Thoughts on adding downvote capability?

[Deleted member 50521]

Sigh. Just add a "No Thanks" button and similar display as likes, and be done?

Just turn it on for the next three months and see where it goes. THEN decide whether you want to move it into something else.

I like this original idea

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

Have there been many low quality posts since this was initiated?

I havent noticed many.

 

[cucker tarlson]

Maybe let's ask the person who came up with this brilliant idea, Vayra86, whether he had ever had any experience or actually been a member of a forum with a downvoting system, how he would prevent people from just clicking the '-" button just cause they can and how long does he give this forum before it goes how the drain because of the system.
Also,saying that this is not a downvote system but rather a rating one - how is this any diffferent or better ? I never want other people's clicking to filter the content that I see.

Are you even serious debating this ?
Not only is downvoting BS - it brings the opposite results more often than it helps.

 

[Vayra86]

Maybe let's ask the person who came up with this brilliant idea, Vayra86, whether he had ever had any experience or actually been a member of a forum with a downvoting system, how he would prevent people from just clicking the '-" button just cause they can and how long does he give this forum before it goes how the drain because of the system.
Also,saying that this is not a downvote system but rather a rating one - how is this any diffferent or better ? I never want other people's clicking to filter the content that I see.

Are you even serious debating this ?
Not only is downvoting BS - it brings the opposite results more often than it helps.

I did actually already point out all of these things

You speak of 'how to prevent people' - you don't. You let the normal interaction between people take its course and you slowly enforce a shift in people's behaviour, because they get to see the merit of a system that inherently combats troll behaviour.

The whole idea is based upon making the positive content more prominent and marginalizing the negative content. While a -1 rated post is automatically hidden, you can simply unhide all of those posts with one click (or on a forum you could even make it a user/profile based setting, or both). So if you don't want other people's clicking 'to filter for you', then you remove the filter. Simple.

It's about putting control over the interactions between people in the hands of the userbase; in terms of moderation but also in terms of visibility. This means you eliminate the dangerous element of 'mods who are biased' towards certain members. Mods can STILL overrule a badly moderated post both in a positive or negative sense; ie they can still lock posts to a certain score for example.

Most forums with a downvote system use the sum of scores, like Reddit does; this doesn't work for a filter system though. My suggested system uses a median, and yes I do have experience with this exact same system. Scroll through the comment sections on this site and you can see how it works - and take note of all the walls of text posted there by knowledgeable people, often complete with source material links etc.

Here's a link with a news article with over 200 comments: Click on the +1/+2/etc filters under 'Reacties' and you can quickly see it at work

https://tweakers.net/nieuws/136495/...v=0&order=desc&orderBy=rating&page=1#reacties

 

[cucker tarlson]

Once you introduce a rating system for what people think and say, it ain't "normal interaction" no more.

 

[Vayra86]

Once you introduce a rating system for what people think and say, it ain't "normal interaction" no more.

Think about it, it really is; in normal interaction, you also filter out the people and messages you don't like to hear or see - either by ignoring them or by the way your mind absorbs the information. We all do this, every day, both consciously and unconsciously. We even do most of this based on first impressions. On the internet, the tools you'd use in real life are not available, all you have is text, no verbal or non-verbal communication to convey how you feel about something/someone. A rating system based on a simple scale (1 - 5, effectively) can be a good substitute and definitely a better one than the rather rigid 'Like or Dislike'.

Also consider how people are using the 'Thanks/Like' functionality on this forum. Is it really to support the best/most informative posts, or is there a strong degree of bias in them? The bias is there and it shows because the range of options is extremely limited - you can either do nothing (ignore / be indifferent) or you can 'Like'. So we see tons of likes under prominent posters here under a comment that really makes very little sense or 'is a bit funny'. How does that help us today? I think you can explain that behaviour in two ways: either people just get personal, or people lack the right options to convey their thoughts. Regardless, they WILL voice their opinion and if they get tired of that or if they can't do it effectively, they will leave the forum or just not participate. And I believe that the aim of any forum management should be promoting the participation of all readers. With ratings, they can do that in a simple way without having to repeat what was said in a post before them. They can now express varying levels of agreement/disagreement based on a rating, making the post more prominent, and therefore implicitly also providing their opinion (without adding dozens of pages of 'the same' to a thread).

The benefits are obvious;
- less prominent / less attention for shit posts
- it no longer benefits anyone to repeat something posted by another person
- it promotes actually reading the topic
- it motivates to add useful information to a post, to make it worthwhile to rate and read
- users get their own tools to filter and see what they want to see, resulting in less annoyance over what other people type

 

[cucker tarlson]

It is not normal interaction and that's not even debatable.
"Last three people who heard what I had to say voted it down"
"Last three people who heard what I had to say and either igonred it or disagreed and expressed their view"

if #1 is more natural/normal for you and if this "feature" is introduced here I'll probably stop visiting TPU once and for all. This will only make people even more lazy and rate the posts on the basis of pluses and minuses, not the content.

 

[jsfitz54]

How do you prevent down votes from becoming "fake news", an abuse or loophole in its intended purpose?

 

[Vayra86]

It is not normal interaction and that's not even debatable.
"Last three people who heard what I had to say voted it down"
"Last three people who heard what I had to say and either igonred it or disagreed and expressed their view"

if #1 is more natural/normal for you and if this "feature" is introduced here I'll probably stop visiting TPU once and for all. This will only make people even more lazy and rate the posts on the basis of pluses and minuses, not the content.

So how 'normal' is TPU today? We can just fling insults and trolling across the table with no real consequence and we keep providing a soapbox for the same tired arguments. Try that in real life...

 

[cucker tarlson]

What ? That ain't happening here.

 

[RCoon]

How do you prevent down votes from becoming "fake news", an abuse or loophole in its intended purpose?

Sensible user numbers outweigh the twats. Sensible users just need to vote in equal number as the twats and then posts will at the very least have a zero sum. Also notice how there's a +1, 2 and 3 option, while there is only a -1 option available.

Also, there will still be a moderation team to deal with posts that don't comply with the rules. We'll also be able to see if a specific user is downvoting any and every post they see and chastise them accordingly.

 

[cucker tarlson]

Will the moderators have the option to manage those +/- clicks ?

 

[RCoon]

Will the moderators have the option to manage those +/- clicks ?

No, and we're the only ones with access to the ratings system right now to test it. All we can do is rate posts as well.

I'm confused about you reporting my post for a double post. Perhaps check that you haven't got an ignored user on your list before you use the report functionality incorrectly.

 

[jsfitz54]

So how 'normal' is TPU today? We can just fling insults and trolling across the table with no real consequence and we keep providing a soapbox for the same tired arguments. Try that in real life...

It is being done every day from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. It's called politics.

Testing, testing, 1,2,3....

 

[EarthDog]

Have there been many low quality posts since this was initiated?

I havent noticed many.

oh, in time... lol. As i said in this or the other thread, people will improve over the short term because it was brought up. But, that will slowly erode away as it always does.

The only way to get rid of the riff raff is to moderate with purpose instead of playing reindeer games with hiding posts and downvotes.

 

[Vayra86]

What ? That ain't happening here.

Eh what? I think that statement is a perfect example of how our minds already filter out information we don't want or like to see But take any Nvidia/AMD news topic, scroll through and count the number of times people are repeating one another, and how that eventually devolves into the good ol' 'two camps' calling each other fanboi. Meanwhile there is a small % of contributors that provide new information in between all that junk. And while the topic slowly gets reduced to a back-and-forth, we also see new type of posts surface where people try to calm the rest down - again, filler content that does not serve the topic at all and usually works counterproductive.

I would much prefer a system where I could just filter that small % of contributors and scroll straight to the actual info in a topic; without annoying myself over the stupidity I've read a million times over. Because every time I read stupidity, the itch to respond surfaces with me, and even though I often tell myself 'don't bite now' I still do. And if I may say so, you are vulnerable to that as well - no offense intended; just reflecting on what I see.

Will the moderators have the option to manage those +/- clicks ?

It is and should be a possibility, but it is also evidence that the system isn't flawless. The amount of times mods feel the need to readjust the median score of a post will probably become some stable percentage over time, I reckon 5% at most. Tweakers.net does also provide a sticky topic on the forum where people can directly report/link posts that have received bad moderation in their eyes. Again: the userbase is providing the guidance and lots - LOTS of data on how people behave on the forum. It takes a lot of uncertainty away from mod decisions too, makes their life easier and much more focused.

 

[rtwjunkie]

The benefits are obvious;
- less prominent / less attention for shit posts
- it no longer benefits anyone to repeat something posted by another person
- it promotes actually reading the topic
- it motivates to add useful information to a post, to make it worthwhile to rate and read
- users get their own tools to filter and see what they want to see, resulting in less annoyance over what other people type

As long as it doesn’t hide a post. Your system could work with all rational and reasonable and respectful people on the forum. Unfortunately, we both know that’s not the case. We don’t even need to account for trolls yet, and it is on shaky ground.

What we don’t need is posts being hidden simply because someone doesn’t like responses in the thread.

@cucker tarlson How are insults and whatnot not happening here at TPU? It happens multiple times per day. You are just good at rose-colored filtering the vile content out. Most of us would envy your ability to do so.

@jsfitz54 no offense to you, but I’m using your post on this very page as an example to support my statement that every day people find ways to bring politics into threads that have nothing to do with it.
“It is being done every day from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. It's called politics”

 

[Vayra86]

As long as it doesn’t hide a post. Your system could work with all rational and reasonable and respectful people on the forum. Unfortunately, we both know that’s not the case. We don’t even need to account for trolls yet, and it is on shaky ground.

What we don’t need is posts being hidden simply because someone doesn’t like responses in the thread.

You're absolutely right and I can say from my experience on Tweakers.net, the amount of posts hidden because 'someone doesn't like the response' rather than it being an actual Troll/flamebait/insult (which is what -1 is really intended for) is probably between 5-15% depending on how hot the topic is. It is exactly those posts that you have a separate reporting topic for, where users can ask a mod to adjust a rating. This is a long term battle, but the longer you do this, and the more posts get 'remoderated', the more people will understand how it works and fall in line. We have a specific term for this type of modding on tweakers: 'emotional modding' In the long term, you will teach people to mod based on information and content, not the opinion. And those who repeatedly show to be unable to do that or learn that, can and should not be allowed to give out ratings - this can be one very effective form of sanctioning because you keep the user, but you take away some of his rights and 'voice', providing a chance to the user to 'do better'. Again: carrot + Stick. Great users get additional modding rights (1 vote counts as 2, ex.) and bad ones can lose it.

Its funny how often I read about that existential threat of 'oh no my post will be hidden'... underneath that is the emotion of visibility of your own opinion/voice. Rating like this does NOT change that at all, if you don't want to use a filter, you simply do not use it, and you can see all the -1 posts (contrary to now where you have to separately click EACH low quality post!). That same fear of losing your voice on a forum is exactly what drives people to do better - and why this system is effective.

Its all about the psychology behind it, if you want to stimulate change.

EDIT: done ninja editing now

 

[jsfitz54]

@jsfitz54 no offense to you, but I’m using your post on this very page as an example to support my statement that every day people find ways to bring politics into threads that have nothing to do with it.
“It is being done every day from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. It's called politics”[/QUOTE]

None taken. I'm just bringing it to attention, that up and down votes are political in nature and do happen in real life and as such, could be manipulated.

 

[dorsetknob]

SOME THREADS ARE UNFORTUNATELY POLITICAL AND TECHNICAL BY THEIR VERY CONTENT

For example i give you
The State of Cryptocurrency
There have been some very political comments and reactions in this thread and at times its got Toxic
But those items usualy news updates and links have been posted ( by myself and others) BECAUSE THEY ARE RELEVANT TO THE THREAD

 

[rtwjunkie]

SOME THREADS ARE UNFORTUNATELY POLITICAL AND TECHNICAL BY THEIR VERY CONTENT

For example i give you
The State of Cryptocurrency
There have been some very political comments and reactions in this thread and at times its got Toxic
But those items usualy news updates and links have been posted ( by myself and others) BECAUSE THEY ARE RELEVANT TO THE THREAD

True enough! There are plenty though where it has no place or reason to be there, other than for insults and trolling and some having an agenda.

 

[jsfitz54]

and some having an agenda.

That's why I'm not for secretive voting. It should be out in the open. One should be able to see who is down voting them.
Someone may use the down vote more judiciously if others can see their vote, a sort of check and balance.

 

[Vayra86]

That's why I'm not for secretive voting. It should be out in the open. One should be able to see who is down voting them.
Someone may use the down vote more judiciously if others can see their vote, a sort of check and balance.

Its not secret, mods can see who's voting what, but users cannot. So the checks and balances exist, but lie with the moderators, which is where they should be IMO in this context

 

[jsfitz54]

Its not secret, mods can see who's voting what, but users cannot. So the checks and balances exist, but lie with the moderators, which is where they should be IMO in this context

So then you have a secret panel controlling what can and can't be seen. They can vote as a panel or individual.
If that's the case, then we are no better off than under the prior system.
In terms of how laborious the process is, the report button served this function before.
If any vote ends up sending a flag to a Mod, to view and keep tract of content, it's the same function by default.
How do you measure progress?
How is the new system going to improve human behavior?

 

[Vayra86]

So then you have a secret panel controlling what can and can't be seen. They can vote as a panel or individual.
If that's the case, then we are no better off than under the prior system.
In terms of how laborious the process is, the report button served this function before.
If any vote ends up sending a flag to a Mod, to view and keep tract of content, it's the same function by default.
How do you measure progress?
How is the new system going to improve human behavior?

Already clarified here - and NO you do not permanently remove or hide posts with a negative score. Users can choose what to filter. Also the 'panel' is not secret, they are the moderators and they are visible and can be talked to.

https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...ownvote-capability.242488/page-5#post-3816467