Deprecating rank for inactive users

All suggestions about TPFC should be posted here. Discussions about changes to TPFC will also be carried out here.
Message
Author
User avatar
Andrew Lee
Posts: 2603
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:19 am
Contact:

Re: Deprecating rank for inactive users

#16 Post by Andrew Lee » Sat Jul 20, 2019 12:15 am

Just fixed a bug in the RSS feed where the links to demoted entries are incorrect.

Should be working now.

User avatar
webfork
Posts: 9788
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: Deprecating rank for inactive users

#17 Post by webfork » Sat Jul 20, 2019 7:05 am

Andrew Lee wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 6:52 pm
What do you think?
I'd had a busy few days so I think this is already underway but here's what I was going to say:

I have put quite a bit of effort into maintaining old entries here on the site, but the amount of work put into creating so many entries makes it a huge task. This would be a more proactive route to help clean them up a bit.

One catch is that the upvote often just represents portability, and not necessarily that the program is good or bad. I know I've voted for some programs that I didn't have a specific use for but I know the entry author had a good history (such as guiness, Baas, lautrepay, Joby, and others). As such I worry that some of the currently listed programs will go into the "private" status (not live on the database) just because their users are old. I know that will pare down some of the junk, but it also might obscure some jewels.

That said, much of this worked itself out in discussion and I thought Andrew's balance of an actual downvote made sense. Sounds like a good system.

---
billon wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 6:11 pm
Let's finally remove all Chromium-based shit
lol

billon
Posts: 844
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2012 4:28 pm

Re: Deprecating rank for inactive users

#18 Post by billon » Sun Jul 21, 2019 5:34 pm


billon
Posts: 844
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2012 4:28 pm

Re: Deprecating rank for inactive users

#19 Post by billon » Sun Jul 21, 2019 6:39 pm

@Special:

Did you just mass-downvoted every entry on the first page? Are you leaving us? What happened? Are you OK?

User avatar
Midas
Posts: 5811
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:09 am
Location: Sol3

Re: Deprecating rank for inactive users

#20 Post by Midas » Mon Jul 22, 2019 4:50 am

That's what I was afraid to begin with: the assumption that the new power would be used only for good doesn't hold when people go around down-voting others' favorites just because they can... :(

Provisional solution: restrain that ability to top ranked members, for instance. Not my favorite, but might just work.

Special
Posts: 185
Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2013 7:22 am

Re: Deprecating rank for inactive users

#21 Post by Special » Mon Jul 22, 2019 5:53 am

Yeah, because I find a program sucks, or is clunky to use or is pointless because an alternative is around and does the job better, must means I'm abusing my voting power...

I try to give every single program I've used a rating, either a thumbs up or a thumbs down, I've noticed now that my votes seemed to have all been reset since this change, the programs I've up-voted for in the past are still marked as a favorite but all the ones I've down-voted aren't counted/remembered because when I down-vote them again the option to "this app sucks" goes away meaning it's now a down-vote from me.

So when I look through the front page I'm renewing all my old votes to all the programs I've voted for in the past.

billon
Posts: 844
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2012 4:28 pm

Re: Deprecating rank for inactive users

#22 Post by billon » Mon Jul 22, 2019 3:31 pm

Dear Special

If you up-voted (as registered member) some entry, it add points (2 in your case) to the entry's rank.
If you down-voted (as registered member) the entry, that you up-voted before, it remove these points, which added previously, from the entry's rank.
If you down-voted (as registered member) some entry, any entry that you DID NOT up-voted before, it did nothing to the entry's rank.
It was like that from the start so of course your down-votes "aren't counted/remembered", they never were.
With that last change everything like you think it was before - all your down-votes are counts.

Now, why you want down-vote everything that "sucks, or is clunky to use or is pointless because an alternative is around and does the job better"? Of course you have full rights to do that, but TPFC is community-driven site, programs you don't like can be very useful for others, programs you like can be crap fo others.
Alternatives - do you think there should be only one image viewer in the database, only one music player, only one file manager? There are currently more than dozen hash checkers in the database and should be more. Alternative is always better.

I am personally only down-voted Chromium-based browsers because I believe anything from Google is just pure evil and complete shit. I down-voted some non-portable programs added for unknown for me reasons. I would down-vote program turned shareware if there are no alternative links for previous version (main reason for that last change in ranking system). But I would never down-vote programs I just don't like.

User avatar
Andrew Lee
Posts: 2603
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:19 am
Contact:

Re: Deprecating rank for inactive users

#23 Post by Andrew Lee » Mon Jul 22, 2019 7:06 pm

billon wrote:
Mon Jul 22, 2019 3:31 pm
I am personally only down-voted Chromium-based browsers because I believe anything from Google is just pure evil and complete shit. I down-voted some non-portable programs added for unknown for me reasons. I would down-vote program turned shareware if there are no alternative links for previous version (main reason for that last change in ranking system). But I would never down-vote programs I just don't like.
I agree with billon's assertion.

If you don't like a program, just remove it from your collection. This will remove your vote (if you have previously voted on it). But if you downvote on a program, it actually gives a negative score to the entry.

The negative scoring system was not created to signal displeasure with an application for lacking certain features, or for failing to match up to another application of the same genre etc. It should be used because we form some kind of consensus that the entry should not belong in the database.

Maybe I should change the wording from "This app sucks" to "This app should not be in the database", or something along those lines?

Note 1: Another use for the rocks/sucks function is to calculate the aggregate number of stars for the entry. This subsystem has not changed. If you select remove, this will contribute a slight negative weightage to the number of stars like before, but does not impact the score (and the private/public status) of the entry.

Note 2: You can check the list of demoted entries from time-to-time, and support those entries that you feel have been demoted unfairly.

User avatar
webfork
Posts: 9788
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: Deprecating rank for inactive users

#24 Post by webfork » Mon Jul 22, 2019 8:35 pm

Andrew Lee wrote:
Mon Jul 22, 2019 7:06 pm
Maybe I should change the wording from "This app sucks" to "This app should not be in the database", or something along those lines?
Makes sense. Ultimately TPFC has a different rating system to most other sites on the Internet, such as Reddit or ycombinator so a different labeling might help. There are certainly some programs on the site that I don't care for but definitely don't want to deny them to others unless a recent update added problems like bundled software or nags.

User avatar
SYSTEM
Posts: 1969
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 1:19 am
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Re: Deprecating rank for inactive users

#25 Post by SYSTEM » Mon Jul 22, 2019 9:00 pm

webfork wrote:
Mon Jul 22, 2019 8:35 pm
Andrew Lee wrote:
Mon Jul 22, 2019 7:06 pm
Maybe I should change the wording from "This app sucks" to "This app should not be in the database", or something along those lines?
Makes sense. Ultimately TPFC has a different rating system to most other sites on the Internet, such as Reddit or ycombinator so a different labeling might help. There are certainly some programs on the site that I don't care for but definitely don't want to deny them to others unless a recent update added problems like bundled software or nags.
For reference, downvotes are also supposed to be used very sparingly in Reddit. They're essentially distributed ability to remove posts/comments.
My YouTube channel | Release date of my 13th playlist: August 24, 2020

Specular
Posts: 433
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 10:54 pm

Re: Deprecating rank for inactive users

#26 Post by Specular » Tue Jul 23, 2019 12:07 am

billon wrote:
Mon Jul 22, 2019 3:31 pm
If you down-voted (as registered member) some entry, any entry that you DID NOT up-voted before, it did nothing to the entry's rank.
I wasn't aware of this. I had expected that clicking 'This App Sucks' if one hadn't upvoted prior would add to an entry's negative score (in the previous system), reflected in the star system.

Although come to think of it the upvoting/downvoting for registered vs non-registered users is a bit confusing in how it relates to the visible star system while mixed in with an entry's public/private status. From what I remember Andrew saying not long ago the star rating is reset in some manner every 30 days (or some limited period) to weigh it somewhat more based on recency, I assume just for non-registered votes only, since registered user votes count toward an entry's public/private status permanently.

Perhaps the system for making an entry public/private should be on a separate element or labeled and treated differently from the star rating, for registered users? So 'This App Rocks'/'Sucks' would be reflected in a star rating weighed for recency, while public/private status up/downvoting would be exclusively about an entry's visibility? I'm not sure but the terminology and how it relates to the star rating and separately but simultaneously relates to the public/private status ranking could be clarified I feel.

Could someone comment if the following understanding of the current system is correct?

Non-registered users: upvoting is reflected in the visible star rating that is reset in some way every so often. Downvoting has no effect on the star rating (or does it now ?). Voting by these users has no effect on public/private status (and has never).

Registered users: upvotes count toward an entry's public status, downvotes count (now) toward an entry becoming private when enough downvotes occur. Voting by these users also counts towards the visible star rating (?) but can't be de-coupled from simultaneously voting on an entry's public/private status. Clicking the new remove vote button simply removes whatever up/downvote such a user submitted for the entry.

User avatar
SYSTEM
Posts: 1969
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 1:19 am
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Re: Deprecating rank for inactive users

#27 Post by SYSTEM » Tue Jul 23, 2019 12:41 am

Specular wrote:
Tue Jul 23, 2019 12:07 am
Could someone comment if the following understanding of the current system is correct?

Non-registered users: upvoting is reflected in the visible star rating that is reset in some way every so often. Downvoting has no effect on the star rating (or does it now ?). Voting by these users has no effect on public/private status (and has never).

Registered users: upvotes count toward an entry's public status, downvotes count (now) toward an entry becoming private when enough downvotes occur. Voting by these users also counts towards the visible star rating (?) but can't be de-coupled from simultaneously voting on an entry's public/private status. Clicking the new remove vote button simply removes whatever up/downvote such a user submitted for the entry.
Yes, that's correct.
My YouTube channel | Release date of my 13th playlist: August 24, 2020

User avatar
Midas
Posts: 5811
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:09 am
Location: Sol3

Re: Deprecating rank for inactive users

#28 Post by Midas » Tue Jul 23, 2019 3:12 am

Let me just state general support for the positions expressed by our founder and fellow moderators.

I would never be able to condone a rating system that amounted to censorship of database entries.

Like they say, one man's garbage is another man's treasure -- and vice-versa.

User avatar
Andrew Lee
Posts: 2603
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:19 am
Contact:

Re: Deprecating rank for inactive users

#29 Post by Andrew Lee » Tue Jul 23, 2019 4:04 am

I agree that combining:

1) voting on the visibility of an application
2) voting on the quality of an application

has the potential for confusion.

How about we make the following tweak: separate the concerns. Login users will see 2 sections, one for voting on visibility (only shown to members), one for voting on quality (this is the old rocks/sucks shown to the public as well).

For voting on quality, the wordings are the same as before: a) This app rocks b) This app sucks

For voting on visibility, the wordings will be changed to:

a) Add this entry to my collection
b) Remove this entry from my collection
c) This entry should be removed from the database

For c), we can further require the entry of a short "Reason" field that will be displayed alongside the -ve rating. This will give us some idea as to the reasoning behind the negative votes.

User avatar
SYSTEM
Posts: 1969
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 1:19 am
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Re: Deprecating rank for inactive users

#30 Post by SYSTEM » Tue Jul 23, 2019 4:44 am

Andrew Lee wrote:
Tue Jul 23, 2019 4:04 am
How about we make the following tweak: separate the concerns. Login users will see 2 sections, one for voting on visibility (only shown to members), one for voting on quality (this is the old rocks/sucks shown to the public as well).
Sounds good to me. :)
My YouTube channel | Release date of my 13th playlist: August 24, 2020

Post Reply