Right now you can vote for ideas, but you should also allow people to vote against ideas.
60 Comments
60 Comments
Who voted for this idea
- miked
- delta407
- masa
- paul
- josh
- severud
- meilleur
- duhriddler
- banditz71
- Brian Watters
- ilgaz
- hyper
- Nathan
- otto888
- jcechoey
- Chris
- eatpie75
- dolric
- Steve
- mindlesstux
- gamer8519
- cooner750
- Leandro Ardissone
- skypuppy
- dauphin
- contarc
- vxjasonxv
- troubledwine
- infinity306
- keloran
- foxtyke
- rytis
- ataub2qf
- os2mac
- coda_it
- war59312
- hesspaul
- mtcosysad
- Elisamuel
- akkinenirajesh
- giantsfanatic
- jasongillyon
- Jamison Kissh
- geeknik
- finkregh
- jshier
- holden
- o2mcgovem
- willwill
- ubersolid
Comments
Vote against them in the comments? We thought about letting you vote ideas down, but then decided people would just not vote for them to convey their dislike of an idea...
Perhaps we were wrong. :-)
I think you are. If you have, say 10000 customers and 200 vote for an idea, then by that methodology 200 have voted in favour and 9800 have voted against. By having 'voting down' as an option it gives people the chance to express their opinion.
written by skylineschool 73 days ago
Rating: 0
| Rate Comment:
I think that voting down is a good thing. And maybe instead of votes, you could do percentage. 90% of the users think this is a good idea, 50% think this is a good idea and so on.
Id have to say the ability to change a vote would be the best option.
How about a rating for the idea, rather than voting it down?
written by pschneider 637 days ago
Rating: 12
| Rate Comment:
Lee's idea could definitely work. Maybe a 1-5 rating on how much you like the idea? This way it's not so much voting for or against it, but rather just how good of an idea you think it is.
If I don't agree with an idea I don't vote for it.
I don't like your idea. I'm voting it down. LOL
written by Homer T. Nacho Cheese 630 days ago
Rating: 11
| Rate Comment:
I have voted for a thing or two here by accident when I first started. I thought the Vote link would allow me to put in a yes or no vote, but all it did was immediately assign a yes vote. We need to be able to change our votes.
Also, a 1 to 5 vote is still a Yes/"no vote" since a vote of 1 - "I don't know", 2 - "well, maybe", 3 - "OK", 4 - "Good idea", and 5 - "Great Idea".
Instead of 1 to 5, maybe -5 to +5. Using a 1-5 with 1 meaning heck no and 5 meaning heck yes (and 3 being indifferent) is statistically useless due to low variance in the responses.
We should have some way of saying "Hey, this idea is dumb!" and be able to quantify it so that those who will implement it have some usable metric for making the decision. Maybe an idea will need to sit until it has 30 or more votes with an average score of 3.5 or better before being considered for implementation. Ideas that stay in the negative can go into a new "bad ideas" category (in case someone suggest it later, we can refer them to the bad idea).
It is important to note that a non-vote does not mean a yes or a no vote. 50 votes for an idea does not make it a good idea unless we can compare it to the "no" votes.
Why not just a yes or no vote and a timer on the idea like an expiration on how long the idea will be listed before its denied or accepted. Denied or accepted by how many chose yes over no.
written by Homer T. Nacho Cheese 618 days ago
Rating: 10
| Rate Comment:
Voting down ideas works well with our ERP vendor. The vendor uses the same process to determine which new features should go into a product. Some ideas may be great ideas, but could have drastically negative effects on certain customers.
With OpenDNS, ranking can still be based on positive votes, or even total number of votes, rather than positves minus negatives. And the more active members are creating more positive votes than the inactive members, just as they would also create more negative votes than the inactive members.
Voting down would allow the staff to see how many customers do not want an idea implemented. With comments alone, it is difficult to make such a determination with only a handful of comments. Comments only tell you the opinions of those who want to spend the time making comments, not the general opinion of -all- customers. Right now, the data is greatly skewed towards positive results.
If nothing is done, at least the staff will still be reading the comments to make the proper judgements.
All -- appreciate this conversation.
Here's the current thinking.
1. Keep it simple. (+1 or nothing, rather than a scale)
2. No reason to be negative.
3. No specific threshold or minimum... we want to see what ideas gather attention and votes, and do our best to match up these voting interests with our plans (and change our plans where the voting makes that clear!).
Curious if people find that the real concern is not finding all the possible ideas which might matter to them?
Does this idea carry weight in that regard?
http://ideabank.opendns.com/story.php?title=Idea_Bank_let_us_hide_ideas_we_dont_care_about
written by jesusabides 513 days ago
Rating: 10
| Rate Comment:
We're not trying to be negative, we're trying to tell you what ideas and improvements we could care less about. Simply put, your scales would be more accurate if you received more data.
I see both sides of this,
Can't we have a "Rate idea" +/- next to the "VOTE"? This can provide a sort of barometer for the Staff.
Take for example blocking Google Adult images. This seems like a good idea, but doesn't seem very feasible to a tool like OpenDNS. Eventually it will be all image search engines. People should be able to RATE an idea a + or - even if you can only vote FOR an idea. vote.
That way you can see how "hot" a popular idea may be. A popular idea may have a lot of people who think it may be a poor idea to implement.
If many "good ideas" that aren't good for OpenDNS are on the top of the list then some idea farther down the list are hidden and not voted on as frequently.
written by trojanhorse 597 days ago
Rating: 0
| Rate Comment:
Ha, if voting down on ideas were possible, your idea itself would have been voted down resulting the idea itself being nullified....... lol, it sounds like we and our granpas in time travel machine.
I like this idea, its ok voting something up, but what value are the votes cast being compared against?
If the votes are merely relative other ideas anything higher up the list is liable to gain votes more on user attention span and not necessarily on its own merit.
With a vote down option, each vote is directly related solely to its own idea, there is your comparsion. I never really understood how merely voting up could give an accurate representaion (unless the number of page visits is quantified and used in some way to normalise the statistics from the votes). You can then order the list of ideas more fairly by accounting for vote downs and using a % figure.
I am clearly not the first person to consider this as "Idea Bank sorting in a more obvious order" which appears on (currently) Page 5, is an alternative method which would have a similar result as I just described above.
Currently, the 'popular' ideas simply remain the most popular because of their prominent position, with lesser excellent ideas receiving few votes due to being 'buried'.
Simple is good, keeping it too simple reduces its value.
written by OpenDNS User 518 days ago
Rating: 0
| Rate Comment:
I don't think value reduction is a serious problem.
You can't lose what you don't have.
Most ideas and comments are utterly bereft of any insight, originality, or evidence of understanding of the underlying concepts.
I am quite sure that if you did a pop quiz of all posters, less than half would be able to explain how OpenDNS works.
And it's dead damned simple.
How can input from these people be of any less value?
Yes, but then we would narrow down the number of ideas. Even people who do not understand the system can give a potentially good idea that can be changed to be compatible with OpenDNS. That's what the comments are for in ideas.
written by infinity306 515 days ago
Rating: 5
| Rate Comment:
not sure if all the blame should be put on opendns.. a lot of the blocking is due to the people at ST bernard being overly strict some times.. luckily Opendns has whitelisted some sites they put on their list such as Youtube..theres also the thing about calling people retards that provide a service that you are not required to use.. nobody is holding a gun to your head...
written by jesusabides 513 days ago
Rating: 0
| Rate Comment:
5 star system is flawed in that one person can vote and automatically give it a 5 star rating. We are not voting on the quality of an idea, we are voting which one is most important and should be addressed first. If we were reviewing products, then the situation would be different.
Voting an idea down will give you more accurate rankings. Instead of only one type of input from the user, you're receiving two different quantifiable types of data to aid your ranking charts. This will produce a more truthful rank.
Not having the "vote down" option is like not installing brakes on your car.
I would agree with this. But let's hope that people don't abuse the vote down system by voting down harmless ideas or ideas that wouldn't impact that person. Then it would be more like installing a wall in front of your car while your driving too fast. :)
Being able to Rate an Idea, Much like a RATE Comment with a +/- 1 wouldn't nullify votes, but would give a measure of how much interest there is in the idea overall.
Thinking exactly the same thing. Maybe the ideas should have the same rating system as the comments.
written by Justin High 463 days ago
Rating: 1
| Rate Comment:
I like this idea. Would like to see the ability to alter or rescind our votes once cast, before the decision is made of course.
It works for Digg. It works for comments. We are allowed to dislike comments, but we are only allowed to like suggestions? Seems a tad flawed if you ask me.
written by thomasboydcomp 453 days ago
Rating: 2
| Rate Comment:
I agree with the idea. I think it should be used as a measure of favorable vs unfavorable opions of an idea.
Often, ideas can have very strong positives that should be weighed against the downside.
written by ssollinger 437 days ago
Rating: 1
| Rate Comment:
I like the idea. It works well on this page:
http://www.aerotaskforce.com/
You would get a more balanced rating of the ideas. Take this one as an example, if someone is completely against it they can vote it down, if someone is not bothered they won't vote at all.
Having an 'anti opendns' comment sure gets a lot of negative rates. Guess they are too senstive to negativity in their direction.
i like the idea of rating the ideas as opposed to voting them up or down.
I was appalled when I clicked on a vote button on one of these and found a positive vote had been registered automatically. Every other polling feature gives you at a bare minimum a yes or no option. This is like the old Communist voting system. You have a vote but you can only vote the way the "party" dictates. This is definitely not a "democratic" community site when a few individuals can dictate how the site operates by posting issues they want to ram through the community and can do it just by posting a Communist-style voting system to dictate policy to the masses. Either have democratic voting or no voting system at all. This is totalitarian rule by the few who want power! You'd better read some of the neutral (not controlled by OpenDNS) discussion boards about OpenDNS where about half the posts are about how oppressive and controlling OpenDNS is and how much that person hates it. Opening up the voting on issues could help to change this image.
written by myuseraccountname 399 days ago
Rating: 3
| Rate Comment:
@Staff
It's not about being negative, it's about being objective and eventually be able to take a vote back (if it turns out in the discussion that the idea wasn't that great)
Also keep in mind that your statement about not wanting it to be a system to allow negative rating is a bit strange. We can rate comments positive and negative so why can't we do the same with the idea they are originating from?
@Staff, if nothing else the overwhelming number of comments here indicate that the users have strong feelings about this issue. Why not take a page from Digg and develop a formula that selects "hot" topics based on factors like number of positive votes, total number of votes, contentiousness (positive vs. negative), number of comments, slope (rate of climb), etc. It seems like a fun sideline project that could only produce better information for both you and the users.
I voted for this at first, but would like to retract. If enough people support an idea, then it should probably be implemented... those of us that disagree with it are under no obligation to use a new feature, for example.
As long as new features are optional, those that dislike them can not use them. If you go to a "no" vote system then make the voter register a comment as to why.
How accurate an opinion do you want?
Even a "vote of confidence" has a "no confidence" option. Counting *only* support for an idea is like voting for public officials based on how many people show up at the polls. If not enough people show up to form a quorum, then what - do we fire the candidate, eliminate the position, or simply keep the election open until we get enough votes? Some issues require information and discussion prior to formulating an opinion.
I like the rating idea. That allows people with weak and strong opinions, on either side (for/against), or no preference at all, to express themselves more accurately, and nobody should feel rushed into voting for anything without due deliberation.
I initially voted for this idea without (doh!) reading the comments. After reading the comments, I was swayed to the side that it is not necessary to vote for/against, however, I feel the ability to retract a vote would be desirable in the event of a "mis-click" or reconsidered vote.
I think +/- is the way to go.
I believe only allowing positive votes is insufficient, it does not allow for a difference between people who don't care and people who are against.
Take the following situations out of 10,000 viewers:
1,000 people for, 8,000 people don't care, 1,000 against
1,000 people for, 8,500 people don't care, 500 against
Both cases would yield 1,000 points currently, but if people could down vote, it becomes clear which feature should be considered and which one should not.
Down voting is not being negative, it's useful positive criticism.
I have only just found this forum. So far this morning I have voted on a couple of ideas that I think are really good. For me they have a great deal more merit than other ideas that have a higher tally of votes. However, at some later stage my priorities may change, or with a bit more thought and some cajoling of others in the forum, I might decide my original vote no longer applies. How would that be reflected?
I think there needs to be some ability to categorise e.g. 1=Wouldn't Use this Feature through to 5="Must Have Yesterday"
written by patheticcockroach 227 days ago
Rating: 4
| Rate Comment:
So, this idea has been there for over a year and is in the top 5 most popular ideas... why isn't it implemented yet, if the plain number of yes votes is enough to decide if an idea is popular (as claimed by those who don't want the no votes to be implemented)?
I see an idea. I think it's stupid, but all I can do is NOT VOTE. Another person sees the same idea, and could care less. They DON'T VOTE, because it's not a concern of theirs. A third person sees sees this idea and thinks it's wonderful, and they VOTE YES. So, three different opinions (yes, "no opinion" is an opinion), but how many opinions are recorded?
Tallying YES and NO votes will record the opinions that do count - "No opinion" people couldn't care either way.
The number of first time voters whom have voted "Yes" for this is an indication of the power a simple "Vote No" can wield.
written by nixhead101 68 days ago
Rating: 0
| Rate Comment:
I for one would like to vote against this idea! lol
written by tompittman7 20 days ago
Rating: 0
| Rate Comment:
What exactly is this person wanting? To prevent others from having features they feel they need, just because he doesn't need it?
Just because you don't like a suggestion, it doesn't mean you should have the right to prevent others from getting a feature they feel they need.
Live and let live.
If OpenDNS adds a feature you don't want to use, so what? Don't use it.
Sign in to comment or register here.
First meta idea about Idea Bank, I think. ;-)