I prefer the old Juice way, a vote form 1 to 5 , 1= poor and 5= Excellent. 
It was perfect to understand how was the evaluation. The current votes are really a dark way to describe the real value.

I really liked the old juice forum Voting system.
Apart from Voting, i liked the implementation of SOLUTION for the issues posted. User who posted the question can select a comment as a SOLUTION.  

if u r given a vote up then 0.5 in creases & a vote down decreases .5

the old juice 1-5 voting option was way better. I'm not sure why points are deducted for a thumbs down

In latest Voting schem We are getting 1 point When We gets one thumbs up Vote & nthing is gets rewared to user who votes the post......
i am sure what happens When we get thumbs Down Atleast nt described in Newly realesed Voting Schem Post

The new rewards system is designed to remedy some of the problems mentioned above. You can see the details here.

Thanks,

Leslie Miller
Inside Symantec Community Manager

I definitely like the new direction; the idea of putting the power to measure the usefulness of posted content into the hands of the users (and rewarding the original poster accordingly) is a good one.  It may take a little bit of time for everyone to get used to it in practice, but I think it's a positive, forward-thinking move on the part of the Connect team.

That said, I think there is still somewhat of a disconnect, at least visually, in the relationship between a thumbs-up/down vote in forums and comments section of articles.  Currently, the score displayed next to a discussion thread or article appears to be the sum total of all positive and negative votes for both the original post and all subsequent posts in the respective thread.  This can lead to misleading situations.  As an example:

"JuiceUserBob" posts an amazing new article.  20 People read this article, and vote thumbs up - the article now has a score of +20.  As posts start to roll in about the article, some of them are invariably off-topic, non-sequitor, garbled beyond recognition, or otherwise unhelpful.  The same 20 people who gave the article a thumbs-up vote give each of 5 inane posts a thumbs-down vote.  Unless I misunderstand how voting works, the article now displays a score of -80.  It is still the same great article, and through no fault of the author becomes something that, because of the negative score, additional readers might miss.

My recommendation would be some hybrid of the old juice-style 5-star rating system for articles and threads combined with the current thumbs-up/down voting process for subsequent posts.  From the article or forum page, we'd be able to see how the community rated the original article or discussion, without worrying about what happens after that.

I'd also love the ability to automatically ignore any post that has a cumulative negative score beyond a predefined threshold (ideally, that I can set), and to be able to bypass said ignore for users marked as "Admin", "Symantec Employee", or "Trusted Advisor".

Keep up the good work!

i'm still watching to see how i like or dislike the new system. The one thing I would like to see more of is analysis of older posts that don't have solutions marked from the OP. I've posted a bunch on some threads that i'm giving the right answer for, but the thread goes stale. Just interested in having moderators keep this in mind.

we have the freedom to vote...
lets use it wise with or without points...
thanks..

Everything sums up to trust...
people vote if they see the person is worth voting...
it is Symantec's call...
 

I think the voting is a good way to show what the community thinks is a decent response - this holds especially true in some of the more technical posts where there are quite a few entries - it shows me what input is valuable and encourages people to take the time to respond with good information.

vote those that made your day or vote down those that had made your day worse...

Vote the Chicago way.