Explanations need to be required for all negs. Otherwise there is no transperancy.

Who is "we"?

Debbie "DebRAD" Gleason said:

Either we are an open community or we're not.

On second thought, I don't think it matters all that much whether (like George Orwell kinda said): some were more open -- indeed: it doesn't even matter whether you're talking about positive feedback or negative feedback (it's pretty much the same principle).

interesting link nmw pos disc 10

insightful link nmw pos disc 10

Well, yeah, there is that.

I don't neg people. I have negged accidentally when I meant to hit the plus sign. I have also rolled back points. Shows up as negs in my feedback given points, but not technically negging when rolling back to zero. Every so often I neg a comment, but I haven't even done that in a while. Mostly I unneg. I actually check on people I care about and see if they've had a comment negged. Sometimes I let it stand. Other times I bring the comment back to zero. And even other times I'm very vocal about it, especially if I feel it's censorship. And, frankly, it should be OK to disagree with someone without there being retribution.

Furthermore, I feel that personal news should be safe havens. I was negged in my own personal news. Now, granted, it was only -1, but, really, who the hell should care what I say in my personal news? If you feel I am mistaken about something, then correct me. But be upfront about it.

Enough already! I am long past being sick and tired of people taking punitive action here. I'm held accountable for my actions, but anonymous neggers are not. At least we should know what motivates people to neg.

You might also be interested in this discussion:

Does the "wisdom of the crowd" model apply if/when your decisions are dependent on someone else's decision?

underrated link nmw pos disc 50

[uderrated :> underrated]

Debbie, I think I'm hearing two requests from you:

1. make negative feedback attributable (i.e., unmask the giver)
2. require a negative feedback giver to reveal why the negative feedback was given.

Is that right?

LOL !!!!!!!!!!!!

Get a load of that one! Someone is actually giving my post above negative feedback for disclosing that I'm giving positive feedback!

Some people must be seriously messed up!!

It's kinda sad, if you think about it -- I really feel sorry for someone who is so destructive.

Whatever -- the person wants to remain anonymous and also doesn't want their motivation to be disclosed, so it isn't worth worrying about (I guess)....

[giving me :> giving my post above]

Must admit on the rare occasion when I "sign my name" to a post giving -5 points, I'd rather it not fold/close the post...that's what gives if the feeling of censorship. I'd rather give -5 and a written reason as to why, without the fold. Maybe the fold can happen if 3-5 people give a post neg points.

Norbert said:

Someone is actually giving me negative feedback for disclosing that I'm giving positive feedback!

Aren't you jumping to conclusions? Might the negative feedback be because the giver thinks your giving of positive feedback is excessive - perhaps about 40 points too much?

No, the feedback was to my comment.

If there were something wrong with my behavior, then the negative feedback should be given to my personal profile.

[ps: in any case, the reasoning ought to be explained; and in the case of negative feedback, a suggestion for improvement ought to be offered]

Thats the way you give feedback.

Other people are free to give it the way they wish. If they wish to take issue with your comment that the thread is "udderated" they may very well decide to to give the negative feedback to your comment.

Someone is actually giving me negative feedback...

nmw maintains that the negative feedback was to his feedback, not to him personally.

Boy, am I confused!

Yes, that is correct. I feel that should be true of negatives given to people and comments alike.

Thomas Kriese said:

Debbie, I think I'm hearing two requests from you:

1. make negative feedback attributable (i.e., unmask the giver)
2. require a negative feedback giver to reveal why the negative feedback was given.

Is that right?

David Bale said:

Thats the way you give feedback.

Other people are free to give it the way they wish. If they wish to take issue with your comment that the thread is "udderated" they may very well decide to to give the negative feedback to your comment.

Well, we'll never know. But my statement is not a falsification, a scam or anything like that. I think the statement is valid. If someone else feels this discussion is now overrated, then they would give it negative feedback. And like I said, they could give my personal profile negative feedback in case they think there is something wron with me. Also, you are right, they could actually do whatever they want: They could give a completely different discussion feedback. Perhaps Ted is right when he says that feedback is 100% waste of time (but I still beg to differ ;)

Someone is actually giving me negative feedback...

nmw maintains that the negative feedback was to his feedback, not to him personally.

Boy, am I confused!

Thanks for pointing this out -- and I have corrected the mistake.

:) nmw

I'll endorse that, even though it might indicate that I've negged myself. Honestly, it was an experiment rather then self-loathing!

Debbie "DebRAD" Gleason said:

Yes, that is correct. I feel that should be true of negatives given to people and comments alike.

Thomas Kriese said:

Debbie, I think I'm hearing two requests from you:

1. make negative feedback attributable (i.e., unmask the giver)
2. require a negative feedback giver to reveal why the negative feedback was given.

Thanks for clarifying, Debbie.

Regarding your first request about taking away the ability for people to give negative feedback anonymously, I think you know we're committed to providing ways for people to give small amounts (less than five points of) negative feedback without fear of retribution. We have no plans to change that policy, but it's good of you to remind us that the policy doesn't resonate with everyone equally.

As to your second request regarding forcing folks to reveal why they've given negative feedback, I think the request is well-intentioned but it isn't practical. The mechanism is already there for concerned members to share why they're giving feedback (positive or negative) if they're so motivated. However, as we've recently seen, requiring members to state why they're editing comments didn't go over very well.

So, while some folks use negative feedback as a way to deliver constructive feedback (by including the reason why and indicating a way to expunge the negative feedback), I think you'd agree not everyone has the same motivations when giving feedback. Forcing folks to put into words what motivated them to click the "+" or "-" feels overly burdensome for those who simply want to click and move on.

Thomas,

What about a brief pulldown like Norbert suggested months and months ago? Kinda like slashdot. I'm not looking for a whole essay. Just a word or two. Could be done for positive feedback, too.

OR... abolish all feedback. We don't really need it, truthfully. People soon become known by their words and deeds. Their character becomes evident.

I have to step away from the computer for the night, but I want to acknowledge your last two suggestions before I do:

• The pulldown idea assumes there's a desire to qualify the feedback being given.
• For those who don't need the feedback system, there's nothing forcing them to interact with it now. They can ignore it by not using it nor paying heed to the scores of anything.

Thomas,

C'mon. With all due respect. It's just about impossible to ignore the feedback system. Reminders of it are everywhere, including people disclosing who they give to whom and why. I don't want to be flippant and call it a popularity contest, but, honestly, would I have acquired some of my points, especially earlier on, if I hadn't been Gerry's wife?

And it's hard to ignore a neg, even if it's just neg one. How can I not notice that a comment of mine in my own personal news was negged? It doesn't hurt so much as it's kind of a what the... kinda feeling. I cannot even say what I want in my personal news? At the very least, personal news should be a haven. Make it feedback neutral, maybe, except if people want to give feedback to the topic. I dunno. But it just seems wrong to be negged in personal news. Not just me. But anyone. And I've seen it happen again and again, and it just kinda blows my mind. If you can't let your hair down in personal news, where can you? I don't want to always have to be so circumspect. And, frankly, I do worry about being negged. Makes me anxious when I suspect that I am gonna say something unpopular. I say it, anyway, more often than not, but that doesn't mean I don't wonder.

See, here's the thing. If people are required to even take a second to mark a checkbox or pulldown, then maybe there would be less negs floating around. Less negs means more overall positive energy for the entire community. Less petty judgments.

Debbie "DebRAD" Gleason said:

What about a brief pulldown like Norbert suggested months and months ago? Kinda like slashdot.

haha -- That was more than two years ago. But maybe o.net is still digesting the only progress that has ever been made (and that was only a couple months before that).

Also, it seems to me that providing options is not what omidyar.net management is interested in (I think what they're more interested in is not so much "freedom" as "forcing").

[interested in :> interested in is ]

Debbie "DebRAD" Gleason said:

Less petty judgments.

see also If I disagree with you, it shows that I care about you; If you disagree with me, it shows that you care about me

nmw said:

Also, it seems to me that providing options is not what omidyar.net management is interested in (I think what they're more interested in is not so much "freedom" as "forcing").

You're right that we're less concerned with providing options regarding the feedback system, Norbert. You've suggested numerous ways to complexify the feedback system (FIFO, drop-down qualifiers, etc), but, as you've noted, we're not so interested in changing the feedback system in that way.

For what it's worth, I believe that simple inputs create complex outcomes, and the +/- inputs are about as simple as it gets. Yet we've seen the feedback system used for numerous creative outcomes... ones that folks think are good and others that folks think are not as good. Either way, it's been simply through the application of points.

The system in Ebay works as it serves to protect both the consumer and merchant. But who is being protected here?

The new people coming in are obviously not protected so a lot of them leave. The people who have not developed a network or click, obviously aren't protected.

In Ebay, the merchant and consumer are allowed to communicate with each other to make things right before one gives a negative. A positive is allowed a comment so that people can see the merchant's reputation.

It works in Ebay, but I don't think it is working as successfully here if the system is turning off new people, some even potential donors to the projects or people who have much to contribute as well as gain.

I just received a shower of negs ( hmmm I think at least 10) for speaking up against hostility, defamatory comments and keeping the thread on purpose in the most respectful way I can. Willi, our Ugandan team member from Rural Health Care got 2 negs for making his report as requested, and speaking his truth. My sister Liz got negged and she wasn't even posting.

I thank Norbert for enlightening me about the feedback system and what it really is worth. That was a breath of fresh air. and empowering.

Does this system work when those who judge and defame others publicly are rewarded, and those who are making a stand to keep peace , stay on the mission or being silent are negged ?

By the way, Norbert if you have 40 posies to give, I welcome them and say "Thanks for the posies!":)) maybe balance out my abundant negs. Oooops. Sorry, I just need to find some humor in this today after what happened yesterday.

Thanks Debbie, for this thread.