What does it all mean? Yes? No? What is your take?

My personal interpretation:

Green: The environment, social justice, diplomacy

Red: Paris Hilton

Your right stopnoise, I doubt whether consistent red-lighters are being monitored, and wish there was a way to do that.

However, I doubt if current would want to post the now anonymous negative vote, since that might start a lot of "fights" or vindictive back-to-you voting. People with outwardly negative viewpoints on a pod or story, will usually write something, but most people just want to remain hidden.

In the end, I think we'll have to depend on the staff to form a better system, or choose a different site to post on.

I honestly think the voting system is a joke. It doesn’t do what its supposed to do. If anything it’s a load of bull that helps current.com claim its VC2 format is holier then the rest of the news media.

A “democratic news media” is about as realistic as a presidential election. First off the votes from current staff members hold more weight then your average Joe. So apparently the ability to wear knit hats and live in SF means your opinion is REALLY important. Secondly there is no reason to vote a story down. If something is controversial current will not put it on the air or the first page.

Admittedly I like the idea of only having a vote up button but in the end it won’t do that much as long as the staff keep an iron grip on the website.

That is not only that Akira! We need to know (Who) is voting negative or positive. Example, For each post, a list of people names will show their screen name and if they voted negative or positive. If a person has been spotted voting negative too many times on issues that are good and important they will be invited to explain themselves. That will make this system raise from this lukewarm conspiracy to a better system of participation.

(Sorry, still morning...here some editing!)

AkiraChevelle for JanforGore!!!!

GREEN LIGHT ONLY!!! That would get rid of the mean people who red light other project to get theirs on top!

Or, at least new buttons that read "PUT THIS ON TV"
and "DON'T WANT THIS ON TV"

BTW, as of right now 12% of people don't want this story on TV. Funny.

I appreciate this idea.

There have been things afforded which, for the life of me, I could not IMAGINE why someone would vote such down. I took such voter to be a useless moronic tool. Little doubt I'm correct.

Maybe McSame's tossing his useless weight around Current?

This is how i understand it too.

Green=on tv

red= not on tv

use the comment section to discuss how you feel about the story!

Tuesday, July 22, 2008;
I would like to bring this issue back since most important issues here at Current gets up and then forgotten somehow. I think Current should release the screen names of people that is voting negative so we will know who they are. The way it is right now is that we do not have a way to see if a person that is voting negative belongs to our profile of "friends" or not. That somehow makes this voting system a little conspiracy favoring people to act in the dark-side of stories and news. We all owe to know who is against us. At least we can exclude them from our profiles and not send them any emails. Some of you might say that I only want people to agree with my posts. That is not true! People have the right to disagree! However those that does here does in the dark and never bother to at least give any comments. That's not voting or democracy, it is "Conspiracy" and that should end.

I am posting this here again because some people do not even bother to expand the responses there.

I don't like the whole dialectic of "Green light" vs "Red light".

Yes, there are a lot of very important environmental issues that have been pushed down by a "red light" that has nothing to do with "read light." We are at a time where the public needs to be taught about having more concern for ourselves, others and the environment where we live. That makes the negative voting on important issues totally "bogus."

Democracy it is not a manipulation of voting with the goal to do wrong in the end. That is where it should have a Committee to oversee when the voting system becomes corrupted.

Thank you everybody for posting on this topic. I thought it would be a productive discussion and it seems it has been.

I too would like to understand the ratings process and what the percentages mean.

I really like the renaming of buttons; that would be clearer with the suggestions already given.

Here is one more:

How about dumping the red button and just leaving the green button and rename it "News Worthy"?

I don't like the whole dialectic of "Green light" vs "Red light".

This had crossed my mind... thanks for the post.

Yes.

And.

I like it.

Excellent Post Jubal! I have some people voting negative to many of my Posts being that good or bad. They do not care! Their vote are always negative in which made me wonder if that is not some kind of personal persecution from a few. Not that I do care that much or that has influenced my work in any ways because I am not driven by their negative vote but sure makes you wonder about it. I am glad I am not the only one wondering about it! It should be something like:
[ Air it on TV] [Not Air on TV] or for short
[ Air on TV] [Not Air] or even

[ TV ] [ Not TV ]

There are lots of quality environmental News here that should be on TV. Instead we get the everyday practical Joke. This altitude is similar to the controlled news where they actually promote and protects criminality by denying to discuss or air local issues giving preference to sensationalism or International News.

I think "I Like it!" & "Nope" is definitely confusing. Weve already come up with some better options here! Let's just keep coming up with the best button labels...

The idea of choosing your news is really such a new idea! It's amazing! I mean, people used to just be spoon fed the evening news straight to their brains from the Television. This is a groundbreaking idea now! I think its a great thing to have a choice... but we must be cautioned- one bad thing about this is that a majority rule (voting) idea leaves out original ground breaking ideas that we have never heard of & are sometimes difficult to wrap our brains around at first (maybe a post by a scientist or engineer). Much of this info might be needlessly thrown out if we aren't looking at all the facts.

...Although- "The News" has always had a broadcast newsworthy challenge put to it... "does this story relate to your audience". Obviously if this doesn't relate to most people here... maybe it is a useless sound-bite.(?)

I really think it just needs to be clear that we are saying this is a story that is "Newsworthy" (as StephenThompson or JanforGore has said) or "Not Newsworthy"! Whether or not the leaning of the story is toward my personal liking or not ("I Like It!") it can STILL be very newsworthy information. I have NEVER understood "Not knowing" or "Not hearing" what "the opposition" is doing or thinking... I want to hear about it... so I can understand it... so I can then blow holes in their arguments! :)

If i don't know what is going on in the world... whether or not I "like" it or agree with the ideas proposed in the story... how can I ultimately form a proper opinion about it being that i am ignorant of it? Journalism should be about getting people to hear about the stories going on in the world around us... not to just tell us what we want to hear. We must be stronger, more sophisticated & take on these purported silly ideas by understanding these ideas better.

As a consequence I think that the "not newsworthy" (if we pick any) stories should be the ones we've already heard, are obvious, or are simply badly written. Good journalism should be supported here... not just people who all think the same thing we think.

"When you surround yourself with an army of 'Yes men'... be prepared for the inevitable 'No' that you cannot survive." Theres a lot of stuff out there I don't agree with- but my job isn't to shut them up. Its to help educate & inform us all to help us make better decisions. How best but by breaking our previously held foolish & uninformed ideas with better ideas? But again, not to shut out good journalism. :)

de-awm baby, you gotta a full body shot?

yes good ideas. "air it" "dont air it" or "newsworthy" "not newsworthy" are both good options. But the question remains, is there a man behind the curtain pulling switches to get some articles to the top over others?

Great. How about two buttons, one saying "news" and the other "not news." Of course, that won't stop those who have more connections willing to vote for anything they post getting to the top or vice versa. I too would like the algorithyms explained. I don't see how a story with an almost 90% greenlight on it with hundreds of views and comments can get pushed back under ones with more redlights and less comments. Thanks.

Hey all --

Thanks for the feedback about voting. Trust me, this is something that gets discussed quite frequently around the office, and we're working on some improvements.

Voting is really all about telling the community whether or not you feel that an individual story is something that should be surfaced for others to check out, comment on, and vote.

"I like it" confuses people because it makes it seem like a positive vote supports the subject matter in the story. So for some, voting "I like it" on a story about a Honduran plane crash feels like you're saying, "I support plane crashes in South America!"

We're working on some solutions to this, and you should be seeing some of these surface in the not too distant future.

Hope this helps clarify,
mario

Online Community Team

We need to make sure Voting is simple and easy for everyone to understand. If you need videos to explain how it works -- then it isn't clear enough on it's own.

I agree with "air it" / "skip it" or something similar

Yes, that's what it means. Thanks Jubal!
Green light on Jubal. He IS newsworthy.

I have to confess that I thought "green" meant, "I like it. I agree (socially, philosophically, politically, intellectually, etc.)." And, of course, I thought "red" meant the opposite. I had no idea (now I'm confessing my utter stupidity and, certainly, my ignorance) that the buttons had ANYTHING to do with TV News coverage on CurrentTV. Given that Jubal has now taught me this, I agree with "JanforGore" (above) who wrote, "I think they should rename the buttons. Green should be something like 'Put It On TV' or 'Air It.' Red should be something like 'Don't Air It' or 'Skip It.' That would probably be easier." So, JanforGore and Jubal and my other friends here: Gracias por la informacion!

So what does green mean?

jubal, I also think you're on to something, due to the ratings that sometimes don't add up...my gut feeling tells me that the spin machine is covertly operative in an attempt to keep the bigger issues out of the public eye...they never rest...so...'miles to go before we sleep'...

I think they should rename the buttons. Green should be something like "Put It On TV" or "Air It". Red should be something like "Don't Air It" or "Skip It". That would probably be easier.

I also think your moniker here has something to do with it. Seems there has been an influx here in the last couple of weeks of certain factions hostile to Mr. Gore's work on the climate crisis. I've also noticed in that same amount of time that almost everything I post instantly gets pushed down. I posted something just a couple of hours ago about water being the new oil.... it was 17 here a few hours ago, and now I can't even find it here at all. How is that fair on a news station?

I think there should be only one button here and it should read 'On tv' or something to that effect that you click on only if you think it should be on tv. If you don't, then don't click on it. Otherwise it just makes this site like so many others with "karma" ratings where they become more about author popularity and how many friends they have as opposed to the news worthiness of the story.

And don't forget, there is also always the carefuly crafted obamccain option of "not voting." Ha ha! ;-) I kid, I kid!

Most of the time It's hard to know.

I thought that if you vote "red" you do not get emailed about additional posts from the thread. I almost always vote green for my own submissions. It sort of make sense to me. Why would I vote red for something that I submitted? I vote green far more often than I do red. I also suspect that people vote red to stories where they may not like the subject of the story but still may find it newsworthy and interesting.

@ Kurka and jubal

I'm pretty sure that the percentages that you see are only the percentages of the votes. For instance, if Chique and jubal greenlight this topic and I redlight it then it would read: Green 67%, Red 33%.

This is just speculation, but in regards to higher ranking stories maintaining high percentages of negative votes I think that Current also runs on some sort of algorithm that accounts for hits (or visits) and comments/responses.

And jubal, I think that you are definitely on to something regarding factions attacking certain stories.

The other thing I have wondered is if there are people who just vote their own stories up and every body else's down in an effort or strategy to get on the air.

The other thing I have wondered is if there are people who are like moles from other factions who come here to thwart issues from getting on the air because they don't want too many people to hear about that story or issue.

Seeing how we are living in the age of Political Spin and Influence...

Thanks, Hawkmang...that clarified the issue perfectly...

thanks for posting this, you just got the "green button"

I understand that, but what is the deal w/ the percents on the side? How can the #1 story be like "-100%"?

That's how I took it. Unfortunately I think to some it means redlight the author because they carry a grudge from another topic.

Yes, this how I understand it... someone plese tell if this is the correct perception of the voting procedure...or do tell different...