I mentioned this in my vanity thread () but in the spirit of qgil's hot community discussion I decided this topic warranted its own thread.

I'd like to hear some feedback on why people are voting "thumbs down" on some Maemo articles/feeds. I am removing myself from the discussion and don't really care why my silly posts get voted down-- I'm more interested in why valuable posts are being treated so poorly.

Check the current page two of Planet Maemo for examples:

http://maemo.org/news/planet-maemo/?...g_index_page=2

------------------------------------------------------
Henri Bergius informs us about Midgard and receives 1 thumbs down for his efforts.

Gustavo Barbieri writes about netbooks and garners 3.

tko warns us about a problematic vendor and gets 5 negative points for his trouble (!!!)

Marius Gedminas tutors us on MS Word exports and is hit by 3 strikes.
------------------------------------------------------

Folks, I don't get this. I realize feedback can't all be sunshine and roses but I have focused here on examples that don't deserve it. Have trolls infiltrated the glossy halls of Planet Maemo? Am I seeing jealousy? Spite? Sociopathy? What???

I really hope someone leaving those bad marks can explain... maybe I'm just missing something...

I guess it could be a manifestation of 'What would I like to see as part of this feed about Maemo'. Do I want to see warnings about package companies in UK? No. Do I want to see information about BBC Radio 3 on tablet, Community updates, Interview with GeneralAntilles? Yes. Especially since planet ends up on the front page of maemo.org, it is very important to keep the feed relevant.

Example - Facebook: A lot of crap in the news feed, some things you are interested in, some things you are not. You can regulate this through "Show me more of this" "Show me less of this" - and it's very useful to avoid seeing what plants your childhood classmate has planted in their virtual sandbox..

(Your message box is full Texrat.)

Thanks Stskeeps, that's good feedback and hopefully helpful.

From your response I get the idea that the "thumbs up - thumbs down" voting is too simplistic. What looks like abuse may be disinterest.

However, I would counter that disinterest should be represented by no vote at all, especially given the binary nature of the feedback system *.

Going forward, I wonder if we could move Maemo to a better richer post ranking system...

EDIT: I'd like to see something like Youtube's system, where you have both a multi-star rating combined with a Favorites setting.

*EDIT: I was wrong. The system is NOT binary, but trinary. The Null state is still a state. Recognizing that validates my original complaint that the "thumbs down" appears to be abused.

Stskeeps has it.

It's partially about what people want to see more or less of (e.g., on-topic stuff about Maemo is desirable, random stuff about summer cabins, postal carriers, or even other Linux distros is not) and partially about opinion (e.g., ThoughtFix's post about a more Canola-like UI is on-topic, but many people don't like the idea, so thumb it down).

Arguably, some of the first stems from ignorance (people may not realize Midgard is what runs maemo.org, or that GUPnP is an important part of Fremantle), and some of the second is sometimes more vindictive than anything else.

People will heart or thumb what they will for the reasons they choose, which is why we don't leave it up to just one person. In the end, interesting, on-topic stuff goes to the front page, off-topic and uninteresting stuff doesn't.

So, make Planet more fair, don't forget to rate the articles!

You bring up another good point GA: part of the problem as I see it is that there are far more views than votes. I hate to bring up my own examples but they're all I have data for: based on the click-throughs to my blog from feeds on Planet Maemo I see over 200 views for one article but only a handful of votes. It's hard to gage anything with a ratio like that-- almost zero statistical significance.

So, until Maemo gets a better system, I'll echo your advice: vote people! One way or another.

Yes, but disinterest combined with scarcity (of front-page space) requires opposition. So I understand why people would thumb down those articles.

I agree that perhaps a more expressive system would work better.

/\ serious
\/ humor

We need a three-option system:

• Favorite
  • Good, relevant stuff
• Thumbs down
  • Junk
• Get off my lawn!
  • Stuff I don't mind, but it doesn't belong here

As much as you may be joking about the system, I like it!

But, yeah, when I posted this I wasn't thinking about the filtering aspect, just the negativity ascribed to articles that have no malicious or otherwise time-wasting intent. Given that, I strongly believe a different system is called for.

EDIT: but back to disinterest-- doesn't no votes at all bump articles down below those with positive votes? It certainly should, which solves the page real estate problem without the perceived antagonism of a thumbs down.

That reminds me, we should see abou a prettier set of smilies for Talk. The artifacting around the edges of these continually grates on my nerves.

https://wiki.maemo.org/Task:Improving_Planet_ratings

Hop to it!