Down voting suggestion
A suggestion for implementing the down votes in a constructive manner.
In order to down vote a post, you could make it so that the person has to give the reason for the down vote, and to make sure it is for a constructive reason, you could make it so that the person down voting has to choose from a predefined list of common acceptable reasons.
This way the person who got voted down will know what they need to improve on, and you (the site developer) get to make the list of acceptable reasons so that it is always for a good and helpful reason.
It seems like we went from some people down voting at times, to having no one down vote anymore at all. Maybe we can bring it back in a more positive and helpful way.
Hi Steven, Great idea and this is in our plan. Understanding the reason for the downvote will help us help the member receiving it. If the downvote reason is for lack of info, etc, we want to help the author correct it. Communication can be challenging at times and if we can help folks improve, we all benefit. Another consideration is a voting bank where one has to budget the use of their
What is the reason for the voting? Feel good? Error correction? Accuracy? Social media norm? Other?
We plan on building a points system that can be used for many different features down the road. The primary benefit to the voting right now is that it can be used to highlight great contributions, and hide poor contributions from the default view. We're building a weekly email newsletter that members will be able to subscribe to if they don't want as much email, but still want the highlights
Ok, social engineering. I was afraid of that. When you say great contributions, I don’t see anything about technical accuracy in that term and it bothers me. Technical and scientific fields have long embraced pier review as an acceptable method for Achieving accuracy but it can be a brutal process for the author. Corrections are inherently negative, there’s no other way to view them. I just
Obviously we want everyone to share accurate info and to correct errors in the information they share when those issues are raised. I would assume someone that responds with data corrections would receive upvotes if they contribute those corrections in a civil manner, and I would hope that with the ability to edit messages, the original poster would correct information when needed. At the end
Randy, thanks for the input. Discussions like you've outlined are exactly what we're looking for here. I'm sure I'm like others who want to continue learning (and un-learning) what's right and wrong and of course, why that is. I missed that trip to SAE-OBD this year and look forward to the next one here in So Cal. Do you have a link to that PZEV fuel control patent? I strongly believe that we
I do not have a link, I haven’t looked for it yet. As far as the rear o2, I don’t have that organized in any usable form meaning most of it is in my head. As far as sources, SAE papers dating back to the 1990s will give you a chronological picture of how it has matured and changed over time. Other sources were the engineers themselves either in SAE presentations or over an adult beverage. After
"...I waited a week before posting that he had data errors..." "...[top obd engineer] just grimaced at what he was seeing and I will leave it at that..." Why not jump in from the start and help out?
Because The error is in the tool and I think that company sponsors here and is very popular. I don’t need that kind of grief. For example, several years ago a tool rep was in a class I was not teaching but I was asked on why I needed a certain tool. It had to do with accuracy. Well, that tool rep was upset because his could not do that and he contacted the company which contacted my supervisor
I get it,you dont need any stink and prefer not stir the pot. However sitting on the side lines watching us average shmoes discuss information and ideas that are patently wrong or false dosent help us. How are we to know what we dont know? Personally I've always enjoyed your......eh..... gruff style of correcting people. Though Im sure Im in the minority. Looking forward to your down votes…
I was speaking about the big picture, not just that one case, but I see where you are coming from now that you have explained it.👍
Hey Randy, we've never spoken, and I'm totally expecting to get a verbal lashing after writing this. I feel the same way you do about a lot of things. I was actually having a very similar conversation with one of my co workers. They too are sick of the status quo. Tired of the tool manufacturers putting out equipment that will not do it's job as advertised. Tired of good useful information being
Randy. I'm a little disappointed that you're more comfortable in your safe place because a great deal of us could use being set straight by you from time to time. I'll just have to be thankful when we hear from you on here. I do, however hope to learn how to take advantage of these one on one's that you mentioned.
Randy, I want to start by saying I am glad to see you still have the passion to help technicians one on one. I don’t believe I’ve ever had the chance to meet you yet but I would like to. Sometimes when we try to talk to individuals and critique them it’s hard to do so without upsetting someone. I believe this is what you have experienced talking with some of the tool companies and training
My feeling is this. The number of ups AND downs should be visible and the person that voted. That will create a transparent system of peer review as well as fend off some potential challenges. I would be willing to publicly support any feedback I give.