00:00
00:00

Voting System Overhaul Proposal

53,387 Views | 412 Replies
Respond to this Topic

Response to Voting System Overhaul Proposal 2015-01-20 21:52:28


At 1/20/15 09:26 AM, CypressDahlia wrote:
Sadly it's untrue that votes are being recorded. Votes are just being linked to an IP address. What the vote is (whether it's a 0, 1, 3, 5) is not kept track of and the username that submitted the vote is not kept track of. It's only recorded whether or not an IP address submitted a vote within the last 24 hours. That's why mods really can't do anything about 0 bombing right now because there is no precise way to tell who's submitting what votes, simply who voted within the last 24 hours.

Ohhh ok I get what you're saying. So if there's a user blowing out too many 0's, they could get banned from voting?


New Piercing Lazer album "The Other Side Chronicles" coming June 8th to Itunes, BandCamp, and other digital stores!

BBS Signature

Response to Voting System Overhaul Proposal 2015-01-20 22:54:59


I just accidentally voted 0 on an art submission, so editing a vote is more relevant to me now.

I feel bad

Response to Voting System Overhaul Proposal 2015-01-21 00:18:14


At 1/18/15 04:14 PM, Heinrich wrote: I'm also thinking that each portal could get you separate experience point gain limits. With the Games, Movies, Audio and Art, you could get 10 XP each and earn up to 40 XP a day. Would encourage more voting in all portals.

That sounds like a very good idea to me.

Response to Voting System Overhaul Proposal 2015-01-21 04:24:41


Im glad there has been a chang lets keep up the good work.

Response to Voting System Overhaul Proposal 2015-01-21 06:15:04


So Tom? Any news on that new upcoming layout for the site? I expect it will be implemented soon..


I am not certain myself. I rather like the system we have in place now and I don't see anything wrong with how the system works now. I vote to keep it the same. But that is just my opinion.

Response to Voting System Overhaul Proposal 2015-01-21 16:31:35


Everything mentioned sounds great, looking forward to it.


Finally catching up on this topic! So many ideas...

At 1/12/15 09:42 AM, TomFulp wrote: The plan is to allow review edits but we could log all previous review content. There are cases where developers fix issues with their games and reviewers would like the opportunity to update their review based on that.

How about allowing multiple reviews for the same submissions, and an edit time on existing reviews similar to that of the BBS? Would allow edits to fix potential errors or quickly fixed issues, but prevent users from replacing old reviews with something entirely different/deleting them completely.

At 1/12/15 09:50 AM, Voltus wrote: if its possible, i think it would be nice if you could change your score/review each time the developers update their game.
That's a good idea, we could try that!

Or... that sounds even better.

At 1/12/15 09:27 AM, TomFulp wrote: Once you write a review, it always appears above the other reviews on the page, so you can see what you wrote and edit (or delete?) if desired.

Missed this one point earlier. Since accounts sometimes do get hacked, I don't like the idea that content forms you previously couldn't delete would now be susceptible to such abuse. If it does come to this, an option to backup account data (maybe on a monthly basis or less so it doesn't use up too much resources), would be really reassuring! Would be reassuring anyway, btw.

Sounds great otherwise!

At 1/12/15 09:55 AM, TomFulp wrote: The current system is weird because we have a vote bar in the left column and then a second vote bar for the review in the right column. We want to get it down to one vote bar while also solving all our other long-standing problems.

Maybe you could keep review and score areas separate: the voting bar to the left (or centered in mobile mode); the review field in the regular reviews section, with a users' vote added as a visible, editable score only when they actually start writing?

At 1/12/15 10:03 AM, TomFulp wrote: I've been conflicted on this one for years and it is one of the concerns that has held up progress on a change. Part of it comes down to how much we let nostalgia hold us back, when NG needs to also bring in new users, to whom the vote bar has no relevance and can even be a detriment. We're walking a fine line between making the site appealing to new users and making the site not "compete" with the content on the page, while also making oldschool fans feel at home and feel like this is still Newgrounds.

It's not just nostalgia though, it's an element of design I feel adds character to the page. Feels like much of the competition is focused on impersonal and minimalistic; I've always liked how this place actually makes certain actions visual. The old animations for B/P, the vault screen, stuff like that are good examples of visual rewards for user activity. That's one thing the competition doesn't have, that NG should be proud of maintaining! Or if it really is a detriment for certain users, an account option to toggle the 'classic' voting panel instead of the new one would be neat... so much fun stuff that could be included via account settings! Maybe as secrets, as further incentive for leveling up?

At 1/12/15 11:17 AM, TomFulp wrote: and everyone can have stats on how many total items they've scored in each Portal.

Heeey I remember suggesting that feature way back in the 2004 era! :D Or maybe it was a request for views rather than votes hmm, either way that sounds great! The more stats the better!

At 1/12/15 11:34 AM, TomFulp wrote: That's another discussion topic - should you be able to see the complete vote record of your entry? We have the checkbox next to the score so a user can determine if their vote is public or not - however this is currently only relevant to whether it will show alongside a review. We COULD give authors access to ALL public votes on their entry... I imagine people who vote low would probably want to keep their votes private, especially if they are voting low on spam.

I do hope complete user-specific vote records never become an actuality! Even if I vote fairly that feels like one of those aspects of anonymity I take for granted, that my vote is just one vote in a mass of votes, not something distinguishable, and thus I can vote justly without contemplating any potential personal consequences of a certain score.

At 1/13/15 11:44 AM, TomFulp wrote: I'd love to have more unlocks, just gotta come up with some that are so awesome they take priority over other projects.

Ooh, I have a few ideas there, though probably nothing that'd take priority. Anyway, how about (ideas sorted by level of difficulty required to attain):

- ability to switch between level icon sets (old/new, changes visible to you only)
- ability to switch between voting bars/icons (if this proposal goes through)
- ability to unlock classic blam/protect animations (and enable/disable)
- ability to unlock the vault page (as above)
- ability to add a custom medal image (points/etc standard) with your name that users can unlock when they visit your user page. All such medals could be sorted as a game under 'User Medals' on a users' medal list.
- double inbox quota
- double dump space
- ability to add a user header
- a 'Supporter Preview Mode' where you can disable ads for a small amount of time per longer span of time (such as one day each month, at a day of your choosing). Maybe also an option to bestow upon another user this short-lived Supporter Preview if you happen to be a Supporter yourself. You could enter their name into a field, and they'd be delivered a message with an option to activate their free day whenever they wish. All this via database so it wouldn't be exploitable to disable ads eternally.

At 1/12/15 06:10 PM, TomFulp wrote: Existing XP would never get touched and would still be based on all the previous daily voting - we never want to do anything that makes a mess for people who have been voting every day for years now. That's why even the double XP weekend is a bit CRAZY given it is a rare change to the XP gathering routine.

A good kind of crazy. :) Gives active users an opportunity to catch up to the revered; less active veterans too. Gets me thinking of a feature idea I've had for a while btw: rankings with shorter time-spans. If the default rankings listed the Top 50 users in each field by maybe past year rather than past decade+, it'd give an opportunity for new users to get into the spotlight quicker; feel rewarded for their activity. Of course an option to view the 'All Time' toplists would still be available too.


Check out the NRC / Hexa #54 (Jun)

BBS Signature

At 1/12/15 09:48 AM, vartan wrote: Another issue with the whole notion of XP guiding the incentive to review is that after a user hits 10 reviews on a day, or 20 on the weekend, they no longer have any guided incentive to continue reviewing. This also doesn't really cement the incentive to create quality reviews, rather, just reviews. Instead, I think one good idea would be to take a cue from Reddit on this particular issue and make the number or percentage of "People find this review helpful!" votes on a particular review determine the effect of the review on the user's XP and entirely remove the XP cap. The result would be that users would have an inherent incentive to: a) write reviews, but also b) write quality reviews. The total helpful reviews the user makes could be a statistic on their profile as well.

A 'helpful reviews' stat on user profiles sounds like an awesome idea! Just that would be a great incentive. I don't like the idea of not being able to gain EXP by traditional methods though, and users who have previously been active in at least voting might be chased away when there's no longer a simple way to gain EXP. Not everyone has a way or will with words...

At 1/13/15 11:39 PM, RealFaction wrote: Make a minimum for amount of characters you have to enter like 5 words or something, that'll change that.

...which is the same way I feel about minimum character amounts on reviews. Though I usually don't type very short reviews myself, there are those rare moments when a certain single word seems to suffice; perfectly summarize my views on that submission. And why discourage people from commenting, even if they are just posting single words?

I'm not convinced a character limit would actually make everyone put more effort into their comments. It might cause some people not to comment (even a useless comment is better than no comment IMO), or add arbitrary characters/words to get around the limitation. Like cooooooooooool instead of cool, or, if the limit applies to words rather than characters: coo ooo ooo oool. Could make for some good whistle points fo rizzle, but I think it'd work better without any limitation longer than a few characters. Better reward users if they do something better (like above), than restrict them from doing something in the first place. Is how I reason anyway.

At 1/13/15 10:48 PM, King-Duckford wrote: Concerns too extensive for quotation.
If the change can be made, and socks kept out of manipulation, than perhaps this is the solution we really do need. By taking out the abusive voters, we can all take scores more seriously, and those that counter vote abusive voters can rest easy. But I fear it could create a more corrupt system than what we currently see.

All very valid points. I do hope bots/alts don't become a big problem with the new system, where they're no longer as easy for regular users to combat...

At 1/15/15 11:08 AM, CypressDahlia wrote: You should just make "0" votes include a forced review.

So submissions that are usually blammed without much notice would be the ones getting the most reviews all of a sudden? Extensive feedback written for short 1 second tests with stick figures waving an arm or a blank screen with a 'VOTE 5 PLZ' scrawled in scribbly pencil text, which disappears along with the submission? Doesn't sound very motivating from a reviewer perspective. Worse case scenario: people would stop voting 0, and such submissions would pass, making the current B/P system completely redundant and flooding the portal with a stream of shitty content! It's a good intention, but I don't see it working very well in practice.

Like think about what a "0" vote actually means. it literally means "this does not belong in the portal".

Exactly. :P

For something to be rated that absolutely low you'd need a good, constructive reason, otherwise it's just shameless ego-bashing on artists.

Assuming said work is actually being submitted by an aspiring artist, not a troll, spammer, etc.

At 1/19/15 09:40 AM, IvanTuroc wrote: Now if you could somehow fix it where we could report stolen material again without abuse being a problem. In the portal like old times.

I do miss that feature!

At 1/19/15 01:54 AM, RealFaction wrote: I hope this doesn't mean votes will be hidden, zero bombers will be all over that :/ I won't be happy till we smoke them out and people stop 5'ing their own songs, this would squash that and bring balance.

Don't mean to counter-comment all your comments here, but personally I do hope votes won't ever start being displayed (unless you leave a review; intend to make it public). Could make people awfully self-conscious of how their voting patterns make them look; make people vote higher per-automatic just so they don't get bashed, etc. Or vice versa, just to get a reaction. Though maybe you mean you hope it won't be hidden from the staff? In that case I'm all for it! They could filter out abuse, find patterns where certain accounts vote high on submissions by certain authors (potential alts), etc.... if they don't already have logs like that hmm. Long as votes don't become a superficial thing it's all good.

At 1/19/15 09:54 AM, CypressDahlia wrote: Also users should not be allowed to vote on their own entries. I've accidentally zero-bombed my own pieces when I'm clicking too fast. Herp.

With the ability to edit your votes that won't be a problem. :) I've always liked being able to vote on my own work, not trying to get into rankings or anything but I suppose it feels like a quick reward, having a top score if only for a second... with a one vote/user limit it doesn't seem like it'd be possible to abuse either. You're quickly outnumbered by other voters regardless of content form.

At 1/19/15 06:45 PM, CypressDahlia wrote: Having an Alt account doesn't change your IP address, though.

It's easy to connect via a different IP. Proxies, VPNs, dynamic IPs, separate networks, cellphones, public computers... sooo many possibilities!

At 1/20/15 09:34 AM, CypressDahlia wrote: These are kind of outlandish scenarios. And those places would only get one vote, too. Even if a person were to use 3 different access points to vote on their own work...it would only amount to 3 permanent votes. And think about the effort you'd have to go through just to make 3 votes. And your friend or brother or whatever probably isn't going to feel penalized for being unable to vote on something on Newgrounds. One person being unable to vote on one submission is not going to ruin a community, but our current voting system if un-changed just might.

The problem here is the people with a motive to abuse the system would probably be the ones with more access points, for example groups of people up-voting their own work, or shovelware developers with small studios/multiple devices/IPs. Least that's the threat I imagine... but I guess as long as the community is active the number of authentic votes should automatically clear out any potential abuse. This one-vote per user system definitely seems less abuse-prone than the current one anyway, all a change for the better.

At 1/15/15 12:43 PM, B1KMusic wrote: I dunno, what do you guys think of my suggestion(s)?

Sounds good! I'm getting more and more convinced that an edit history with reviews would be the best/easiest way to go about them. Could be it'd be easy to restore revisions for a certain user prior to a certain date if ever their account's compromised too, would solve that potential issue with an option to delete reviews being abused.

As for requiring reviews along with votes, though, I think that'd cause a lot of users to drop out from the voting process, maybe messing up the judgment phase in the process, maybe driving in fewer new users to the site. Better somehow motivate people to write more reviews then force it upon them if they'd rather just press a button, all for freedom; easy of use!


Check out the NRC / Hexa #54 (Jun)

BBS Signature

At 1/22/15 05:36 PM, Cyberdevil wrote:
I've always liked being able to vote on my own work

I don't really understand that.

It's easy to connect via a different IP. Proxies, VPNs, dynamic IPs, separate networks, cellphones, public computers... sooo many possibilities!

You say people are too lazy to write a review for a 0 bomb and you think they're going to go through that trouble?

Could make people awfully self-conscious of how their voting patterns make them look

Which is how it should be. A person should care how they treat other peoples' work and make an effort to be a constructive, valuable part of their community. You say this like it's a bad thing: to actually care about how one's voting practices reflect on one as a person. Like asking people on the internet to actually take responsibility for things they say/do shouldn't seem like such a scary idea.


At 1/22/15 07:02 PM, CypressDahlia wrote:
At 1/22/15 05:36 PM, Cyberdevil wrote:
I've always liked being able to vote on my own work

I don't really understand that.

I don't understand that either, I think it's unfair and should be gone. That's why zero bombers exist, we're trying to get rid of them.



You say people are too lazy to write a review for a 0 bomb and you think they're going to go through that trouble?

Could make people awfully self-conscious of how their voting patterns make them look

I really have never found that to be an issue nor would I see it now. You can already see people's review patterns and nobody is bothered by that so it seems, I don't see why that would even be a problem, but as mentioned, it would definitely make them want to be more constructive probably, even though there will always be the kids who say "this sucks" or "cool". We're taking steps I see, I'm interested to keep watching.


New Piercing Lazer album "The Other Side Chronicles" coming June 8th to Itunes, BandCamp, and other digital stores!

BBS Signature

At 1/22/15 08:56 PM, RealFaction wrote:
At 1/22/15 07:02 PM, CypressDahlia wrote: I don't really understand that.
I don't understand that either, I think it's unfair and should be gone. That's why zero bombers exist, we're trying to get rid of them.

I think I just explained the why of it all pretty well, in how you get a short-lived moment of victory: an illusion of perfection: a perfect 5... if but for a fleeting moment in time. ;) I'm sure that plenty of users feel the same way; which is why it's so commonly done, not so much with the intention of abuse as the intention of quick reward. Might not be the most needed 'feature', but it's a fun quirk of the system, and I don't think that one initial vote would have much impact on the final score of a submission, if at all. with this new system. The more popular work gets, the better the score'll balance, the less popular - all the more reason to have a higher score to draw people to that particular work. Without people able to continually up-vote or down-vote their own/others it shouldn't be an issue, right? I did read your earlier post on how zero-bombers first came to be, but if review scores replace votes, that's a problem of the past!

You say people are too lazy to write a review for a 0 bomb and you think they're going to go through that trouble?

Well, as I mentioned below this specific part: the problem is the people with a motive to abuse the system would probably be the ones with more access points; the ones who make the effort. I don't think regular users would want to go through the extra trouble no, I think they'd go the workaround way and unintentionally render the judgment process ineffective. But anyway, just explaining how easy it'd be for users who have the resources and know-how to run an army of alts. If the system catches all such potential new abuse then it doesn't really matter.

Which is how it should be. A person should care how they treat other peoples' work and make an effort to be a constructive, valuable part of their community. You say this like it's a bad thing: to actually care about how one's voting practices reflect on one as a person. Like asking people on the internet to actually take responsibility for things they say/do shouldn't seem like such a scary idea.

In reviews, yes, where users chose their score to be public and have room to reason why they give a certain score, but not for regular votes. Rather than judge a submission fairly, honestly; unbiasedly, people could change their voting pattern to give users a different impression of them, to not be a minority, to adhere to the preconceptions other people always have about what content is supposed to score high and what's not. I believe caring about one's voting practices is easier to do if those votes are anonymous and can't have any negative impact on you as a user, for good and bad. People might be equally bashed for voting high on work others don't like as they'd be for voting low on work that others do like, and even if they're not, it shouldn't be a concern at all, nobody should need to think like that while voting. You know how votes are always anonymous in social situations, ex. in political elections? It's all to protect the citizen and give them a freedom of expression without potential repercussion; I believe the same should apply online.

I really have never found that to be an issue nor would I see it now. You can already see people's review patterns and nobody is bothered by that so it seems, I don't see why that would even be a problem, but as mentioned, it would definitely make them want to be more constructive probably, even though there will always be the kids who say "this sucks" or "cool". We're taking steps I see, I'm interested to keep watching.

Review scores are still but a tiny fraction of the total score though, you could say reviews are the part of those votes that people don't mind being public. What about the rest? Would they like their votes being logged and showcased? Maybe we're talking about different things here. I don't mind review scores being public, even if I understand why some do like the idea of hiding their score.


Check out the NRC / Hexa #54 (Jun)

BBS Signature

Another thing in my mind.

People should not vote once the work passed under jugment.

I noted few people still vote for movies/games who passed six years ago.
It's useless for me. It's just my opinion.


At 1/23/15 03:28 AM, Cyberdevil wrote:
I think I just explained the why of it all pretty well, in how you get a short-lived moment of victory: an illusion of perfection: a perfect 5... if but for a fleeting moment in time. ;)

Yeah but the rest of your arguments are talking about fairness and unbiasedness so I don't understand why you would vote unfairly and with bias on your own work.

I think they'd go the workaround way and unintentionally render the judgment process ineffective.

Yeah but see, having that in place still would reduce the chances of this happening by making it harder to do, and would make it infinitely easier to notice.

People might be equally bashed for voting high on work others don't like as they'd be for voting low on work that others do like

I have never, ever seen anyone get bashed or suffer serious repercussions for how they vote on work. I have seen people get banned for leaving spammy zero-bomb reviews. That's about it. And that's supposed to happen.

Would they like their votes being logged and showcased?

They're gonna be logged with the new system either way. Whether or not they're showcased, I'm generally indifferent to. But honestly if you feel anything but pride for how you handle your voting/reviewing practices, that says something about you, not the system.


At 1/23/15 10:03 AM, CypressDahlia wrote: Yeah but the rest of your arguments are talking about fairness and unbiasedness so I don't understand why you would vote unfairly and with bias on your own work.

I suppose I expect others to judge it fairly anyway... regardless of my initial boost. I haven't really considered the initial vote could have serious consequence unless it's repeated up-voting. A problem of the past to be.

Yeah but see, having that in place still would reduce the chances of this happening by making it harder to do, and would make it infinitely easier to notice.

Harder to vote a certain score? Or to vote low? I don't see how making it harder to vote low would solve the problem, it'd just make it easier for bad stuff to get through. As for users voting a certain score, even if staff do notice people vote higher overall to evade this proposed restriction, what difference would it make? Votes aren't abusive by rule for a certain score, not even in a certain pattern, unless maybe it's aimed at a certain author rather than a certain form of work. People would still be entitled to their right in voting what they feel certain forms of content deserve, fair or not, that's all subjective, and there'd be no way of knowing what vote is fair from each user's individual perspective (IOW no way to know who is honest and who's not). Would be a perfect world if everyone voted honestly, but it seems like something impossible to enforce without catching a lot of innocents in the stray fire.

I have never, ever seen anyone get bashed or suffer serious repercussions for how they vote on work. I have seen people get banned for leaving spammy zero-bomb reviews. That's about it. And that's supposed to happen.

But votes aren't public with the current system, nor would they be with the OP proposal. I'm arguing that votes never should be, unless linked to a review, and thus such problems will hopefully never arise. Not that either of us knows if review bashing actually is going on already, but I like to think that users respect a score when there's an opinion to go with it.

They're gonna be logged with the new system either way. Whether or not they're showcased, I'm generally indifferent to. But honestly if you feel anything but pride for how you handle your voting/reviewing practices, that says something about you, not the system.

I don't mind the logging, but I would mind the showcasing. Would revoking the spirit of anonymity and freedom really be a good idea? I'm trying to see things from a larger perspective here. Of course this is how I'd like it to be myself, but I won't argue against change if I believe it'd be better for everyone. Whether I vote fairly or not (I believe I do) is irrelevant, like saying that 'if you have nothing to hide, why do you have walls?'. Or as the 'Terms & Conditions May Apply' crew so eloquently phrased it: you never have something to hide until you do.


Check out the NRC / Hexa #54 (Jun)

BBS Signature

At 1/23/15 10:03 AM, CypressDahlia wrote:
At 1/23/15 03:28 AM, Cyberdevil wrote:
I think I just explained the why of it all pretty well, in how you get a short-lived moment of victory: an illusion of perfection: a perfect 5... if but for a fleeting moment in time. ;)
Yeah but the rest of your arguments are talking about fairness and unbiasedness so I don't understand why you would vote unfairly and with bias on your own work.

That's also how I see it. How in the world is it fair to vote 5 on your work? I read everything you said Cd but to me it just doesn't seem like fair. Sounds selfish more than anything no offense. It's like contradicting unbiasedness and fairness as said. That's that. The point isn't to feel "a moment of 5 greatness", it's to get fair input on the stuff you upload, especially constructive reviews, those are rare but often praised.


New Piercing Lazer album "The Other Side Chronicles" coming June 8th to Itunes, BandCamp, and other digital stores!

BBS Signature

Response to Voting System Overhaul Proposal 2015-02-05 04:53:45


Is there a date for the update? :O

Response to Voting System Overhaul Proposal 2015-02-10 18:44:42


This is cool as fuck guys.

When's the next post about the new layout?

Response to Voting System Overhaul Proposal 2015-02-11 10:11:46


This is pretty fucking great. Just do me a favor and keep it on the down low to the 26 people above me in XP.


Need help on beating Alkie Kong 2, brutal mode? click here.

Response to Voting System Overhaul Proposal 2015-05-30 03:25:42


Not sure if I'm necroing this thread or not, but uh... what's the progress on this?


Check out my profile for random comments and... pretty much nothing else!

Response to Voting System Overhaul Proposal 2015-08-01 07:15:30


To be honest, I kinda liked the old form better because it enabeled you to vote up your most liked content on the portal and effectively root out the "trash" submissions. But since it also enabled spammers to vote their crap high, I guess it is a neccessary change- even if not all will like it.


Do you think you can defeat death himself? Well then...prove it!

Response to Voting System Overhaul Proposal 2015-12-03 03:41:26


gonna run out of stuff to vote for on the daily 5


BBS Signature

Response to Voting System Overhaul Proposal 2016-11-22 18:31:02


At 12/3/15 03:41 AM, Dangerous-D wrote: gonna run out of stuff to vote for on the daily 5

i wish we could deposit 10 xp pervote and limit it to 5 votes per day so instead of 10 exp per day we could earn up to 50