Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Naturally low in facts.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                                   

Neutral Vote

 Demonstrable ambivalence
  (+26, -3)(+26, -3)(+26, -3)
(+26, -3) 		  [vote for,
against]

Add an additional vote button so that you can register your vote as "Not good, but not bad either."

Not a big enhancement but it enables three things:
1) Shows the difference between those ideas that polarise opinion and those that are just not that good.
2) Shows the difference between "don't care" (no votes) to interesting but not good enough to croissant, not bad enough to fishbone (lots of neutral votes).
3) Allows (and this is my favourite) an enhancement to your user screen showing the ideas that you've voted on in 'last updated' date order so that you can keep track of them. I'd recommend that it doesn't show which way you voted so that we don't get people canvassing to get votes changed.

—st3f, May 04 2001

(?) The halfbakery's half-clone http://www.whynot.net
Much too garish a website for my liking but they do indeed include a function to vote neutral. [theleopard, Jun 12 2007]

Please log in.
If you're not logged in, you can see what this page looks like, but you will not be able to add anything.
Short name, e.g., Bob's Coffee
Destination URL. E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)






       And while you're at it, you could add a spoilt ballot button.
—lubbit, May 04 2001
   

       Did it reach any conclusion?
—st3f, May 05 2001
   

       I would be in favor of adding these:   

       Hanging Chad Vote-- not really ready to give up the vote; Dimpled Chad Vote-- having second thoughts about this vote.
—bobzaguy, May 08 2001
   

       But the neutral indicator could be some custard. I, for one, would like to see this come around. I was about to post this idea myself, but am glad that I did a little research first.
—barnzenen, Dec 06 2001
   

       I sometimes want a "bored" vote, so that when I check out the 9millionth suggestion for a separately compartmentalised suit for killing offensive mobile phone-using car drivers with genetically-engineered nano-egg-based confectionery, I can just say "I'm bored" (in a sullenly pouty way like Willow's evil vampire alter ego in Buffy) at my PC and it'll go do something else. And, equally, just because an idea really really should never be implemented doesn't mean it's not worth reading.
—pottedstu, Dec 06 2001
   

       Bored now.
—angel, Dec 07 2001
   

       After pottedstu's attempt to abolish negative votes, I thought a more informed decision would be to have some kind of neutral vote that is already in force. Vain people like me like to see how many people look at my idea, given the quantities of piscine calcium that tends to be thrown my way. Maybe a view of an idea automatically registers a neutral vote that can be changed in the time-honoured fashion.
—PeterSilly, Jul 31 2002
   

       I've been thinking more about this lately. I think the idea has merit. Currently the halfbakery presumes no vote is a neutral vote, but this clearly cannot the case for ideas one has not read (i.e., one cannot be neutral about something which one does not know).   

       Furthermore, this is reinforced by the appearance of a "neutral" option in the voting area only after one has voted for or against. This is the only way one can explicitly vote neutral now. (And in point of fact, it acts not so much as a neutral vote as a cancellation of the previous vote.)
—waugsqueke, Mar 05 2003
   

       I get your third point about filtering but personally I'd prefer to see one of the buttons removed rather than have another one added. Instead of 'for' and 'against' there'd just be one button called 'vote', just to keep track of how many people thought that the idea, whether good or bad, was actually worthy of voting on. If they've got any other opinion about it, they can say so in the annos.
—DrBob, Oct 14 2003
   

       I was going to post something similar, and found this.   

       I thought the Neutral vote should be represented by "Nuts".
—Ling, Nov 17 2005
   

       Ditto: I was about to propose having a Pineapple of Bafflement, but see as this is in the lists it didn't seem worth it. Unless, of course, I have an idle moment in which to design the pineapple...
—moomintroll, Nov 17 2005
   

       I would like to see how many people have read one of my ideas, I guess a neutral vote would allow them to say "yeah I saw this, but I didn't care either way".
—PollyNo9, Jan 24 2006
   

       [+] positive vote [-] negative vote   

       Could [=] be used to denote "I looked at this idea, but I not convinced either way" ?
—monojohnny, Jun 30 2006
   

       [±] I just can't decide...   

       <Hold down your [alt] key and punch in Ø177, release the [alt]>
—Klaatu, Jun 13 2007
   

       But how do I get the "Ø" sign?
—phundug, Jun 13 2007
   

       Move to Scandinavia. [ ]
—baconbrain, Jun 13 2007
   

       The icon for "no opinion" shall be a jar of jam with a bee on it.   

       (I wonder where this idea was hiding when I posted the identical thought myself today?)
—globaltourniquet, Aug 18 2007
   

       But then each vote is worth only half as much - have we ever tolerated half of anything on this site?
—phundug, Aug 18 2007
   

       Half croissant, half fishbone -> tuna sandwich?
—neutrinos_shadow, Aug 21 2007
   

       obviously, we would want a 'rat's ass' button.
—k_sra, Aug 21 2007
   

       "tumbleweed" vote.
—FlyingToaster, Feb 05 2009
   

       I had this great idea to include a Neutral Vote button in the options list, did my due diligence and found this. My reasoning is a little different than the above post and discussion: When person opens a new post, he/she is automatically recorded as Neutral unless he/she troubles to click otherwise. Is that fair? By symmetry, one could argue that everyone should be counted as "for" unless clicking Neutral or Against. Alternatively, some might prefer an auto-Against be counted for them unless they click otherwise. According to Bayes' Theorem, the prior probability is just as important as the new information being used to update the prior, so this prior of "Neutral" deserves further discussion.

Although the more I think about it the more my head hurts and I can't come up with a better prior. Maybe that's why the Bakesperson never acted on this popular idea. Suggestions?
—sqeaketh the wheel, Nov 30 2012
   

       Random vote, caused by first reading of an idea.
—pocmloc, Nov 30 2012
   

       But would a neutral vote be represented by an empty plate, or by some kind of fish-flavored croissant?
—phundug, Nov 30 2012
   


 

back: main index
business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle