Down voting suggestion

Steven from Spokane Mechanic Posted   Latest  
Discussion
Diagnostic Network

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.

+10

Scott from Claremont

 

Manager
 

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 votes. More on that to come.

Thanks for the feedback.

+6

Bob from West Chicago

 

Mobile Technician
 

Should do the same for the up vote

+5

Randy from Denver

 

Analyst
 

What is the reason for the voting? Feel good? Error correction? Accuracy? Social media norm? Other?

0

Tom from Claremont

 

Engineer
 

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 from the discussions in the past week. (We also plan on a daily summary option.)

The plan is to do what many social sites do, and hide the messages that have a lot of negative votes, while still allowing members to see it all if they want to. 

Eventually this points system will be used to encourage positive contributions/interactions on DN, while discouraging negative. 

High on our list is prompting the member to let us know why they are voting (not only down, but as Bob Heipp mentioned, also when voting up). With this additional context, and the new ability to edit messages, we plan on closing the feedback loop so that a negative vote can actually turn into a positive — encouraging the original poster to fix whatever issues there are in the post, and then alerting the original voter that they may want to reconsider their vote. 

+4

Randy from Denver

 

Analyst
 

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 spent a week hanging with obd engineers for about the 10th time In the last 20 years. I have built some great relationships with some of the most amazing engineers on the planet. In one open session, one of these engineers sat beside me at a table along with 4 more of his coworkers. He intentionally wanted them to meet me so after the introductions we entered into a discussion on PZEV fuel control, multiplicative and adaptive control as well as the influence of the catalyst monitor on fuel control. After over an hour, one of the engineers, who had been quiet with only a few pointed questions, spoke up and told me he is on the patent for the PZEV fuel control used by one of the European auto makers. We spent another hour one on one talking about how you can’t use stft and ltft as a direct percentage of BPW. I have their hand written notes on the calculations they use.

I bring this up because I have seen it (incorrect use of fuel trim numbers) done multiple times here on this forum. Scott posted a case study on it with a Toyota. I waited a week before posting that he had data errors based on a tool that doesn’t understand modern fuel control. He acknowledged that error.

So do you want great contributions without regard to accuracy or do you want accurate posts that may cause anxiety for the poster? We both know which ones get the likes and dislikes.

One last comment and I will go away, I also talked privately with the top obd engineer of a major oe. He told me he regularaly scans IATN to see what’s going on in the repair world. This very issue came up, accuracy, he just grimaced at what he was seeing and I will leave it at that.

+4

Tom from Claremont

 

Engineer
 

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 of the day, the ability to reply to someone allows anyone to share what they believe to be the most correct information. 

0

Scott from Claremont

 

Manager
 

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 can establish a healthy dynamic here in bringing forward the info we should know and understand rather than continuing to believe what we've been told is true. I had a call the other day with one of our members here trying to figure out how to surface your "6 different types of rear O2 fuel control strategies" challenge. I'm open to suggestions.

+3

Randy from Denver

 

Analyst
 

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 that it was a lot of verification research to find out who does what but I have never put this to paper because no one but me cares.

If you want a homework assignment, start asimple thread on total fuel trim and how it is calculated. I know you know at least how some of the OEs do it and I will jump in with approval votes when the answers are correct. Maybe Escan will tell us how they do it.

+2

Steven from Spokane

 

Mechanic
 

"...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?

+3

Randy from Denver

 

Analyst
 

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 and then I had to explain I did not say anything negative about their tool. Funny thing, a year later their tool had that feature fixed but I never got a thank you nor an Appology. Similar thing with instructors and class material. One of the training companies sponsoring here was handed the PZEV fuel control system by me, no compensation either. It was a correction to their class they had written. They refused it and are presenting their version. Mine was confirmed, yet again, by the engineer that has the patent to the process. 

In this industry, accuracy is not important nor is it desired. Monetizing information takes preciedence over accuracy. I understand and accept the status quo so I choose to help technicians on a one on one basis. A large amount of my time during the day is devoted to just that And I really enjoy that direct approach. Maybe it’s my safe space. 😀

So after writing this, I’m about to delete it like I have done so many times before but I think I will go ahead and post it this time and see what kind of trouble I get into this time. 

+9

Rudy from Montebello

 

Technician
 

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.... 😁

+1

Steven from Spokane

 

Mechanic
 

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.👍

0

Chris from Commack

 

Diagnostician
 

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 withheld for monetary gain, etc...

SO AM I

So are so many people. 

I, and others like me are working very hard to change this. Maybe its because many of us are still young and not beaten into the earth yet, but we have a passion for making this industry better than when we came into it. The cause is growing. Many people share the same passion. My question to you is; why not join us? 

It's clear you still have passion, otherwise you wouldn't have written anything or have gotten upset. 

If you're worried about upsetting a tool manufacturer, screw 'em. Maybe if they listen to good honest feedback about how their tool won't do the job 99.9% of the people would use it for, improvements can be made. If they can't/won't, then the market has an answer for that

As far as the monetizing on information, that's a double edged sword. Good classes should cost something. As someone who's put material together, I know how much work it takes to make quality stuff. My issue is, there should be a way to get this info to the masses. Maybe after a while, this material should be released and the industry as a whole can benefit from that. Nobody gets anywhere by sitting still. If techs don't want to better themselves, they need to move over for the next generation who will replace them. Likewise, if trainers refuse to change with the times, people who will provide the next level of education will replace them.

I know I might be ruffling a lot of feathers by writing this, but I am VERY passionate about this. 

So I ask again, come join us. Only by working together can we change things. This is my goal. My passion. 

+5

Brin from Melbourne

 

Diagnostician
 

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. 

+3

Tanner from Wellford

 

Instructor
 

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 companies. It’s human nature to be defensive. This is something I think this group can help with. We all want to learn together.

With that being said those with vast amounts of knowledge sometimes come off a little harsh. This is because they forget how far above the avg Joe they may be. This is where I believe we can all learn something. we all need to remember that everyone is on a different level in this field, some are geniuses and some are just starting out. Those just starting out be accepting of the older guys that may be kind of harsh I promise they don’t mean to be. Those that are older and wiser remember that not only are some of us still young but what knowledge we have was taught to us by someone. So if that knowledge is wrong it’s not our fault, we were taught that. Be patient and help to correct that.

Randy this is for you and the rest of the older and wiser generation in this group. We can’t learn if guys like yourself keep all that knowledge to yourself and don’t share it. Worried about us being taught incorrectly? We won’t have that chance if guys like you are the ones teaching us. It takes good teachers to grow good students.

The ball is now in your court my friend, are you going to help us get better or watch us fail? By the way I can think of a small group of young individuals that would love a one on one session.

+5

Chris from Commack

 

Diagnostician
 

Me too

0

Jim from Frederick

   

Curriculum Developer
   

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.

+1

Scott from Claremont

 

Manager
 

Thanks Jim, today we have V1 and in the future we plan to add features which will effectively transfer value to each vote and deliver transparency as well. 

+1