h a l f b a k e r yWarm and Fussy
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
It pisses me off when people leave me negative votes, but don't say why! Why not make it compulsory to leave a comment along with your vote, even a short sentance to give an opinion. This would make for much more constructive debates!
krelnik's help file
http://timfarley.ho...g.com/half_faq.html
You may or not have seen this already, Mike, but these are the ropes, do you don't have to get to know them the hard way. [my face your, Oct 04 2004, last modified Oct 06 2004]
[link]
|
| |
No, no, no, no, no. No.
People explain their votes if they want, but sometimes reasons are either too complicated, too personal, or purely too simplistic to warrant an explanation. Either that, or people just don't want to. Like me. |
|
| |
hopefully people don't vote based on my typing! |
|
| |
You're sailing reasonably close to the wind with this one, Mike. You couldn't possibly have known this but back in the day there was a particularly persistent troll who posted an 'idea' called "Mandatory Reason to Vote No" which is, arguably, pretty much what you've posted here. The troll suffered the full force of the ire of the 'bakists. Be careful that you don't - through no fault of your own - get tarred with the same brush. |
|
| |
Don't sweat the 'bones, they are nowhere near as important as the annotations. |
|
| |
without knowing what this
"mandatory reason.." was about, i couldn't possibly comment on its similarity to this idea. I am not trying to stir up a fuss, but an idea with a load of minus votes, but little or no annotation would mean little to me! Just an idea to improve feedback! |
|
| |
what [myfi] didn't say is, that this is not an original idea - it pops its little head up about once a month. |
|
| |
i did search for the idea before i posted it and found no mention! |
|
| |
"Mandatory Reason to Vote No" - synopsis
If you're going to fishbone, you have to supply a reason.
The idea died with the Troll which is why I said "...you couldn't possibly have known this..." |
|
| |
Please have a look at the link I've provided. It really is very worthwhile. |
|
| |
i looked at the link! are you refering to the final point, don't criticise the bakery? |
|
| |
There is also the autoboner to contend with. I don't think I've seen an un-boned idea in quite a while. |
|
| |
have no idea what the auto boner is! |
|
| |
The autoboner doesn't exist. There is a theory amongst some users that there is another user who automatically votes negatively on everything. This theory is false. |
|
| |
It is interesting to watch voting patterns here and I think it undeniable that a certain amount of voting takes place based not upon the idea but upon who the idea belongs to or upon what general category the idea falls in to or, even, that the idea touches upon some topic or hot-button word but that is only peripheral to the idea. I think of it like taxes, an inevitable expense of participating on the halfbakery. |
|
| |
sounds like a swine. having to comment when voting would end the auto boner's reign of terror! |
|
| |
Commenting would reveal who the voters are which would effectively eliminate voting. |
|
| |
Some people do explain their negative votes and some don't. |
|
| |
In any case, the way it works is the way it works and it isn't likely to change. [Parvenu] stated it well in the first anno. |
|
| |
bris, has just said that the theory is false. what about the one that says there is three of them working shifts? |
|
| |
i don't agree that it would end voting, it would force people to give some thought to their votes if they are encouraged to justify them! Just because something is unlikely to change is no reason to give up on it (this is coming from an Everton fan who followed them through the wilderness years into Moyes' glory season and beyond!) |
|
| |
Mandatory explanations are not "encouragement." |
|
| |
ok, change encorage to force! |
|
| |
But don't let this stop you from explaining all your negative votes. We'll see how that works out. |
|
| |
ok, go for it! i check my uni mail very infrequently, but i get there eventually! |
|
| |
Welcome to: Explain Your Votes Version 3.4.1 - you haven't found prior art for this idea, because it gets deleted every time, and with good reason. Thanks for searching though - it bodes well.
I haven't voted on any of your ideas - even though you overuse those naughty exclamations(!)
krelnik's help file is a genuine blessing - alotta love on that page.
You're trying, and you're searching - and that's what counts more than votes or comments. |
|
| |
"This theory is false."
Aw, you might have just thown down the gauntlet on that one. |
|
| |
Croissant. (Well, come to think of it, that would make for too much fluff in the annos. So I want half the croissant back. What, you've eaten it?) |
|
| |
Bone. Because with just a few more bones, there will appear just the head of a fishbone - a fish-head-bone. Which I think is sort of cool. A bone head! OK - you were the one who wanted the reason. |
|
| |
Ok, I will tell you why.
Sometimes an idea is so stupid or vile that I just can't come up with a suitable comment without exceeding my own bounds.
Unfortunately for you, I am not the explanation for any of your fishbones, so I guess I didn't help you much. |
|
| |
It would have been funnier if this idea got the 23 fishbones without getting any annotations. |
|
| |
Rather bureaucratic, no? Though I guess they could make a funny book out of all the corkers. |
|
| |
Fishbone for the idea but croissant for being a Toffeeman. Overall fishcake. |
|
| |
Oliver is Revilo backwards. So here is a bone. |
|
| |
Fishbone for been a toffee. |
|
| |
What [lurch] said. Any conversation is an act of
support, and sometimes I don't want to give attention or support to the poster of ideas I vote against. |
|
| |
[-] because the penny came down heads |
|
| |
I reckon there are plenty of people floating about like myself in the bowels of the halfbakery ie. been a member for a few years, pop their heads in to see what is going on once a week or so, enjoy participating in the bakery with the odd vote/short anno, but for reasons best known to themselves don't necessarily like annotating.
Personally, I've annotated probably about 20 times and put forward less than a handful of ideas in my 3 years here mainly because of shyness (awww the nice) and the difficulty in breaking into an already well established community. I mainly enjoy reading the ideas and annos, and the odd vote here and there.
Forcing people to explain every vote would result in a lot of people (totally unfounded speculation here, but I can't be the only one) who wish to in the main gently lurk, yet enjoy odd piece of participation, drifting away from the place. I know I would enjoy the place less if I had to annotate every vote
Just remember, though, I'm watching....
*manic laughter trailing off into embarassment at the length of this anno* |
|
| |
-
Why? Uh, just going along with the crowd I suppose. Sorry Mike. |
|
| |
Thanks for resurrecting this!
This is one of my ideas that i have voted against (having read all the annos).
I'd delete it but for the fact that its existence presumably prevents it being posted again.
|
|
| |
thanks for not deleting this, as it has
prevented me from posting similar, and
now understand the reasons behind it
all. those unexplained votes still piss
me off a little though. |
|
| |