Upvotes / Downvotes on Chess.com

Oh, I thought I saw timestamps during my game, but now I'm in an arena and I don't see them, so I'm not sure.

Yeah exactly

I remember when live chess was new.

I remember when chess. com had no playing capabilities at all.
And the troll rate was near 0%

Then you need to enable the settings. Do it from within Play. If it's already shown as enabled, toggle it off, then back on.

Timestamps have been in Play since the beta and are still there today.

My screenshot was from an Arena game.

Hard to take someone serious when they don't even know how basic features work after being on a website for 2 years and playing thousands of games...

To be fair, with the two interfaces and three places to configure that setting, sometimes things have to be reconfigured. It's happened to a lot of people. 

none of this will do anything if play continues to be so laggy

The beginnings of Daily Chess:

The beginnings of Live Chess:
Sept 29, 2009

Reddit has a half billion users only when they count bot accounts as equal to human accounts. When comparing social media features this has to stated explicitly: Reddit actively encourages posting and voting made by the automated bot accounts. It has various features that hide this from unsuspecting humans like randomizing displayed vote counts (karma) and randomizing sorting orders using secret algorithms.

I don't know if you are a naïf or a paid promoter of the upcoming Reddit floatation on the stock market. But the addition of anonymous voting to this site isn't an improvement to its social media features, it is an addition of social engineering features.

Finally, it is also possible that Chess.com is eyeing "going public", therefore they add features consistent with their "forward looking financial goals".

lol

While Chess. com has been a "social" site since its inception, the social aspect looked a lot different then compared to now. Not only was it friendlier, but it was more chess-directed. 

Here are screencaps of Genral Chess Discussion and Chess Community forum topics (there was no Off-topic back then) from June 18, 2007. Not a single troll topic among them:

I'll tell ya, dude. I am literally a paranoid person. It's why I get the big bucks. No secret. But I wouldn't go down that kind of rabbit hole. I'm still trying to process the fact that Lana Wachowski is apparently a fan of the red pill crowd. That's a massive disappointment and I'm not even through the movie (the new Matrix movie). This is the actual truth: it looks like shilling to be positive on site upgrades, but that's because it's not common. The reason it's not common is that users of any site resent UI changes. Resentment on the part of other people. They say that the least of us talk about others, the average among us talk of things, and the best of us talk of ideas. It's such a useful framework. The way to control online chaos is an absolutely fascinating idea, and 100% applicable to daily life. I mean, if you feel terrible in your day, the actions of a stranger or a loved one can make that difference. Because we all influence each other on an emotional level. That translates to action. So if you don't like the signal-to-noise ratio, do something to tweak the interface, if you can, to fix the problem. In other words, to calm all the complaining, the people who actually have a real beef with all of us -- the ones we constantly bad-mouth -- and who never act out, as they don't want to lose their jobs and thus their ability to pay their mortgages -- put in some code that proved useful elsewhere. Thus the users eventually are not so agitated. How else to do that kind of heavy lifting, if it's required? They say that have about 75M users. Regardless of how many are active, human, etc., what would *you* do? If I worked for them, I wouldn't be fruitlessly banging my head against a brick wall constantly in the service of sticking up for the site I'm always on. I'm a joiner.

I remember when you were new 

I remember when you were Yong ( no offense ) 

You're confused. Yong is my cousin.

Measuring quality by the number of up/downs votes is, well simply stated moronic. This was floated at my place of work, the managers and elected officials above me wanted a way to allow customers to provide feedback. I pushed back politely but forcefully. Just because one didn’t hear what they wanted from my staff would result in a down vote, or many down votes? 

Of course it's silly.  This is the new chess. com.

Yep, and society in general. It’s human nature that one is more motivated to register a negative vote/comment than a positive one. One can do 100 things perfectly and only hear about the one ticked off reviewer.