Analyzing 4300 Votes On Your Comments

About 3 months ago, we rolled out a new voting system for comments. There have now been over 4300 votes.


Across the 4 categories offered, voting break down was:

  • 2185 agree
  • 966 funny
  • 702 informative
  • 463 disagree

So overall, you are a bretty agreeable, funny bunch. Who knew....

Top 9 vote getters ranged from 108 to 212 votes.

601 members got at least 1 vote. Mean was 7.2, median was 2.

What Next?

I think we should add a 'not helpful' / 'off topic' option as a way to flag comments that do not add to the conversation.

I also think we should promote voting more to remind members about voting.

Paying / Rewarding Top Vote Getters

One thing I am considering is paying members who get a higher number of votes. X dollars for Y votes, etc. I think this would be a nice way to reward / recognize people who share valuable insights. What do you think?

Note: We have not analyzed who got what votes, how the vote number compared to comments entered, etc. but we will in the near future.

It’s a good idea, I think it would encourage higher quality comments and more participation. A couple of years ago Amazon introduced the “Verified Purchase” and “Vine Voice” it brought in a ton of people who regularly purchase/participate in the Amazon community.

1 informative = $1 account credit?

Not sure what the right level is yet. Would like the 'best' commenters, judged by the community's votes, to get their membership effectively paid for.

At least we'll find out who is the IPVM Class Clown.

Lol, that is true.

IPVM Funny rankings :)

IPVM Most Disagreed With

Ahem. Right here, buddy.


Rhodes gets quite a lot of funny votes too but on a pound for pound, comment for comment, basis, I don't think anyone's going to touch Ari.

...pound for pound, comment for comment...

To recognize such high-density contributors, perhaps the ratio of total words/total up-votes could be calculated? Anything under 10 would be quite impressive...

Comparing an Admin's vote total and a regular Member's vote total is problematic since Members would expect an Admin can see the origin of the cast vote, even if the Admin cannot or may not choose to do so.

This expectation may give an otherwise unmotivated member an additional incentive to vote-up the Admin or vote-down someone that the Admin is currently debating. As a intended show of personal support for that Admin.

Conversely, this expectation would likely have an even greater reductionary effect on any direct down-voting of the Admin, and/or the up-voting of any Member seen in opposition.

Because normally down-voters would rather not have their identity known by the person that they down-voted.

Never even thought of that and have too many more important things to do than analyze votes and plan counter tactics.

Of course you wouldn't think of that. You can freely down-vote whomever you like without them knowing the source. Members though cannot do the same to you. Whether you 'think' of it or not, it is only human nature that this has a real effect.

You try getting a truly anonymous unhelpful or two and then you too might have to rationalize it somehow... ;)

That's your interpretation of human nature. You can worry about who downvotes you CD. The rest of us will focus on more important things.

The clown is always crying on the inside, Ari.

Woah. Too much philosophy for a Monday morning.

A member emailed me suggesting that we use these votes for 'peer recognition' / stars. I think this is a good idea. For example, next to top commenter's names in discussions, we place some special identifier.

I think it would be useful to do both.

A lot of this discussion sounds like Stack Overflow. I suspect that emulating some of what that site models would work here as well.

StackOverflow is strictly a Q&A site and mostly on specific technical scenarios like "Query Users who have all requested records in two tables."

IPVM discussions have some tightly defined q&a topics but a lot of it is more general discussion that does not fit as well into the more constrained StackOverflow model.

John, in addition to the "off topic/not helpful" maybe discussions that are started due to problems or questions could be marked as "solved" once a solution has been provided. I have seen this feature used on other sites and it is helpful to the OP. Members who post the solution could receive an identifier as you mentioned above.

I think IPVM already does this. I know "Solved" was added to the end of one of my discussion titles.

Choppy Video Discussion

Jerome, thank you for that link. Was that addes by you or the admin? What I had in mind was a way for the OP to indicate it has been solved and give credit to the member who solved it.

It must of been admin, because I didn't do it. Actually, and I may be wrong, but I don't think the OP can edit the original post.


That's a good idea. As Jerome mentions, we do that manually / ocassionally but it would be better if we made it more systematic. I'll queue that up as a new feature.

Also, we'll add in some way to give special bonus points / recognition if a specific member solved it.

Thanks again!


Pay for votes???.... hmmm sounds like Tammany Hall John! LOL

Well in this tactic, I am paying not for votes for me, but for votes for all of you!

The more all of you vote, the more I will have to pay out to members :)

I am looking for ways to respect / reward / recognize members who add value with your comments.

Just 'yankin your chain' good buddy....! You and all your team have a great holiday!

The one shot voting on various topics is a good and efficient method for taking the pulse of the IPVM community.

My 2 cents.


I like the poles as to the nature of them, lets you comment w/out getting in to big discussions and details the drag on. Simple answers, adding other icons would be great.

poles, surveys, etc are only as accurate, or good as the quantity, quality, and reason for votes

who, what, why, where does it really apply to where you live in the world

Note: 'unhelpful' has been added in as a voting option.

The goal of 'unhelpful' is when you believe something is either very clearly wrong or way off topic. This is a way to recognize / discourage bad comments.

Way ahead of ya...already used it.

I think all of these choices are subjective. I may "agree" where someone else may find it "unhelpful". That doesn't mean it was a "bad comment" or that it should be discouraged. If you use that metric to "recognize/discourage" you might have the unintentional affect of discouraging comments altogether. Some commenters may not be brave enough to put a comment out there if others calling it unhelpful might get them chastised for making bad comments. I think policing the site for bad comments or off topic stuff should remain in the administrators hands.

Meghan, I marked your comment 'informative' but that, of course, is subjective :)

Will see how 'unhelpful' is used. If it discourages good comments, we will re-assess.

The problem is that there are some comments that are in a gray area, not necessarily justifying us deleting them but not quality either. I am hoping that 'unhelpful' allows people to provide that feedback. If it causes more problems than it is worth, I will pull it.

You must be competing for the IPVM Class Clown award? :)

I'll try to brave it out and continue posting comments but if my ego gets dented I may go dark!

Love all the tools & comments - keep them coming.

Would it be possible to make hitting Agree, Disagree, etc. a second time would undo your previous vote? Within a grace period perhaps? Mainly for cases of inadvertent fat fingered flicks.

Not being able to fix mistakes makes showering with an IPad more difficult than it need be.

Yes, we rolled this out last week (first click - votes, second click - unvotes).

I have not verified whether this works on an iPad.

You shower with your iPad?

You shower with your iPad?

No silly, of course not! I haven't showered since voting started...