I think it's purpose has evolved naturally. I mean, how would you return comment voting to its original purpose anyway?

Do you think the arrows caused the change?

I think it works pretty well as is. Personally I'd like to see people only down vote because something is insulting or plain stupid, and not simply because they disagree. A bit of the latter going on in the cop shoots dog thread.

I don't think there should be any hard rules against downvoting comments; they aren't a significant source of star points to warrant that in my opinion.(especially when compared to the number of comments made versus comments that receive a star point).

*quality

Awarding jonny with one star point for this contribution to Sift Talk - declared quality by BillOreilly.

I think comment voting works fine, and it's interesting how it's evolved since those early days of arguing about it.

The "problem" with comment voting is similar to the asymmetry with videos. Once a comment gets 5 votes, it is much more likely to get votes in the double digits, especially since it's size is increased, while other comments will be stopped at 4 votes.

That's the same with videos, though, and I don't see that as a bad thing.

Yeah. I have been debating this... myself. I think you raise a good point and there are merits to both arguments.

But the change is made and going back might not be the answer.

When people downvote my comments, a little part of me dies. Some nights, I cry myself to sleep, other nights I just try to reflect on what went wrong. Having been homeschooled all my life, though, I've found this to be the best way to normalize myself socially. My parents asked me the other day, and yes, I think I'm just about ready to take my first trip into the city.

Thanks, Videosift.

I was never a fan of comment voting when it came out. But I doubt anyone will be taking this out.

I however do think the iconology must change, as it gives a false impressions, you are not voting for views like one is better then the other rather you should single out what contributes and what doesn't contribute to a discussion.

Thus instead of Up and Down arrows, it should be either a +, - or ! for abuse violations.

I think Joystiq nailed it.

+, - or !

Great idea Farhad.

If it feels good, do it.
________________

Your intentions are good, jonny, but I honestly think that no amount of Sift Talks will permanently change people's comment voting behavior. Personally I try to reserve comment downvotes only for the most useless and/or obnoxious comments, but I'm just one person. I didn't always do it that way, but that's how I do it now. It was just a decision I made; no one had any influence on it. And I upvote comments like a slut, because that's what I am.

Now some people may read this post and rethink their comment voting patterns, but I doubt it will have any long-lasting impact on their behavior. It's just human nature. Take this election: Some Republicans will actually cross party lines for the first time in their lives to vote for Obama, mainly because the idea of McBush/Caribou Barbie in the White House scares the living shit out of them. However in 4 years they will probably go back to voting the GOP ticket. This isn't just an American phenomenon either; it happens all over the free world.

Thus homo sapiens are doomed.

It's just a popularity contest right now. The upvote and downvote buttons are being used as "agree" or "disagree" buttons and downvote is occasionally being used as the "I hate this person so I will downvote regardless of the comment" button.

Couldn't there just be an upvote button and an inappropriate flag? If you think the person made a worthy contribution to the Sift with the comment, you upvote. If not, just leave it alone and move on. If you disagree, no more hiding behind the downvote--come on out and tell us what you disagree with and defend your position. The inappropriate flag would be for spam, threats against members, things of that nature--basically anything that requires the intervention of an admin.

Otherwise, why not let people post what they want? Sometimes I find the negative voted comments more hilarious than the applauded ones. It's not like comment downvoting daunts people like BillOreilly or quantumushroom from posting outrageous stuff anyway. I don't really see the point of it.

And as we can see from the drive-by downvotes of Messrs. Fisk and Oreilly, a vote from a dumbass is worth just much as a vote from a non-dumbass. Thank you for bolstering my thesis, gentlemen.

EDIT: And CaptainPlanet420 completes the trifecta. I rest my case.

I've seen some good comments get highlighted that I otherwise would have missed. On the whole it works ok but anything involving voting is never going to be perfect. With this system it's up to each user to decide what the arrows mean, at least with text labels that was unambiguous.

The purpose of comment voting is to pander to censorious fuckheads and encourage groupthink.

The correct system is obvious.

I really tried to make the original post as neutral as possible. I wasn't proposing any changes, or trying to argue against current practices. I was just asking for people's opinions. Do I think the change to up/down arrows changed peoples' interpretation of comment voting? Absolutely. But I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing. I personally preferred the original intent, and if there was some general consensus to return to that, great. But I only posted this to get an idea of how everyone viewed the system. The only problem I see is if everyone is treating it differently - it can lead to unnecessary strife. From the dozen or so comments here, it already seems that everyone has their own nuanced view of it. At the very least, I'd hope this post can give users some insight into their own and others' voting behavior.

Farhad, I personally agree with you about the purpose of comment voting (and not particularly caring for it when first introduced), but I don't think a simple change of icons will change users' behavior. I'm not even sure reverting back to the explicit text of 'applaud comment' and 'mark inappropriate' would do it.

The only behavior I really want to see changed is voting based on the commenter (assuming that's happening - and it seems a safe assumption). As with videos, we shouldn't be voting up or down because of who submitted it.

The correct system is obvious.
Self flagellation?

It is important to realize that comment voting is an entirely different animal than video voting.

I upvote a comment for various reasons: It's funny, I agree with it or it's well written for instance.
I downvote for the opposite.

I think maybe the "flag spam" should be changed to something else, because it is not used as it is, and there is rarely any use for it. I mean, how often do we actually see spam here? "Buy cialis now!!!" Maybe it should be renamed to "report" or something.

TERrIFY HER WITh YOR ENoRRMUS COCK!!

Sekrit chinese herbal remedys GARANTEED to werk! No mor small Johnsen, no mor laffter at gym, no mor tears, except for her wen you TEAR her APARTT!! Canadiens alreddy have these in farmacies, wich is why they take our WOMMAN!

No mor only nights, no mor masturbing. OrDER NOW!

I stand corrected..

I love it how it is.

adapt or die. you can't force what isn't so. you either have a voting system where people vote as they please, or you have no voting system at all.