Forum:A thing about disagreements on VFH

Forums: Index > Village Dump > A thing about disagreements on VFH

Note: This topic has been unedited for 4189 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

Simply put, they break the system. We have, maybe, at most, 12 active voters now, myself not included (I'm part of the problem). The system we have for VFH was developed when we averaged about 20. Even with 8 dissents from a positive opinion, we could still get an article featured at +12 or +13 easy. Needless to say, the times have moved past us and we've done jack shit to scale down and cope.

There are two resolutions I can think of:

1. We revamp VFH completely or semi-completely, with the following changes:
   • We eliminate "against" voting, and all quibbles about the article are brought up in comments only. Much fewer articles will find themselves deadlocked. Plus, the "easy way out" inhibiting article improvement is gone. If you think the article is not good enough for feature, then you're shit out of luck if you just want to bitch about it and walk away. It is your responsibility now to fix it yourself and/or offer constructive criticism instead. Quit being a dick who's breaking the fucking system you bitch cunt cmon man.
   • That's the big change I got.
2. We do nothing and look like a bunch of LOOOOOOOOOSSSSEEERRRRSSSSSSS.

So that's my idea. Talk about it? Or vote? I dunno. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 01:22, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

I disagree though I can see Uncyclopedia's active user base has declined. Since we have done away with Pee Review for the same reason, this means any article can be nominated and featured once it gets enough votes, regardless whether it is full of red links, incoherent, written in 'Ingrish' or a host of other issues. Who would then decide that an article like that should be on the front page of this site? --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 07:12, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

While I appreciate the sentiment driving TKF's notion here, I'm with Romartus against eliminating Against. voting. To use a term I got in trouble for using before, the danger of having to feature successful "shitnoms" is too high. The featured article is our first impression. While the time factor certainly mitigates that risk, still. I shudder. I can appreciate the "Edit it and fix it or offer ideas to fix it if you don't like it" sentiment also, but that is impractical. Some underschooled RoboCop fanboy nominates ED-209, for instance, and now I have to actually dignify the article (not to mention the shitnom) with an attempt to un-not-featureable-ize it via my own editing? Or even some undercooked pee review? No no no. Not flying. Let's maybe brainstorm an option 3. -- GlobalTourniquet: UnAstrologer, UnJournalist, shameless narcissistic America-hating liberal atheist award-winning featured writer 16:38, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

I too am annoyed that a single No vote can sometimes be a veto. (Froggy, on that token, I hope that your vote against my Paul Ryan was meant merely as a vote against the flesh-and-blood Paul Ryan, which you are free to cast--next Wednesday, I believe.) That is a consequence of the lower participation, which we have acted to boost by frequent nagging in the banner. Though I would prefer that any opponent show me a way to improve my article rather than veto it, I don't think speech controls are the solution. I usually express my opposition as a Comment in the vote, reserving No votes to cases where a nomination seems intended to prank the main page with junk rather than deliver value to the reader (notably, even a first-time visitor).

GT raises a separate issue, which is that Noobies are deciding that the fact that they have completed their first article means they are ready for main-page featuring. This is a cultural thing best solved by education. However, if there is no one left, I don't know how you educate them.

Separately, I have never understood the "Health" metric, except that you can kill any article by waiting until the passage of time gives it a low Health. Spıke Ѧ 23:12 30-Oct-12

Nomination vetting committee?

Hmmmm. Option 3 could be some kind of vetting committee for VFH nominations. Actual VFH nominations would be by this committee only, while VFH candidates could be submitted to a "for VFH consideration" queue that anyone can submit to. Then, any member of the VFH committee can look through the submissions and reject or accept any of them as actual VFH nominations. Then I think we could safely do away with against votes - members of the whole community would simply vote "for", or not vote. Discussion appropriate. Membership in the VFH committee would be by (accepted) invitation, and committee members could bypass the vetting queue and nominate any article. Just throwing the idea out there. Would that be too much of a bottleneck? -- GlobalTourniquet: UnAstrologer, UnJournalist, shameless narcissistic America-hating liberal atheist award-winning featured writer 23:04, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

I think further complicating the system will not be effective in simplifying it. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 00:03, October 27, 2012 (UTC)

You are correct, Frosty. But simplifying it was not the stated goal in this thread. Which isn't to say simplifying it is not desirable, but the goal TKF is hoping to reach - rectifying the problem of the against votes deadlocking some articles due to the low voting population - requires some process adjustment, whether simplifying or not. -- GlobalTourniquet: UnAstrologer, UnJournalist, shameless narcissistic America-hating liberal atheist award-winning featured writer 00:56, October 27, 2012 (UTC)

Not sure about a VFH committee. One idea would be to give every article that receives a good Pee Review, can go forward to VFH with an extra vote in favour. The should mean the writer, the reviewer and 'Pee' would give an article a standing start of three votes in favour and with a good chance to create a bandwagon. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 11:27, October 27, 2012 (UTC)

Yikes! what next, an Electoral College?! Spıke Ѧ 23:12 30-Oct-12

Just lower the amount of votes necessary for featuring

It's an intricate solution. --Imrealized ...hmm? 12:27, October 27, 2012 (UTC)

True. Fewer users means fewer votes, obviously. It's very frustrating to have an article gather up some steam and just crash because of low health issues all thanks to a handful of Against. votes. Very much in favor of keeping such votes though. But getting one or two of them shouldn't amount to throwing a spanner in the works. --Lord Scofield Stark 14:09, October 27, 2012 (UTC)

It's also a solution that's been enacted multiple times to zero effect but further and further dwindling. First 16, then 14, then 12, and now 10, which itself is getting harder to reach each passing day. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 07:38, October 28, 2012 (UTC)

This must be one of the epic VFH battles of all time: Uncyclopedia:VFH/Filial_Piety_(∞) --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 20:24, October 30, 2012 (UTC)

I still remember Under User's betrayal that shifted the tide of the war. A lot of good votes died that day... *sniff* -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 21:54, October 30, 2012 (UTC)

The need to find new articles to feature will tend to adapt the thresholds to whatever participation exists at the time. Just keep featuring the most popular articles according to vote on VFH. Spıke Ѧ 23:12 30-Oct-12

Not so much a betrayal, I thought, as a 180 degree pivot with a lot of grace and not a hint of bitterness. --UU - natter 06:33, Nov 5

Negative votes

Whatever the new system, I really think negative votes should be allowed. Even though Ive never ever voted against an article on VFH, I can see good reason to have it. Im not sure vetting team is a good idea. Its so totally subjective, and being an admin or regular user is no reason to have a semi-rubber stamp. Im sure we can figure out some solution --ShabiDOO 03:08, November 2, 2012 (UTC)

A Battle of the Bands? A chilli cook-off? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 05:50, November 2, 2012 (UTC)