Score sockpuppetry, user sockpuppetry.

Scalar said:
Why? Common sense you give people a privilege and they abuse it, what do you do? You restrict that freedom, that's the most basic of judgment calls when it comes to matters like this.

Because, as I explained patiently every fucking time, NUMBERS DON'T DO ANYTHING. You can't simulate common sense / good taste / decency with numbers. It doesn't fucking work. As soon as you try, two things happen: 1) people you tried to reform immediately find ways to game the system 2) people who actually cared and had the desired qualities stop caring, because you made them play an idiotic, pointless game. So they're busy scoring points instead of being useful, or just stop doing anything altogether because they're punished for being active.

And I don't want to hear this criticism from you seeing as you're the one who proposed overhauling the entire deletion/approval system just because of one off handed remark. Kettle, black etc etc.

Unlike every other X in Y proposal, mine actually attempted to propose and justify a reason why it should work, a reason not related to numbers. You can't force shit users to become good, you can't incentivise them either. You can only try to arrange things so that their natural tendencies get aligned with the desired output.

Well this came out of fucking nowhere. Who shat in your cornflakes this morning.

*Ahem*.

albert said:
Keeping track of every voter's IP address is a huge waste of space and is of very little use. And even if I did, it's still easy to game the system as sites like Digg have shown us.

Scalar said:
I have an idea:

- You can only vote on a picture once

As I said, you demonstrably fail at basic English comprehension. Obviously it'd be "out of fucking nowhere" for you.

葉月 said:
Because, as I explained patiently every fucking time, NUMBERS DON'T DO ANYTHING. You can't simulate common sense / good taste / decency with numbers. It doesn't fucking work. As soon as you try, two things happen: 1) people you tried to reform immediately find ways to game the system 2) people who actually cared and had the desired qualities stop caring, because you made them play an idiotic, pointless game. So they're busy scoring points instead of being useful, or just stop doing anything altogether because they're punished for being active.

We get it, you don't like the scoring system and think it's useless.

Unlike every other X in Y proposal, mine actually attempted to propose and justify a reason why it should work, a reason not related to numbers. You can't force shit users to become good, you can't incentivise them either. You can only try to arrange things so that their natural tendencies get aligned with the desired output.

You missed the point, instead screaming like a twit you could have just asked for clarification. The reason I suggested the restrictive system with the post count rule is to deter people from making duplicate accounts so they can vote with multiple accounts. I don't care about taste or what not because this isn't what we're discussing. Granola made a couple uploads and people down voted it not because of quality but because of their personal grudge against him, most likely with duplicate accounts. This solution makes it more difficult to do that and upholds the integrity of the voting system.

*Ahem*.

As I said, you demonstrably fail at basic English comprehension. Obviously it'd be "out of fucking nowhere" for you.

Can you read instead of prattling on? Albert says policing IP address is a huge waste of space, I'm not proposing with monitor every single IP address. How can I explain this any simpler than I already have?

Scalar said:
We get it, you don't like the scoring system and think it's useless.

You missed the point, instead screaming like a twit you could have just asked for clarification. The reason I suggested the restrictive system with the post count rule is to deter people from making duplicate accounts so they can vote with multiple accounts.

Oh I see now. Well, you still fail, because the system isn't about accounts at all. It doesn't matter if and with what account you're logged in; voting restriction only happens on IP level.

Can you read instead of prattling on? Albert says policing IP address is a huge waste of space, I'm not proposing with monitor every single IP address. How can I explain this any simpler than I already have?

For starters, how do you envision your magic system that manages to enforce the "you can only vote once per picture" without logging everyone who ever voted on every single picture? I surely can't conceive of one.

葉月 said:
Voting restriction only happens on IP level.

I have no idea whether this is true or not.

For starters, how do you envision your magic system that manages to enforce the "you can only vote once per picture" without logging everyone who ever voted on every single picture? I surely can't conceive of one.

You make it seem like it is not possible but Ive given two examples of sites with a vote system with the same mechanics I mentioned. Fakku has it that you can only up vote once a day and Naruto Fan Forums has a post count restriction before you get to vote up or down a post.

Scalar said:
I have no idea whether this is true or not.

Try it. And it would be a good idea to know what you're talking about before you propose stupid solutions to problems that don't exist.

You make it seem like it is not possible but Ive given two examples of sites with a vote system with the same mechanics I mentioned. Fakku has it that you can only up vote once a day and Naruto Fan Forums has a post count restriction before you get to vote up or down a post.

Only allowing to upvote once a day is terribly stupid, we really don't need to make members any more of second-class citizens. But that's beside the point. You proposed a system that enforces the constraint of "one vote per picture" (which I understand means "one vote ever"), yet doesn't record all IPs that voted for all pictures in the DB. This is a logical impossibility[1]. Thus I asked you to give a proposal of a concrete implementation that achieves what you propose, because I'm not aware of any that do.

[1] Things like bloom filters still count as recording every access, aside from the fact that they can yield false positives and are poorly supported by DBs anyway.

葉月 said:
Try it. And it would be a good idea to know what you're talking about before you propose stupid solutions to problems that don't exist.

I'm sure you're not blind. The problem is very evident, there is no way in hell that under natural circumstances a picture of that quality can go from a couple up votes to negative fifty without some form of foul play. It becomes even more obvious when you look at the other pictures by the same artist and you they've all been received relatively positively.

Only allowing to upvote once a day is terribly stupid

Why?

I'm not going to argue the logistics with you if it can't be implemented because of logistical problems then fine. But apart from that this very same system of up voting/down voting is successful and has worked on other sites in the past. It's logical both in theory and practice and has yielded desirable results.

I find it incredibly funny that a thread in which I endorse polite debate towards the beginning devolves into a bitter flame war. That's the internet I guess.

I'm not sure who I actually agree with here. On one hand, 葉月, is exactly right when he says that restricting accounts to one vote per pic is just as infeasible as restricting to one vote per IP address. It really is the same thing logistically speaking. It can be done, but not without wasting a heck of a lot of space (a list of every account for every pic voted on), especially for a site like this.

And think about what would happen if we *did* restrict per member account. Sock puppets *are* member accounts, and they are being created for this purpose. All it will change is sock puppeteers going from two to three member accounts to ten to twenty.

It's also extremely restrictive, and while we don't promote people based on voting, in general these restrictions to tend to make "member" into a inescapable caste. I know I wouldn't relish being a base member with the proposed restrictions.

On the other hand, I don't see any way to stop or limit the abuse except to restrict access to the system. Blocking voting entirely until people hit a certain number of approved posts (or better yet, when their upload limit hits a certain level so bad uploads harm them), seems to me to be the best solution.

The X posts in Y days thing would be terribly annoying, and would harm the rating system as legitimate users would be limited to opining on an artificial number of posts.

With a block based on approved uploads, a sock puppeteer would have to develop each of his sock puppets, which would probably be infeasible.

Get rid of the vote down system = problem solved.

Give a rep point to the pic you think it deserves your vote, ignore the ones you don't like and move on with your life. Does the entire community needs to know my distaste for futa and how I get angry when somebody posts it by giving it a low rating? No. OK.

That's my two cents.

SovietRussia said:
Get rid of the vote down system = problem solved.

But upvoting is also common and more destructive since it ruins top charts. You would only solve half the problem.

In my opinion, remove point voting entirely and replace them with a simple favorite count. That way you can still get an indication of popularity but gaming is made incredibly difficult, and also extremely easy to see on a case-by-case basis.

Or, remove points/scores entirely. Do they really do any good at all? It's not like the charts are useful in any way, that's for sure.

Popular by favcount seems a lot harder to break.

+1 to removing voting.

Depending on favcount alone is going to make scores entirely worthless. I see lots of good pics, but no way in hell am I going to favorite them all. On the other hand, there are many *many* users that favorite each and every pic with a character from one of their favorite series or who happens to be missing their shirt.

I'd say voting is *much* more useful than favorites for finding good and bad posts. So much so that in other threads people have campaigned to have favorites removed from the scoring system, not voting

As I see it, scores should be more accurate when more people have the ability to leave input on a pic. But I think it's a bad idea for people to have to have a post tagged as "favorite" to leave their opinion.

I am very strongly against disabling voting.

There are far more posts that I have approved of but are not so good that I actually ever want to find them quickly again than ones I want to mark as a favorite.

Also if you remove the voting system but keeping favcount you will end up with nothing but posts with positive scores which tells you even less than the current system does.

So pretty much echoing what shinji said.

I guess tracking by IP is too vulnerable to exploitation. The only advantage is that non-members can vote.

Scoring by fav count is still exploitable by creating dummy accounts. Maybe only favorites from privileged users should be considered into the score? At least that way if someone wants to pay me $200 to artificially inflate scores I won't feel as bad.

albert said:
I guess tracking by IP is too vulnerable to exploitation. The only advantage is that non-members can vote.

How about logging all voter IPs, but pruning IPs after they're more than a week (or whatever) old? That shouldn't require too much space, and it would prevent people from voting on a post more than once per week per IP. Still exploitable if you have enough time and/or proxies, but it should be good enough to discourage all but the most determined people.

albert said:
Maybe only favorites from privileged users should be considered into the score?

I like this idea.

Shinjidude said:
Depending on favcount alone is going to make scores entirely worthless.

So you're saying nothing would change.

I don't see the score system as a way to leave your opinion. The score system is a way to trace what is popular. Favorite function is a way for someone to mark something as so good that he or she would want to find it at a moment's notice (so if a lot of people favorite something, that means they all want to find that image quickly, making it a popular image), whereas the voting system is completely devoid of any consequence whatsoever (making the meaning of a +1 very vague, the whole system susceptible to gaming, useless as a way of tracking popularity, and altogether something that has lost most of its meaning and that I personally use for nothing, and can't imagine anyone with a working nervous system to find any use for).

But all joking aside, privileged+ only voting sounds okay to me. I'll support that over the current system any day.

With a privileged+ voting system, it would be easier to keep track of those IPs, wouldn't it?

That way it wouldn't overload the server since they'd be tied to those accounts.

Honestly I don't think it really matters enough for us to have to change the voting system.

Granola said:
With a privileged+ voting system, it would be easier to keep track of those IPs, wouldn't it?

That way it wouldn't overload the server since they'd be tied to those accounts.

Why do you care that much? What's the point of doing that? If anything I support the privileged+ but going through the effort to change the way the IP logging works is sort of silly.

If we go privileged+ and log usernames instead of IP addresses, there is no good reason to change how the system works. I doubt anyone is going to waste $40-$60 on the ability to attack users' posts.

You can't log just usernames because that doesn't stop someone from registering hundreds of accounts and voting with each account. You have to log IPs to stop that.

That doesn't work either because people with dynamic IPs can create 100 accounts too.