Forum:The Voting system

Forums: Index > Village Dump > The Voting system

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6637 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

Once upon a time, there was a voting system for articles. Actually, to be more specific, there wasn't one, but everyone wanted it. Well, Sannse pointed me to this page when I kept bugging her about getting one: Wiki-Law Main Page. This begs the question: while this voting system is not perfect, it is better than the one we have now. So, if we could implement this voting system Today, would you be for it?--<<>> 14:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes/No

Score: +6½

• Any voting system is better than none, and we can always replace it if a better one comes along.--<<>> 14:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• I was all for the original proposed system for voting on individual articles, or indeed any type of voting system better than the existing one. Problem is, would this be able to be implemented? -- Hindleyite 14:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• For -- Kaizer the Bjorn takkun (nya nya) (1961 model!) Check out T61! 14:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• For. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 14:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• For using this for deletion voting, but against using it for featured-article/image voting — at least until we see how well it works for deletions. (I suspect it'll work just fine — it's just that "deletion review" is probably much more in need of something like this.)  c • > • cunwapquc? 15:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

at this point, I'm just looking at implementing first, then figuring out how we want to use it later.--<<>> 15:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• For I like it. --Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 02:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• For But only if we vote again for the new system once the new system is implemented because if we vote for the new system using the old system then that vote no longer counts under the new system, except that then if we have the new system, we can't vote on it because we only voted for it with the old system which means the new system isn't any good for voting on any more so, actually, it's really confusing. Against. No, Maybe. I don't know. Help. --Sir Hardwick Fundlebuggy (Bleat) 06:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I realize you're being facetious here, HF, but this is actually a good idea! We should use the new system to vote on whether or not to keep the new system once it's implemented — after, let's say, a three-month "probationary usage" period. Also, if there are going to be comments attached to votes, like there are on the Poll feature we have now, people should be encouraged to sign those comments - unless they have a good reason not to.  c • > • cunwapquc? 15:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• For. -- mowgli 18:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• hell, why not,For--Sir Silent Penguin "your site makes no sence" The illusion is complete 19:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• For using this to gather kudos, but not for VFH/VFP. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)
• Against See long-winded comment below. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 15:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Against 1) Can we revert votes? What if someone with a massive IP range/bunch of accounts goes around voting at random (thus throwing off all vote worths)? 2) Does it count as an edit (so that we can see votes on recent changes)? 3) I like Famine's idea the best. --Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 08:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Answers Ok, time to answer a few of those questions. 1)If we had it my way: yes, you could revert/retract votes. 1b)Who cares? In the end, the best will rise to the top anyway. QDb has proven this despite my certain users' vainglorious attempts to improve their own scores through ballot stuffing (which they might have done at a library once). 2)I wouldn't think so, though I would like to vote on specific versions through the history, in an ideal world. 3)Famine can make his list of 10 acceptable articles right now, if he wants. I won't stop him. :)--<<>> 04:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

RE:3) Uh, that would be like work. I will delete anything that sucks if presented with a list of such things. No way in hell will I go and compile some list for some purpose. Because I'm anti-list. And because if I were to compile a list, it would consist solely of Really Big Tree which is by far my favorite article on this site, and the image of "God smiting a particularly wicked tree". I guess I have a thing for trees. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 23:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Against Won't serve our purposes. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 15:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Kinda, I don't know about no rating system, but we could always use polls (ugly :( ) like teh one below.  –              Smiddle             

Yes or no?

You are not entitled to vote.
You are not entitled to view results of this poll.

1 Yes

2 No

There were 0 votes since the poll was created on 02:47, 6 June 2021.

poll-id 7B28A55AE706D3739FA5434E800F325E

comments/observations

i noticed clicking on "vote" amounts to a for vote. yes, there's also an "unvote" option. but the first time i perused the site, i did not wait for the "unvote" to appear - i was too convinced/transfixed by the instantaneous increase in the vote count (and also least bothered) to linger longer and notice the "unvote" option. some default for votes might accrue as a result -- which is unfair. less ambiguity is perhaps required in the "vote" link. maybe "vote [[for]]" or something. -- mowgli 19:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this. —rc (t) 20:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little confuzzled by this proposal. Is this a vote just to get the little green votebox? Nothing else from the Wiki-Law format would be taken, right? I think a trial run of a votebox would be fine, but we should probably find a better place for it - perhaps we could just switch it to the right side of the screen where it wouldn't disrupt the articles so much. —rc (t) 20:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I really don't like the aesthetics of the thing (nor do I really like the idea of reducing any article to a number, but that's beside the point). Maybe, just maybe, could it be at the bottom, or perhaps in a seperate pop-up window where a number wouldn't be visible on the article? Or in the margin below the lunch money thing? -- Imrealized ...hmm? 07:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Any of those are good.--<<>> 14:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the left margin would be the best place for it, just create a new box and put the code in... doesn't sound too difficult. Then again, I don't actually know what I'm talking about.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 05:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem is here - how hard is it to just ask me? I will tell you the answer, and then we are done. This voting stuff is slow, inconsistent, and regularly produces results which are contrary to the stated goals or overall theme of Uncyclopedia. Here's a faster and easier way to go about it: Place several links on my user talk page with the heading "Famine, do these suck?". I will then look at them, and delete a bunch of them. Whatever is left gets whatever you were going to vote for. I honestly don't know what things get voted on here, because I never go to any of the voting pages. But I'm sure this is a faster and better way. Far more deterministic as well. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 15:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

but how do we know you wont tamper with famine's user page after you have voted it for deletion? -- mowgli 20:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be confused about this "voting" thing. Which further goes to show that my proposal is far more elegant and streamlined. "Voting" will only cause more bad pages to be featured, good pages to get deleted, and monkeys be elected president. We must rid Uncyclopedia and the world of this menance. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 02:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

For.  c • > • cunwapquc? 02:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

For. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 08:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Against. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 06:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Why are all three of you so pro-voting? Is there some major benefit that I'm missing? Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 22:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The irony of it all? That's why I do it, at least.  c • > • cunwapquc? 03:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Uh, you know that bit on User:Famine/Why, where you say something about how this is uncyc and don't expect anything you say to be serious? And here were are, y'know, voting on a proposal to rid uncyclopedia of voting? I'd say you were definitely missing something. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 06:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'm just disappointed that he linked the term "Napoleonic Complex" to Napoleon Bonaparte instead of Wikipoleonic Complex.  c • > • cunwapquc? 06:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Two things: First, I did not know that Wikipoleonic Complex existed, or I'd sure as hell have linked to it. Second, I did not in any way miss the fact that we were voting on voting. My comment above was in regards to the fact that the three of you are all apparently pro-voting, as you all voted. If you were not pro-voting, the correct response would have been to say, "Yes, master Famine. Whatever be your bidding." Because anything else is voting, a procedure which I have now depreciated. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 11:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, and to some extent serious, I'm neither for nor against voting, at least not in general. I'm mostly ambivalent about it now, though I wasn't at first... A Famine-based autocracy (Faminocracy?) might very easily improve the site in some areas, in some cases maybe even drastically. But obviously the issue would be the goodwill cost in terms of user disaffection, if not outright defection or (even worse!) defecation — simply because that's the nature of autocracy. Either way, the word "depreciation" is mostly reserved for financial calculations regarding real and/or personal property, so I suspect the word you want is deprecated, though I perfectly understand that I risk, and indeed probably deserve, a lengthy ban for questioning your word-choices. So before that happens, let me ask you this: If we were to impose Faminocracy for, say, a one-week trial period, what sort of things could we expect during that time? Could we get away with questioning your word-choices? Or would you treat yourself as completely unassailable and above any form of criticism? Could we still remove unwanted top-quotes from articles that don't need or want them? Would User:Nerd42 finally, and irrevocably, be banned for life? And finally, do you prefer General Tso's Chicken with white meat, or dark meat?  c • > • cunwapquc? 00:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it all depends on whether or not I have a lot of free time. Most likely, I'd hop on and delete everything in the Game namespace, get sidetracked, and not return for four days. Idealy, I'd also roll back all featured articles and protect them, ban all the users from n to z, skipping most of the ones in "s" and then delete all the voting pages as a waste of time. I wouldn't worry about people questioning my word choices, as I wouldn't need to type anything. Ever. Just click the magic buttons, and watch the site do my bidding.

And quite honestly, in regards to users that I've previously butted heads with, I'm ok with them now. They are either absent, making useful contributions to this site, or banned. I really don't hold grudges for more than a few days. It takes too much mental power, and if I wrote them down, people would know that I was a psychopath. And I agree that depreciate was not the most appropriate word. However, deprecated also fails in this regard, as it is synonymous with "belittled", not the descriptor I was attempting to conjure up. If anyone knows a single word which means "removed all use for" or "removed all value from" please post. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 01:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Well shit....I was obviously looking for pwn3d. Carry on. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 01:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that probably is the best word for it. I was going to say "discontinued," but "pwn3d" just seems much more appropriate, somehow!  c • > • cunwapquc? 04:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)