This feature will be good-to-have. I am in for both How & Who. Some blogs & forums want to keep rating & voting anonymous. Since this is a professional platform, this feature can be implemented soon.
I'm hoping so Girija. Saving Changes...
Drew CraigSr. Agile & Product Coach| VanguardPhiladelphia, Pa, United States
Jul 17, 2018 9:24 PM
Replying to Sante Delle-Vergini, PhD
...
Ah but the how tells you more about the who, than the who alone. Like the phantom blog stalker who posts a vote of 2 sometimes, then runs away without commenting before anyone has even posted a comment. For me, the who is second best, but the who and how tops the list. I guess we will never know the why, but knowing the how of the who would lead us to presume they don't like the post, if indeed the how of the who gave a low vote, then the why would be obvious would it not? Even I'm confused hehe.
Drew CraigSr. Agile & Product Coach| VanguardPhiladelphia, Pa, United States
I did not realize there was a mystery 2-star voter. Personally, I only vote after I comment.
Ultimately, I'd be in favor of nixing the star rating (old school) altogether; replacing with a upvote/downvote system like reddit.
...
1 reply by Sante Delle-Vergini, PhD
Jul 18, 2018 6:52 AM
Sante Delle-Vergini, PhD
...
Up and down votes would work better than the current 5-star rating, in the absence of a transparent and unmasked 5-star voting. But I would still prefer to see an unmasked 5-star voting system.
I did not realize there was a mystery 2-star voter. Personally, I only vote after I comment.
Ultimately, I'd be in favor of nixing the star rating (old school) altogether; replacing with a upvote/downvote system like reddit.
Up and down votes would work better than the current 5-star rating, in the absence of a transparent and unmasked 5-star voting. But I would still prefer to see an unmasked 5-star voting system. Saving Changes...
I'm onboarding with the Who, but as far as what score they provided, if that is also provided it might result in a biased voting. Right now, you are likely getting a more accurate response as it is anonymous and I'd expect that most folks would start voting higher (or avoiding voting entirely) if they knew their names were going to be published!
Kiron
...
1 reply by Sante Delle-Vergini, PhD
Jul 18, 2018 7:17 AM
Sante Delle-Vergini, PhD
...
True Kiron, there is a risk of bias. But bias enters into nearly all systems of voting, just look at politics. With blogs, I've seen many examples of say 5 people voting a 4 and 5 (assumed by the 4.x rating) only to see it dive to 3.x with a phantom 2 rating (using simply math). Worse still is the phantom vote stalker, who posts say a 2 before anyone else comments, and I have witnessed hesitation in comments kicking off probably because the first comment poster doesn't want to see that it was their post that was so lowly voted. In those cases they may (including me) have shown bias by rating a blog post a 5 when actually a 4 would have been voted, just to mitigate the perceived trolling of that phantom voter of 2. A few times when I have been the first to comment, I have seen a 2 vote. Then I comment and I almost always vote a 4. But if I did, it would end up a 3, and only my comment would appear, so it would make the author think I voted a 3. That is even worse than bias, it is false representation. Even worse is the other way around, when I'm the first to comment and vote a 4, only to see the vote some time later become a 3, obviously because someone voted a 2. And when I see this happening, the phantom voter (could be plural) never comments. I have even changed my vote up to cater for this as you may have noticed in the past. I think all of this would virtually disappear if the votes were unmasked, or at the very least have the down/up vote, so that the worst damage a phantom can do is 1 down vote, not change the entire average vote to make it look like the post was a lot worse than it actually was. To your point, yes some people may not vote, but I feel that those who do, would really want to vote, and give their true vote, which gives a lot more credibility to the total average vote for that post.
I'm onboarding with the Who, but as far as what score they provided, if that is also provided it might result in a biased voting. Right now, you are likely getting a more accurate response as it is anonymous and I'd expect that most folks would start voting higher (or avoiding voting entirely) if they knew their names were going to be published!
Kiron
True Kiron, there is a risk of bias. But bias enters into nearly all systems of voting, just look at politics. With blogs, I've seen many examples of say 5 people voting a 4 and 5 (assumed by the 4.x rating) only to see it dive to 3.x with a phantom 2 rating (using simply math). Worse still is the phantom vote stalker, who posts say a 2 before anyone else comments, and I have witnessed hesitation in comments kicking off probably because the first comment poster doesn't want to see that it was their post that was so lowly voted. In those cases they may (including me) have shown bias by rating a blog post a 5 when actually a 4 would have been voted, just to mitigate the perceived trolling of that phantom voter of 2. A few times when I have been the first to comment, I have seen a 2 vote. Then I comment and I almost always vote a 4. But if I did, it would end up a 3, and only my comment would appear, so it would make the author think I voted a 3. That is even worse than bias, it is false representation. Even worse is the other way around, when I'm the first to comment and vote a 4, only to see the vote some time later become a 3, obviously because someone voted a 2. And when I see this happening, the phantom voter (could be plural) never comments. I have even changed my vote up to cater for this as you may have noticed in the past. I think all of this would virtually disappear if the votes were unmasked, or at the very least have the down/up vote, so that the worst damage a phantom can do is 1 down vote, not change the entire average vote to make it look like the post was a lot worse than it actually was. To your point, yes some people may not vote, but I feel that those who do, would really want to vote, and give their true vote, which gives a lot more credibility to the total average vote for that post.
...
2 replies by Girija Ramakrishnan and Kiron Bondale
Jul 18, 2018 9:57 AM
Girija Ramakrishnan
...
Wonderful analysis, Sante. I've voted for your response now. Being transparent :-)
Jul 18, 2018 4:25 PM
Kiron Bondale
...
I think a baby step towards this is to show everyone who voted (the way LinkedIn shows who Liked your updates) but not show how they voted.
Then, the community product owner could use the feedback on that change to decide whether to take the next step...
Kiron
Saving Changes...
Drew CraigSr. Agile & Product Coach| VanguardPhiladelphia, Pa, United States
^Wow! :)
Well, Sante, no one can say you don’t care or feel a sense of ownership for our community. I respect that. Don’t over think/analyze. Save those brain cells! :). A possible solution is to state your vote in the comment with any rationale.
blah blah comment
[n] stars!
Heck, simply submitting a post is worth a 3.
...
1 reply by Sante Delle-Vergini, PhD
Jul 18, 2018 8:34 AM
Sante Delle-Vergini, PhD
...
hehe thanks Andrew. I do tend to over think/analyze ;-)
Well, Sante, no one can say you don’t care or feel a sense of ownership for our community. I respect that. Don’t over think/analyze. Save those brain cells! :). A possible solution is to state your vote in the comment with any rationale.
blah blah comment
[n] stars!
Heck, simply submitting a post is worth a 3.
hehe thanks Andrew. I do tend to over think/analyze ;-) Saving Changes...
True Kiron, there is a risk of bias. But bias enters into nearly all systems of voting, just look at politics. With blogs, I've seen many examples of say 5 people voting a 4 and 5 (assumed by the 4.x rating) only to see it dive to 3.x with a phantom 2 rating (using simply math). Worse still is the phantom vote stalker, who posts say a 2 before anyone else comments, and I have witnessed hesitation in comments kicking off probably because the first comment poster doesn't want to see that it was their post that was so lowly voted. In those cases they may (including me) have shown bias by rating a blog post a 5 when actually a 4 would have been voted, just to mitigate the perceived trolling of that phantom voter of 2. A few times when I have been the first to comment, I have seen a 2 vote. Then I comment and I almost always vote a 4. But if I did, it would end up a 3, and only my comment would appear, so it would make the author think I voted a 3. That is even worse than bias, it is false representation. Even worse is the other way around, when I'm the first to comment and vote a 4, only to see the vote some time later become a 3, obviously because someone voted a 2. And when I see this happening, the phantom voter (could be plural) never comments. I have even changed my vote up to cater for this as you may have noticed in the past. I think all of this would virtually disappear if the votes were unmasked, or at the very least have the down/up vote, so that the worst damage a phantom can do is 1 down vote, not change the entire average vote to make it look like the post was a lot worse than it actually was. To your point, yes some people may not vote, but I feel that those who do, would really want to vote, and give their true vote, which gives a lot more credibility to the total average vote for that post.
Wonderful analysis, Sante. I've voted for your response now. Being transparent :-)
Are we talking about PMI Board Election voting or ?
We are talking about the rates in the blogs. :)
...
1 reply by Sante Delle-Vergini, PhD
Jul 18, 2018 6:33 PM
Sante Delle-Vergini, PhD
...
Yes Mayte, mainly the blogs. People usually vote in either blogs or articles. Articles are not so much of an issue, because there are so many more viewers, thus votes, that the phantom voter cannot change the total average vote in the way they can with blog posts which receive far fewer views and thus votes.
