|
Description
On Brainstorm we vote for things that cost developer time.
But the currency which we use to influence developers (our votes) costs nothing.
Since votes are not a scarce item, people are likely to vote +1 for things that are of little enough importance to them that they would never trade anything of value for. Also they may give a -1 to things that they don't really understand.
The idea is to only give each user, say, 4 new votes a day, but let them roll over. I believe this will cause users to spend their votes more carefully and give a lot more helpful comments and +0's.
It's kind of like Slashdot's moderation system. You only have so many mod points per day. This increases the value of modpoints so you give them out more carefully.
Yes I thought about people creating extra accounts. Consider though that is already the case. You can get more votes even on individual ideas TODAY by creating extra accounts.
Tags:
(none)
Attachments
No attachments.
Duplicates
Comments
|
Auzy wrote on the 9 May 08 at 10:41
|
I disagree with this. Because people are still stupidly voting for things which they believe are difficult to do (but may not be).
People shouldn't worry about the importance of an idea here, just the ones they think are bad and good.
-1
And you can still vote +0, if you like it, but dont think its important
|
|
jhoger wrote on the 9 May 08 at 16:43
|
Guess this idea is ahead of its time :-)
Auzy why do you say determining "importance" of an idea is not useful?
I think it is incredibly useful to determine importance of an idea. It helps to set development priorities, which in my mind is 1/2 of the importance of BS. The other half is defining the idea. Do you really want to leave the issue of "importance" to programmers instead of users? Importance is information they can use.
Also, +0 votes are not recorded, so they have approximately +0 impact on anything.
Think about enhancement requests in bug trackers. They have two fields: Severity and Priority. QA sets the severity, and dev sets the Priority. Dev's derive priority from severity and available resources. Higher quality vote totals would help to determine Severity (or Importance if you look at it positively).
|
|
drinkypoo wrote on the 9 May 08 at 21:07
|
I think you missed the point of the site entirely.
People vote no if they don't think it's important. They vote yes if they think it is important. We call this 'democracy' (not that there is any promise to do as we say.) :P
If you want people to believe your idea is important, then write the suggestion compellingly. If they still don't believe you, then you must be wrong. Go work on it yourself.
|
|
jhoger wrote on the 9 May 08 at 21:16
|
drinkypoo is your comment directed at me or Auzy?
I don't think my idea is anti-democratic. It is an attempt to make each and every vote worth more, since it forces everyone to consider more carefully whether it is worth spending a vote on a given idea, one way or the other.
You would still have plenty of votes under such a system.
It's kind of like Slashdot's moderation system. You only have so many mod points per day. This increases the value of modpoints so you give them out more carefully.
Anyway I'll be more careful in suggesting idea like this. Everyone knee-jerks against any limitation on votes without putting any thought.
|
|
Auzy wrote on the 10 May 08 at 03:51
|
Jhoger, My point is,
+1, its useful, and important
+0, its useful, but you dont consider it important
-1, its useless/wrong
So either way, people (whether they know it or not), have been kinda voting using importance anyway. And that makes this useless.. Because people still can vote on importance.
But the reason why I'm not sure how relevent it is as to how important it is is:
1) We should be aiming to implement all good ideas anyway
2) I have seen ideas people have voted down because they weren't important, and they claimed it was hard. And right about then, brainstorm admins closed the idea as completed.
3) Some ideas while non-important, are rediculously easy to implement, or must be taken into account early, to ensure the codebase is ready for it. Its no good ignoring "unimportant ideas" until after a database storage format is devised, and then discovering that after someone wants to get to doing the idea, that
And finally, people wrongly remember that Canonical aren't the only ones who should be looking at this. Grub for instance may only have 3 or 4 ideas that are posted, and whilst they aren't important to implement for canonical, they may have time to do it. But if they only have 5 votes, why would they bother? I believe we should assume that Canonical aren't the ones coding all of these
|
|
vexorian wrote on the 10 May 08 at 19:24
| |
-1 , I would just create another account...
|
|
chipbennett wrote on the 1 Jul 08 at 17:04
|
-1
This idea is counter-productive to the intent of Brainstorm.
The underlying assumption is faulty; developers are under no compulsion to act on an idea, regardless of its popularity.
Therefore, our votes are freely distributed, but likewise carry no inherent value. The developers still choose the ideas upon which to act or not to act.
Now, if we had votes that carried the weight of some form of compulsion (say, some amount of money a voter might pay for, say, a "sponsored" vote), then not only would the votes carry the compulsion to be acted upon, but such votes would also be self-limiting in that most would not want to pay for frivolous votes.
That said, I don't think anyone would want or even envision such a system, for many and obvious reason.
|
|
jhoger wrote on the 2 Jul 08 at 05:21
|
chipbennett...
Votes do not control developers. Yep. That's a given. But vote tallies ARE information that a developer can use.
Think of Severity vs. Priority in a bug tracker. Devs set Priority, and Severity is set by users and/or QA.
Votes are a lot like Severity. They don't controls devs. But the goal is to give devs information they can use in deciding Priority. It's information, it's an input...
So the goal with this idea is to improve the quality of the Vote tally by making importance relative to other ideas rather than stand-alone and thus less meaningful.
Also, "Counter to the intent of Brainstorm..." You say that without giving your belief as to the intent or a link to back up what you say in any way.
|
|
chipbennett wrote on the 2 Jul 08 at 17:10
|
@jhoger:
Can't relative importance be determined through other means? I don't see how arbitrarily limiting users' votes per day will accomplish what you're after.
I believe that this idea is counter to the intent of Brainstorm, in that it would limit users' opportunity voice support for ideas they believe to be worthy of their votes. For example: I joined Brainstorm yesterday, and cast 32 votes (30 for, 2 against) - and did so after reading through several pages of ideas. I cast votes for ideas in which I had an interest, and did not cast votes for ideas in which I had no interest. Should I not have had the right/ability to cast those 32 votes my first day as a Brainstorm member?
It would also give more weight (by virtue of having more votes) to users who have been Brainstorm members the longest. Someone who joined several months ago has a pool of a hundred (or so) votes (the sum of 4 votes/day, rolling over those 3/4 months), while someone who joins today will have only 4 votes. Should the new member not have an equal voice with the longer-term member?
Finally, limiting number of votes per day would not generate meaningful data with respect to "relative importance" of ideas; it would just cause the total vote tallies longer to accumulate. In the end, the result would be the same. Therefore, this idea would not improve the quality of the vote.
|
|
cheesehead wrote on the 21 Jul 08 at 01:56
|
-1
My days out of prison are limited. I only have a couple days a month to catch up on all of Brainstorm!
|
|
Mr.elderman wrote on the 21 Jul 08 at 05:40
| |
@chipbennett: I don't agree with jhoger, but you have to think again: the result would NOT be the same.
|
 aysiu (Moderator) wrote on the 21 Jul 08 at 07:19
|
While I like this idea in theory, Brainstorm is too much of a mess right now... votes don't really mean anything. If we had 200 or 300 worthwhile ideas, people could use four or five votes a day to pick which of those are really priorities.
Right now we have almost 11,000 ideas.
I've been here since the beginning of Brainstorm checking almost every day (sometimes every other day or every two days), and I still haven't seen every single one of those 10,000+ ideas.
This site is a pile of garbage.
The idea of a Brainstorm (anything goes) is valid only in the beginning. At a certain point you have to start separating the wheat from the chaff.
|
|
chipbennett wrote on the 21 Jul 08 at 14:56
|
@Mr.elderman:
In the end, the result would very much be the same (assuming, of course, that an individual voter is active in Brainstorm long enough to cast the same total number of votes).
I'll use myself as an example: I've been active in Brainstorm for perhaps three weeks, and have cast just over 100 votes. Interestingly enough, that averages out to approximately five votes per day.
Had I been limited initially to those same five votes per day, how would the outcome have been any different?
I've voted on the ideas in which I have some interest (either for or against), and have ignored the rest.
I imagine that most users are the same. I don't think a lot of "frivolous" voting takes place; people vote for/against ideas in which they have some interest.
Now, a daily vote quota might reduce the down-voting for "not an idea" or "already implemented" ideas; but I don't think that would make a huge difference, personally.
|
|
Mondane wrote on the 24 Sep 08 at 12:56
| |
Mmm. I just vote for every idea to say if I think it should be implemented or not. I think that's the main goal, just vote for all ideas :D. (Takes a while though ;) ).
|
Post your comment
|
