(Sorry, I spend a lot of time editing posts, but at the end of the day, I'm just verbose.)

I don't like the voting system.

In concept, it's not bad: a very simple system where you just mark which images you like. The implementation isn't so simple and is internally inconsistent.

It's not simple: the practice of +2'ing a post by favoriting it and voting for turns it into a scaled voting system, but it's a very convoluted mechanism to do that.

It's internally inconsistent. For me, a +1 is subjective; a -1 is objective. I +1 a post to say "I like this; post more". A -1 means "something's wrong with this post" (bad scan, etc). This means it's not inconceivable that I'd want to +1 *and* -1 a post! Adding votes by these metrics together is completely meaningless.

And, of course, it means we have to guess why someone -1's a post.

I've been thinking about a more traditional scaled system.

Votes: -2 to +2. All votes are subjective: vote whether you like the image or not. Objective objections need to go somewhere else. [1]

A 0 vote maps to no vote; a +1 maps to a +1; a +2 maps to +1 and favorite. (However, unlike now, you can favorite something and vote +1, or +2 it without favoriting.) A -1 and -2 means you simply don't like it artistically, which has no equivalent right now.

Favoriting a post +2's it if you havn't already voted, but otherwise leaves it alone.

If a "summed" scale is available (like now), a -1 or -2 vote will be counted as a 0. The sum is how many people like it (eg. "people like this, so post more"), not how much people on average like the art. I don't care if several people don't like an art style; that's true for every post. I only care that some people do like it. This is tolerant of people voting down posts randomly. All it'll do is make his own recommendations, etc. wrong.

Votes can be traditionally combined. There are endless mechanisms for this and plenty of experimentation can be done here; bayesian filtering, recommended posts, improvements to "similar users", etc.

All votes are logged. They may or may not be publically visible. I don't think this is a privacy issue--favorites are already visible. This is needed for any nontrivial statistical use of the votes. It also means you can view posts you've voted for (not just ones you've favorited). You can see how you voted before, and change your votes. You can no longer vote for the same post twice. (Right now you can; it only stops you from voting twice in a row, if someone else votes on a post you can vote again. I'm sure I've done this accidentally many times.)

I havn't figured out anonymous voting yet. It's not without value, and I've found sites that ask me to sign up just to say I like something obnoxious. I'm also not sure how to deal with existing votes; favorites could easily be transferred, but remaining votes are harder, and it wouldn't be good to reset them all (few people will ever go back and re-vote). We'll never have the resolution of information for old posts that we'll have for new ones (oh well).

(full stop)

[1]: Objective objections need to go somewhere else.

Having two voting systems is a non-starter; nobody would understand it. It doesn't really make sense to have actual voting based on objective issues, anyway. I don't care if one person or five people say that an image has bleed-through; if it has bleed-through and one person says so, then that's enough.

Maybe we should just use tags for this. "bleed_through", "crease", "screening", "gap", "blurry", "levels", "binding_discoloration". These are mostly types of "fixme".

mm, not bad imo, i'd be ok with that but i'd prefer something more direct..for example you can +1 -1 a post and favoriting it makes +2. Instead if you want to -1 a post, you have to leave a reason, for example "screening" or "bleed", nothing long to make drama about it, just a single word. That would make all understand why you -1'd a post, instead of just wondering "who the fuck -1'd this post..why?". This also prevents random newfags from -1'ing randomly (yes i think that happens a lot).

Honestly, I barely look at the votes an image receives and usually the amount of positive votes correlates with the amount of nudity in the picture. Of course, nothing is wrong with people doing that, but it does make the voting appear less credible. Comments are a much better way of letting people approve of a picture (though members here don't really do that.) Maybe we should encourage commenting a little more?

I already comment as much as I care to; comments aren't a substitute for a decent scoring system (no more than the reverse). There's no "fix" for people voting for nudity (since it's not really a bug), but there's a lot of room for general improvement.

Just get rid of score.

A list of registered users who like or dislike the image will be more then sufficient.

Radioactive said:
Just get rid of score.

A list of registered users who like or dislike the image will be more then sufficient.

Then why not ignore it? Getting rid of the score would break the popular pages and would need a major change of code

Then why not ignore it? Getting rid of the score would break the popular pages and would need a major change of code

Seeing as a re-write of the site code would be needed, I'll have a think about how we could improve the current system.

I never really liked the scoring system myself especially when a perfectly good post gets -1 or worse.

I guess a more tags related to fixme would help with figuring out why it got voted down.

I used the voting system back on danbooru, the first early builds but left as it was kinda useless to being with (other than I just forgot about the voting system)

I favor the pics I like, but I don't vote for em. Some tend to stay anonymous and just vote, and don't even leave a comment on why they did/didn't like it, not favor em. Most pics that I have on my drives, I tend to remove from the "favor section" and the same goes for those that I have "fixed".

The fact that I would probly favor + comment, well.. that would just fill up the comment section ^^

I'm going to add tags when I vote stuff down due to scan 'issues'

Do we need to add to this list?

bleed_through , crease , screening , gap , blurry , levels , binding_discoloration , tear , stapled

Be warned that "censored" & "signed" tags would normally lead to deletion.

Radioactive said:
I'm going to add tags when I vote stuff down due to scan 'issues'

Do we need to add to this list?

bleed_through , crease , screening , gap , blurry , levels , binding_discoloration , tear , stapled

Be warned that "censored" & "signed" tags would normally lead to deletion.

How about that that you add tags such as those with a specific color, that way people can work together and add things such as bleed through, gaps, dust etc.

Choose a color that doesn't fit with the "general" tags..

Kamisama said:
How about that that you add tags such as those with a specific color, that way people can work together and add things such as bleed through, gaps, dust etc.

Choose a color that doesn't fit with the "general" tags..

I think it is a good idea for a separate category for fixme tags. Although I can't really think of a category name for it.

I think it is a good idea for a separate category for fixme tags. Although I can't really think of a category name for it.

Restoration?

Radioactive said:
Restoration?

decided on faults category, the color for it is red, unless there's a better color people can suggest (http://moe.imouto.org/post/show/18265/) for example.

looks good

I'm started to tag scans which I see have 'issues'

Is anyone going to tackle the older scans?