14 Comments

Sloth/Mod

Same would happen as with the voting system...........it would be abused.

Syzable;3403315

Same would happen as with the voting system...........it would be abused.




yes - same way as certain deals are voted cold for no apparent reason - whether they dont like the shop or product - you wouldnt get an unbiased view

sounds good in theory but not in practice

Banned

i like the idea but each vote should be acompanied by a comment as it should be when voting hot or cold on deals

fragaliciousbob;3403370

i like the idea but each vote should be acompanied by a comment as it … i like the idea but each vote should be acompanied by a comment as it should be when voting hot or cold on deals



this has often been quoted on posts regarding cold voting - some day maybe :thumbsup:

Banned

holly100;3403409

this has often been quoted on posts regarding cold voting - some day … this has often been quoted on posts regarding cold voting - some day maybe :thumbsup:



its easy enough to code into the system just dont know why the powers that be dont want to improve the site

Original Poster

Syzable;3403315

Same would happen as with the voting system...........it would be abused.



holly100;3403329

yes - same way as certain deals are voted cold for no apparent reason - … yes - same way as certain deals are voted cold for no apparent reason - whether they dont like the shop or product - you wouldnt get an unbiased viewsounds good in theory but not in practice



If we could only vote once for a particular retailer every 3 months or so, then this would be fairer?


Everything is open to abuse, but I think that my suggestion would give a more honest approach instead of 3 or 4 comments as soon as a deal is submitted that can as does have a huge impact on how it goes.

fragaliciousbob;3403441

its easy enough to code into the system just dont know why the powers … its easy enough to code into the system just dont know why the powers that be dont want to improve the site




yes - if they did a quick survey of members i think 'voting cold without valid reason' would be at top of list - as you say it must be an easy thing to programme(im no techie)

[SIZE="2"]I'm deviating somewhat, but I don't think compulsory comments for cold votes is the way to go (although I usually do). When the 'free bible' post was posted recently, I voted cold, but to say why I voted cold would have taken far too long as I had far too many reasons for voting cold.

Sometimes it's obvious why a deal gets voted cold. If for example a PS3 gets posted at £399 with no extras, it will, I expect, get voted super-cold by hundreds of members and if all had to say it's cold because it's overpriced is pointless repitition.

We often complain that we don't want to live in a 'nanny state' in which the government intervenes more and more, so why would we want HUKD to become 'nanny-state' like? It goes against the concept of "deal anarchy from the masses" when anarchy means unstructured, non-regulated, spontaneous, uncoerced etc etc etc.[/SIZE]

Original Poster

[SIZE="2"]Can I add that this is not a "Vote cold" thread. [/SIZE]

Sloth/Mod

Also......all the price comparisson sites already do this.

Original Poster

I am not sure if we are talking about the same thing, I concede that my OP isn't very clear.

The "Retailer rating" would be carried forward from each deal posted from that retailer, not voted on for each particular deal. So if 10 people with full voting power all voted the same, it wouldn't be as detrimental as when they vote for any individual deal.

Price comparison sites may do this(I don't use them), but, I think it would be useful if HUKD had one incorporated.

The people who vote cold, or in this case would negative companies are a small minority. If a deal is hot, it will get there in the end. I like this idea, it gives an 'overall' opinion of companies, and will become more and more important as new companies start having sales. Maybe something based on the heat of the companies previous deals, combined with a simple vote hot or cold on the company

I think this is a good idea as it doesn't need to be fancy, just a five star rating which is shown alongside the merchant in the deal possibly along with the number of votes. Even if it was abused it's likely the rating would balance out over time which you'd be able to establish from the number of votes. It would need some sort of restriction which I guess once per deal is probably the easiest although does leave it more open for abuse.

John

windhoek;3403537

[SIZE="2"]I'm deviating somewhat, but I don't think compulsory comments … [SIZE="2"]I'm deviating somewhat, but I don't think compulsory comments for cold votes is the way to go (although I usually do). When the 'free bible' post was posted recently, I voted cold, but to say why I voted cold would have taken far too long as I had far too many reasons for voting cold. Sometimes it's obvious why a deal gets voted cold. If for example a PS3 gets posted at £399 with no extras, it will, I expect, get voted super-cold by hundreds of members and if all had to say it's cold because it's overpriced is pointless repitition. We often complain that we don't want to live in a 'nanny state' in which the government intervenes more and more, so why would we want HUKD to become 'nanny-state' like? It goes against the concept of "deal anarchy from the masses" when anarchy means unstructured, non-regulated, spontaneous, uncoerced etc etc etc.[/SIZE]




:thumbsup:
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text