-serve/cache/1.html
 

Re:Re: Vote -5 to +5

Craig Stuntz [TeamB] wrote:
Quote
Nick Hodges (CodeGear) wrote:

>We are fighting a battle up the side of a cliff, in my view, trying to
>make "Rating" mean anything other than what the community uses it for.

It's hard to say, since little has actually been tried. ISTM it's at
least worth changing the caption to something more clear to see if that
has an effect.

That said, I'm unlikely to rate very many reports until this:

qc.borland.com/wc/qcmain.aspx

...is fixed.

The only way I can rate today is to use the Windows client or view the
HTML source and concoct a rating URL myself (which I've actually done a
few times). The web client's rating control is totally broken in both
Firefox 2 and IE 7.

Sigh. Ok, I'll put this on the to-do list as well.
--
Regards,
Lori Olson [TeamB]
------------
Save yourself, and everyone else, some time and search the
newsgroups and the FAQ-O-Matic before posting your next
question.
Google Advanced Newsgroup Search
www.google.ca/advanced_group_search
Other Newsgroup Searches:
www.borland.com/newsgroups/ngsearch.html
Joi Ellis's FAQ-O-Matic:
www.visi.com/~gyles19/fom-serve/cache/1.html
 

Re:Re: Vote -5 to +5

Peter,
| Yeah, and people understand the Rating input too :-)
I don't understand a thing about voting, rating. <sigh>
--
Q
10/04/2007 09:50:20
XanaNews Version 1.17.5.7 [Q's salutation mod]
 

Re:Re: Vote -5 to +5

Nick,
| Voting is pretty broken as well. There simply aren't enough votes to
| go around for the real feelings of the community to be seen. The
| votes to reports ratio is very unfavorable. I think that users ought
| to have, say, 100 votes, and a five vote max on any report. Maybe 500
| votes, with the same max.
|
| I have no idea why we try so desparately to limit the amount of
| feedback that our customers give us.
Hear, hear!!!
NONE of the present "scheme" makes any sense at all to me!!!
--
Q
10/04/2007 09:52:15
XanaNews Version 1.17.5.7 [Q's salutation mod]
 

Re:Re: Vote -5 to +5

Peter Morris wrote:
Quote
02: Lowering the weight of my vote will have the same affect as limiting my
number of votes.

The reason I say #2 is that I know if I have 1 bug report that is *very*
important to me then I am not going to bother voting for or against any
other reports. This achieves only one thing, it reduces the amount of data
CG have to work on.
I disagree with you on this. What it tells them is that the one bug you
voted on is *so very* important to you that all other considerations
become irrelevant. That's extremely useful information, and it's
exactly the kind of information that QC should be collecting for CodeGear.
Without some kind of limit or weighting, there's no way to distinguish
your 1 vote on a report and only that report from some other guy's vote
on that report and 50 other reports. They're all just votes.
--
Gillmer J. Derge [TeamB]