Staff —

Comment voting now shows the vote split!

And some more thoughts on opinions versus trolling.

The top-voted post this past week was a user requesting that we show the voting split on posts. So we just pushed out an update about 30 minutes ago that does exactly that. Now, when you see a score of zero, you can easily tell if it has received no votes, if it has received +10/-10 votes, or whatever the split may be.

We decided to rush this out because interest was so high. We're still not exactly sure how this might look in a more permanent form, including where it might be located on posts. Right now we're focused mostly on building confidence in the system, and we think exposing this data will ultimately increase that confidence.

At present, the current thresholds of -15 for graying a post, and -20 for collapsing the posts, will remain. We will continue to collect data on voting trends and consider various approaches to preserving unpopular opinions which are nonetheless worthy of protection against collapse.

But I did want to take a brief second to explain that there is a difference between unpopular opinion and out-of-context trolling. In a discussion, whether in real life or online, context is important. Popping into a NASA thread to decry the exploration of space in favor of feeding the world's hungry is almost always going to be viewed as a troll instead of a worthwhile opinion to express. Those that want to express such an opinion will have to work extra hard not to come off as trolls. This could mean laying off the hyperbole, sarcasm, and holier than thou attitude, but even then, it's going to be a major challenge. Such a poster should hardly be surprised to find themselves voted down. A person who is eager to discuss such matters would be better off taking it to The Soap Box, where freeform political discussion happens every day.

Context matters, but it's not the only thing. Substance counts too. Although we are each taught in kindergarten that we are unique snowflakes, the reality is that on a site with 8 million readers, what you personally think probably doesn't really matter to many people… not unless you can explain why, and what's relevant about your opinion. Popping into a thread about a new Android phone and saying "I will never buy one of these Android phones" is going to get voted down, because this has nothing of merit to it at all. No one cares whether or not you're going to buy an Android phone. The only way such a post is going to survive down votes is if it adds some meaningful substance to the discussion, and that takes more work than just dropping some rage or haterism on a thread.

In all honesty, we continue to look for examples of collapsed posts that were expressing meaningful opinions or arguments without engaging in otherwise trollish behavior. Please point us to them. It's our number one priority to build a system that does not stifle unpopular opinion. But what we cannot do is build a system that supports unpopular opinion laced with trolling, sarcasm, and extreme hyperbole at the expense of quality discussion.

425 Reader Comments

  1. Shiimiish wrote:
    If your intent is to get rid of an unpopular opinion and you know there is one button to mark it as "unpopular" and another one that will eventually fade it out, which one are you going to press?

    We either accept that the community is mature enough not to abuse the vote buttons, then the two we have already are enough, or we don't accept this premise in which case the two buttons are two too much already.

    Agreed, an extra button won't fix anything. We're exploring some adjustments now after parsing more data that we think will be helpful.
    22665 posts | registered
  2. At the next formatting iteration, it would help to separate the final count from the components by an '=' sign, whether the final count is on the left or right of the equation. This would be immediately clear to people of all backgrounds, unlike the interim format being used now.

    To reduce clutter, the '+' sign could be dropped from the upvote count, since that is always positive..
    650 posts | registered
  3. Dracorat wrote:
    Depending on your browser, you can also add a user stylesheet (might require an addon) and in it put:

    .vote{display: none !important;}

    Then you'll never see it.


    I've done:

    aside.vote { float: right ! important; padding-left: 10px; }

    ...to move the votes to the right alongside the post details. I find it much better that way... I can just read down the posts without having the flow interrupted by the up/down votes, but it's still available for me to glance at if I want to (or to up/down vote someone if they've said something particularly good/dumb).
    7170 posts | registered
  4. VirtualWolf wrote:
    Dracorat wrote:
    Depending on your browser, you can also add a user stylesheet (might require an addon) and in it put:

    .vote{display: none !important;}

    Then you'll never see it.


    I've done:

    aside.vote { float: right ! important; padding-left: 10px; }

    ...to move the votes to the right alongside the post details. I find it much better that way... I can just read down the posts without having the flow interrupted by the up/down votes, but it's still available for me to glance at if I want to (or to up/down vote someone if they've said something particularly good/dumb).


    Mind posting a screenshot of that? I'd like to see how that looks.
    21823 posts | registered
  5. NASA vs feeding the poor is not out of context. It is just uncomfortable for people to discuss.

    MAN UP!
    1571 posts | registered
  6. alohadave wrote:
    VirtualWolf wrote:
    Dracorat wrote:
    Depending on your browser, you can also add a user stylesheet (might require an addon) and in it put:

    .vote{display: none !important;}

    Then you'll never see it.


    I've done:

    aside.vote { float: right ! important; padding-left: 10px; }

    ...to move the votes to the right alongside the post details. I find it much better that way... I can just read down the posts without having the flow interrupted by the up/down votes, but it's still available for me to glance at if I want to (or to up/down vote someone if they've said something particularly good/dumb).


    Mind posting a screenshot of that? I'd like to see how that looks.


    Here you go (it's a bit big to inline).
    7170 posts | registered
  7. Actually, the "up / -down" is visually disturbing.
    Why not replace that measure by one nr: the total nr of votes?
    It is basically the same info, but more compact so less breaking the attention span to read the actual comments.
    1159 posts | registered
  8. VirtualWolf wrote:
    alohadave wrote:
    VirtualWolf wrote:
    Dracorat wrote:
    Depending on your browser, you can also add a user stylesheet (might require an addon) and in it put:

    .vote{display: none !important;}

    Then you'll never see it.


    I've done:

    aside.vote { float: right ! important; padding-left: 10px; }

    ...to move the votes to the right alongside the post details. I find it much better that way... I can just read down the posts without having the flow interrupted by the up/down votes, but it's still available for me to glance at if I want to (or to up/down vote someone if they've said something particularly good/dumb).


    Mind posting a screenshot of that? I'd like to see how that looks.


    Here you go (it's a bit big to inline).


    This is a very, very nice improvement in the layout!

    It makes scanning the posts for content much easier.
    650 posts | registered
  9. It seems to me that one of the biggest benefits of this system would be to sort the higher [perceived] value comments to the top of the thread, but that doesn't seem to be implemented. If they're not sorted, the numbers don't mean a whole lot to me, since they do little to help me get to the more relevant responses any quicker.
    1101 posts | registered
  10. bobthe wrote:
    It seems to me that one of the biggest benefits of this system would be to sort the higher [perceived] value comments to the top of the thread, but that doesn't seem to be implemented. If they're not sorted, the numbers don't mean a whole lot to me, since they do little to help me get to the more relevant responses any quicker.


    That would turn the comment system into true mob rule and echo chambers if you only saw upvoted comments.

    Sorting by date still forces you to look at lower ranked comments to find higher ranked comments, and gives you the opportunity to rank lower ranked comments instead of skipping them entirely.
    41924 posts | registered
  11. Here, as requested, is an example of a comment that is NOT junk (trolling, spam, abuse, pointless, nonsensical, badly written, etc) that has been downvoted to oblivion purely for being unpopular:

    http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/10/ ... t-23407558

    Quote:
    Wait. The problem, the whole point was not predicting the unpredictable.

    Was misleading population in a false sense if security. Was that the first responders were removed from maximum alert. Was that people simply turned around in their bed instead of getting out.

    The problem is that because of that report, people died. For a report full of lies: if the quake are unpredictable (and I believe so to an extent) scientist should have stated so.

    Instead their hand was forced, with the given death toll as direct result of their actions.

    The problem is precisely that quakes are unpredictable, but that report stated otherwise. And action, real action were a consequence of that.


    It was only a matter of time.

    I'd like to point out that I personally STRONGLY disagree with the the opinions of this commenter (I think convicting those scientists was insanity) but the point is that this perfectly valid post that contributed to the discussion in a meaningful way was downvoted because it offered an unpopular point of view.

    It's a perfect example of the pitfalls of this Agree/Disagree system.
    1216 posts | registered
  12. visbis444 wrote:
    Here, as requested, is an example of a comment that is NOT junk (trolling, spam, abuse, pointless, nonsensical, badly written, etc) that has been downvoted to oblivion purely for being unpopular

    It wasn't just unpopular, it took a stance that basically said "I didn't read the article". You'll notice that the people who did respond to the blatant inaccuracy in it were voted way up. I think that we're going to see that one happen, though I do agree it wasn't a bad post in and of itself (trolling, inflammatory, etc), I'm having trouble worry overmuch about people stating 'facts' that are directly contradicted by the story. I'd personally rather they were downvoted than a bunch of RTFA responses.

    Thanks though, that was a good example.

    We're making some tweaks we'll explain in more detail soon, but sharp-eyed readers might spot their effects live right now. ;)
    22665 posts | registered
  13. TEST
    trying to spot said effects...

    edit: ??? I consider myself rather sharp-eyed, but I see nada....
    766 posts | registered
  14. So, I take you've been tracking the rather distinct pro- and anti-Apple voting in the relevant threads. To whit, comments are not (necessarily) voted up or down based on the factuality of their content, or even the expertise presented by the commenter, but the content in a strict ideological outlook.

    I hope you can understand that this is why some of us felt that comment voting would have a deleterious effect on the overall discussion. It's also why a "contentious" flag was suggested several times.

    What happened is that everyone was excited about comment voting for the first couple of weeks and everything was peachy. Now I can't be bothered to go through threads and vote on comments most of the time. But there are people (and companies, or organizations, or groups, natch) out there who will register simply to downvote comments that don't fit their particular worldview. This is what has happened on several other sites and what ultimately brought the discussion down from a level of technical expertise and interest to, well, the lowest common denominator.
    2924 posts | registered
  15. ardent wrote:
    So, I take you've been tracking the rather distinct pro- and anti-Apple voting in the relevant threads. To whit, comments are not (necessarily) voted up or down based on the factuality of their content, or even the expertise presented by the commenter, but the content in a strict ideological outlook.

    I hope you can understand that this is why some of us felt that comment voting would have a deleterious effect on the overall discussion. It's also why a "contentious" flag was suggested several times.

    What happened is that everyone was excited about comment voting for the first couple of weeks and everything was peachy. Now I can't be bothered to go through threads and vote on comments most of the time. But there are people (and companies, or organizations, or groups, natch) out there who will register simply to downvote comments that don't fit their particular worldview. This is what has happened on several other sites and what ultimately brought the discussion down from a level of technical expertise and interest to, well, the lowest common denominator.


    I agree with every point you made, and believe that all those negative uses will emerge. This is why the votes, as much as possible, should be left as an informational item to be (mis)interpreted as each reader wishes. It probably should be moved to a less-prominent display position.

    Yet, on balance, I still think it will be an improvement. The reduction in ad-hominem troll posts already seen would make this experiment a success, even if the ratings were to lead to worse situations later, and had to be dropped.

    The up/down vote totals together with the pattern of votes in an article tend to expose a campaign of biased or special-interest ratings. Readers may even learn to view the rating numbers with some suspicion without other evidence.

    I'd rather see some partially-recognized biased numbers off in a corner, than the obvious ad-hominem purposely-disruptive posts organized in the past to mute criticisms of corporate actions or products.
    650 posts | registered
  16. Aurich wrote:
    visbis444 wrote:
    Here, as requested, is an example of a comment that is NOT junk (trolling, spam, abuse, pointless, nonsensical, badly written, etc) that has been downvoted to oblivion purely for being unpopular

    It wasn't just unpopular, it took a stance that basically said "I didn't read the article". You'll notice that the people who did respond to the blatant inaccuracy in it were voted way up. I think that we're going to see that one happen, though I do agree it wasn't a bad post in and of itself (trolling, inflammatory, etc), I'm having trouble worry overmuch about people stating 'facts' that are directly contradicted by the story. I'd personally rather they were downvoted than a bunch of RTFA responses.

    Thanks though, that was a good example.

    We're making some tweaks we'll explain in more detail soon, but sharp-eyed readers might spot their effects live right now. ;)


    I doubt very much he could have written that comment without reading the article.

    And yes, he did present his opinions as fact, but that's what 99.99% of all Ars commenters do. They still remain opinions, and anyone disagreeing with him can see for themselves they're opinions only.

    It's still a comment hidden for going against the tide of opinion.
    1216 posts | registered
  17. Just adding some more data points here (These examples are from the Apple Fusion Drive article, first page of comments):

    Again, keep in mind that I think the Ars staff is on top of this and I trust they are doing their best to properly balance the system. I'm just pointing out some posts that I think might be useful when tuning the system.




    The following comment is currently at +35 at the time I am posting this (and the quoted comment is at +95):
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    TheVelourFog wrote:
    It would appear that reading is really hard for some Arsians.


    Or Ars-holes, as I think of those people.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Neither of these are necessarily a trollish comment, but they hardly appear to be substantive, quality comments that move the conversation forward. That said, they are funny and that is why people appreciate them? I'm including these not because I think they should have been voted down, but rather to compare to the next comment here...



    This comment currently has a -37 net vote (and is hidden) at the time of my posting this:
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This looks exactly the same as Intel's SSD caching on their modern desktop chipsets. This is either the exact same thing or a software implementation like it... I'm leaning towards it just being Intel's feature not Apple's though.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The poster may be incorrect (the tech may not be related to Intel's SSD caching) and perhaps people are voting it down because of this but the post has now been hidden (and once hidden, it seems to be unlikely that it will be unhidden). It seems to be a perfectly valid comment that shouldn't have been hidden necessarily. It isn't complementary to Apple though.



    There are a lot of unhelpful comments that appear to be voted down. This seems to be working the way I would have hoped (though many of them have not been collapsed for some reason).

    For example, this comment is currently at a -179 but has not been hidden:
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    BREAKING NEWS: Apple does something that everyone else has been doing for years!
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (there are other examples of heavily trollish comments with lots of negatives that are not hidden).



    Eventually, as the article starts to cool down, it will be interesting to see how many comments were "properly" voted down vs. how many were sort of collateral damage from overly enthusiastic partisans of one technology or another.

    Overall there appears to be a slight increase in negatives that are attached to comments that are in some way critical of the new apple tech vs. comments supporting it. Many of those comments, in my view, warrant their negative vote count (aka comments of the "stupid apple, xyz has been doing this for years). But others are quite respectfully wondering whether this is a new technology or how it compares to existing technologies that at first blush appear to have a similar purpose.

    Just my 2 cents. Keep up the good work.
    693 posts | registered
  18. That comment thread is an excellent test bed, people are getting heated in really polarized ways in there. :) We're watching it with interest! The posts that aren't collapsing are by design, more on that soon.
    22665 posts | registered
  19. Aurich wrote:
    That comment thread is an excellent test bed, people are getting heated in really polarized ways in there. :) We're watching it with interest! The posts that aren't collapsing are by design, more on that soon.


    I'm noticing that the posts that have massive negative numbers but are not hidden also have enough upvotes that ordinarily they'd be marked as reader favourites if not for the downvotes.
    7170 posts | registered
  20. VirtualWolf wrote:
    Aurich wrote:
    That comment thread is an excellent test bed, people are getting heated in really polarized ways in there. :) We're watching it with interest! The posts that aren't collapsing are by design, more on that soon.


    I'm noticing that the posts that have massive negative numbers but are not hidden also have enough upvotes that ordinarily they'd be marked as reader favourites if not for the downvotes.

    It appears you may have stumbled upon that secret change Aurich was alluding to in his previous posts.

    I guess if something gets predominantly downvoted or upvoted, there's a good chance it's trolling/quality, respectively. If it gets a large portion of both, but mostly one or the other, it may simply indicate fanboy-votes.
    1136 posts | registered
  21. albeec13 wrote:
    VirtualWolf wrote:
    Aurich wrote:
    That comment thread is an excellent test bed, people are getting heated in really polarized ways in there. :) We're watching it with interest! The posts that aren't collapsing are by design, more on that soon.


    I'm noticing that the posts that have massive negative numbers but are not hidden also have enough upvotes that ordinarily they'd be marked as reader favourites if not for the downvotes.

    It appears you may have stumbled upon that secret change Aurich was alluding to in his previous posts.

    I guess if something gets predominantly downvoted or upvoted, there's a good chance it's trolling/quality, respectively. If it gets a large portion of both, but mostly one or the other, it may simply indicate fanboy-votes.


    *looks at his numbers*

    Aw man I think I need to invest in new "get out the vote" leaflets. :)
    28132 posts | registered
  22. I may be a bit late in commenting here, but I noticed one thing that's just a slight design mishap:

    I saw a post that I wanted to upvote, and when I clicked on the up-button, the number of up-votes decreased. Turns out the colour difference between the buttons meant that I had already voted on that post, but since I wasn't familiar with it, I didn't notice that.

    What irritated me however was that the alt-text still said "Vote up", even though clicking on the button had the opposite effect.

    In short: change the alt text as well as the colour to avoid confusion.

    Also, while the orange = good and blue = bad colour scheme might fit into the site layout, I feel that the more recognisable red/green scheme might be a better choice. (I'd have to see it in action to get a better feel for it though - maybe it's already been tested and dismissed.)
    33 posts | registered
  23. World wrote:
    Also, while the orange = good and blue = bad colour scheme might fit into the site layout, I feel that the more recognisable red/green scheme might be a better choice. (I'd have to see it in action to get a better feel for it though - maybe it's already been tested and dismissed.)

    Red/green is awful for our color blind readers, and thus a non starter.
    22665 posts | registered
  24. Aurich wrote:
    World wrote:
    Also, while the orange = good and blue = bad colour scheme might fit into the site layout, I feel that the more recognisable red/green scheme might be a better choice. (I'd have to see it in action to get a better feel for it though - maybe it's already been tested and dismissed.)

    Red/green is awful for our color blind readers, and thus a non starter.

    Maybe use named styles so that those using stylesheets can pick whatever colors they want. Personally, I think the orange/blue scheme looks good. Only thing is, there are a couple rare forms of blue-yellow color blindness too.
    2361 posts | registered
  25. Aurich wrote:
    World wrote:
    Also, while the orange = good and blue = bad colour scheme might fit into the site layout, I feel that the more recognisable red/green scheme might be a better choice. (I'd have to see it in action to get a better feel for it though - maybe it's already been tested and dismissed.)

    Red/green is awful for our color blind readers, and thus a non starter.

    I think it is great you take such impairments into account in the design.
    However, the colours only appear when hovering the mouse over the arrow, which happens basically when you have made up your mind already and are going to click it. The colours have only a goodies function as the real visual cues come from the arrow points. And both of them are greyed out before you hover of them. No?
    Well, no critic, again, I think it is great you have accessibility in mind when you design stuff like that.
    1159 posts | registered
  26. FrankM wrote:
    Only thing is, there are a couple rare forms of blue-yellow color blindness too.

    Our color scheme is safe for people with with deuteranopia (common), protanopia (rare), and tritanopia (very rare). :) All of our major design elements are tested against those.
    22665 posts | registered

You must to comment.
http://arstechnica.com/staff/2012/10/comment-voting-now-shows-the-vote-split/?comments=1&start=400
arstechnica.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2016-44
119964
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:CNA2BPHMQW5PFB4RBLWULAUXIYHS5VK7
<urn:uuid:e1d8abbc-42a4-4a41-82b3-f93055ab7114>
2016-10-28T11:47:23Z
50.31.151.33
sha1:HFYKTL4LCESSYF54XIDNKSQEN2GLETRU
<urn:uuid:577c8540-5fbd-427d-9d07-9b48f1275251>
http://arstechnica.com/staff/2012/10/comment-voting-now-shows-the-vote-split/?comments=1&start=400
length
response
<urn:uuid:787cf557-fd02-44c6-bb44-d7d63aa8b8e6>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-171-6-4.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2016-44
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for October 2016
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf