Remove downvoting?
-
@AviCreat Some people like to target downvote so adding 1 downvote per day will help with this issue, and I also noticed that quite a few accounts with low reputation or brand new accounts were doing downvoting so setting a rep requirement to downvote will help with this. I've deleted around 40 accounts, and I've given warnings to a few people behind these accounts.
I'm still on the hunt to track down those who created these alt accounts just for the purpose of manipulating the upvotes and downvotes. Honestly, I don't really care about how much reputation you've built up or how much you're contributing. But let me tell you, if I catch anyone misusing the system, things won't be looking too good. So let's keep it fair.
-
S SpookyVersace referenced this topic on
-
@Misu yea, sounds fair, i agree
-
@liliththatcat I would make it so only people with 50 rep or higher can downvote.
-
@SpookyVersace yea, that is very good idea. thank u for trying the forum keep in peace.
-
@SpookyVersace Good : )
-
Getting downvoted truly make people depress, espcially when they are trying to sharing things. a rep limitation on downvote sounds good enough for me (I vote for disable it but I feel it's okay to keep it with limitations too.)
Random thought, if we do and only limit the number of downvote per day, maybe it's better to let people see the number of upvote and downvote separately?
-
@SpookyVersace I agree with you there!
-
*While there's many reasons for getting rid of it, we should be aware of the positives of having them around:
-
Quality Control: The primary reason for having a downvote feature is to ensure content quality. By allowing users to downvote, you empower the community to collectively filter out irrelevant, misleading, or low-quality comments. This helps new or casual visitors quickly identify the most valuable feedback or insights.
-
Feedback Mechanism: Downvotes serve as a non-verbal feedback mechanism. Sometimes, a comment might be factually incorrect, misleading, or not constructively framed. Downvoting such comments sends a clear message to the original poster about the community's perception of the content, encouraging them to either clarify, modify, or delete their comment.
-
Balance and Fairness: An upvote-only system could lead to an artificially positive environment where only agreement is visible. The presence of downvotes provides balance. Seeing both upvotes and downvotes can offer a more holistic view of the community's perspective on any given comment.
-
Deterrence against Trolling or Spam: Knowing that inappropriate or off-topic comments can be downvoted can deter users from posting such content in the first place. A system where only upvotes are allowed might not discourage trolling or spam as effectively.
-
Encourages Thoughtful Participation: Knowing that a comment can be both upvoted and downvoted often encourages users to think more critically before posting. They are more likely to ensure their comments are meaningful, relevant, and constructive.
-
Community Self-regulation: Downvoting allows the community to self-regulate. This reduces the burden on moderators or administrators, as harmful or irrelevant content can be pushed down by the community itself before official actions are needed.
-
Engagement: While it's essential to ensure the downvote feature isn't abused, the act of downvoting can increase user engagement. Users feel empowered when they have tools to express both agreement and disagreement.
-
Democracy in Action: Just as upvotes are a form of agreement, downvotes are a form of disagreement. By allowing both, you're giving everyone an equal voice, irrespective of their opinion, creating a more democratic environment.
-
Contextual Understanding: Sometimes, comments can be controversial. Having a blend of upvotes and downvotes on such comments can help new users understand the nuances or divisiveness of the subject, leading to a deeper understanding of the topic at hand.
*Personally I'm against getting rid of them, as we've seen the downsides when Youtube decided to cut their dislike feature. But I also understand that it's essential to ensure it's used responsibly. Measures can be put in place to prevent misuse, such as limiting the number of downvotes a user can give in a specific timeframe.
-
-
-
Well, I think downvotes and upvotes are a helpful tool, but at the same time they can also affect the overall bonding of a community. For example, I wanted to upvote a post and couldn't because some random person downvoted my post without reason. While I understand that the system is supposed to allow people to let others know if a post is good or not, it can be really demotivating for the person who received a downgrade, especially if you want to upvote a post that someone else wrote and can't because someone pretty much destroyed the ability to do so. I don't think the whole system needs to be scrapped, but it would be helpful to be able to give someone an upvote even if they have a negative reputation.
-
-
I say keep it. But with the abilty to see who downvoted you so I can block the ungrateful slags from seeing my posts. If they don't like my posts and have to go through my profile to spam downvote me, I want the ability to remove them from seeing my posts since they seemed to be lacking the functionality to press a button except the downvote button.
I can understand not liking someones posts, but some are just downvoting for the hell of it and frankly I rather them not partake of my posts.
-
If I had to give my opinion, I'd say that downvotes are a real help, just as dislikes have been on youtube.
We need them to know whether a shared file is trusted or not.
I remember there was a debate about a shared file here flagged as a virus and a long and unnecessary debate was held about it.
Of course, these downvotes shouldn't be abused or just directed at people you don't like.They should be a guarantee of the quality of the content shared.
Edit : i'll add that, you don't like someone here ? just block him and move on
-
I would say having a single downvote against you taking away your ability to upvote someone or something like that might be a bit of an issue if someone just downvoted you because they may not have liked an asset post or something like that so I can see where it may frustrate people. Maybe adding something of a system where that only happens if you have a set number of downvotes would be better rather then it being if you have 1 downvote we could set it to something a bit higher while making it so trusted individuals with a good rep are the ones with the ability to downvote as that encourages others to help the community and do good in order to get a good rep.
-
Personally I dont think keeping the upvotes is bad as it encourages people to do what they can to help people so that they get upvotes and can get a good rep, so long as it doesn't end up being misused by people. If your doing good in the community and helping people and active looking for assets to share and things that should be rewarded in some way so people upvoting to show their appreciation isn't a bad thing.
-
I rather keep the ability to downvote. While, yes, seeing that one particular infamous topic thread of a user spamming the recent threads with their whining about being downvoted to hell and fighting everyone within said thread
We all at some point at least saw that “special thread” once or twice in the recent post tab. Correct me if I'm wrong… I think one of the problems was because the person kept insisting on pushing it and didn't want to acknowledge they were taking it a bit too far attempting to convince people to agree with them, it seemed.
When someone would say they felt neutral or disagreed with their idea rather than fully agreeing with them 100% without question or critical independent thought.
The person would just get more upset and imply that everyone here are horrible people just because the community didn't side with them throughout the thread.
It felt like to me, they lacked the experience & knowledge of witnessing/interacting what most communities on certain social platforms that have some sort of ability to create threads or comments tends to act on a cultural level. Say for instance YouTube, Tumblr, Reddit, or Twitter etc.
I won't point fingers or tag their name here. I rather it doesn't turn into a repeat of past events with them coming here to take over the entire thread, spamming another thread again
Not only that, but I don't really trust them and prefer not dealing with them at all due to how they behaved. I do not know if other users relate to that, but I could just be me being hyper vigilant
I did notice somewhat odd behaviour when I went to their profile out of curiosity and checked their post history. They went into other threads to execute a similar pattern as if they were attempting to find people to agree with them or would tag other people that may or may not of been targeted by the downvote spam. Especially without the person's consent, as if they were trying to validate their behaviour as a positive thing.
It's like overtime, their intentions changed into something less innocent and well intended positively into basically just being full on toxic to people without noticing it due to their microaggressions.
Keep in mind, some users genuinely went out of their way to help them and attempted to put it from a different perspective to encourage some sort of community discussion.
For instance, initially I upvoted the poster and some of their good points merely to give them upvotes to balance out the negatives. Not because I felt guilty or bad for them, but they did have some kind of some good points which had some valid standing to a degree. I was just completely out of the loop on the context of what was actually going on a bigger scale.
Trouble is, I took the upvotes away as soon as they started getting very rude and aggressive towards other users. The fact, they lacked the maturity and respect to learn it's not a "me VS you" or "who wins or loses" thing and couldn't seem to let it go.
I believe any debate/argument looses any valid meaning when you start being toxic or passive-aggressive instead of being mature and flexible minded, allowing other people to participate in the discussion without any microaggression.
It is no longer a healthy and positive debate as soon as someone starts attempting to use insults on a personal level that is meant to degrade someone's self-esteem to make themselves feel superior or cause discord
When it comes to the internet, flame wars and trolling is hardly an uncommon thing to happen on the internet, since it kind of part of our culture in a backwards sense. However, that doesn't mean it is also valid to do so and a good thing.
We all know to a certain extent that the lack of IRL face to face interaction and anonymity to an extent makes us as humans do weird and dumb shit sometimes. Due to either us forgetting it could be a real living breathing human on the other end of the screen and/or perhaps not going outside enough to touch grass to refresh our brains. To come back to something later with a new approach.
Sometimes you just gotta go outside in the fresh air for once and go for a walk to factory reset your body. It's pretty normal if you have to do that often to help self regulate yourself.
Everyone is dumb sometimes, including me. Humans have always been very flawed and never been perfect. If we were really perfect, we realistically wouldn't need history as an educational subject as much from repeating the same mistakes someone in the past may have done
-
@CoolSkeleton95 A lot of your points are irrelevant or incorrect. Not to mention you being eerily vocal about this entire situation with your account creation coinciding with my comments a little too closely.... Anyway.
-
Content quality is in the eye of the beholder. A downvote system could easily dissuade others from recognizing a comment that would otherwise be useful.
-
You are conflating downvoting with a reaction to a post. Downvoting is not feedback, it is a vote. I am all for reactions being available per post, but having rep and the negative repercussions from it is effectively handing over admin privileges to the community. The community as a whole can not be trusted with admin rights.
-
An upvote-only system would lead to a positive environment. Like many other platforms that allow users freedoms in thought and expression, a vote system is removed. In its place are reactions that allow users to gauge community feedback without any needless negative repercussions on the poster.
-
We have seen that this doesn't work at all. This point is incorrect. If a user is spamming or trolling, they can be reported to an admin, voting down effectively puts admin privileges in the hands of the community.
-
This has shown to not be the case, and wouldn't be the case anyway. Having a system where people are afraid of getting downvoted means they are encouraged not to to say what they think and will therefore hamper constructive conversation in the favor of not saying something people won't like.
-
This, as before described, is not a good thing. In fact, because of this issue, I'd argue more burden has been placed on admins as a result.
-
This I agree with, it does encourage user engagement, that also seems to be what people are complaining about, so I don't see this as a reason to include.
-
Again, voting a voice out of existence is not an accurate portrayal of a "democratic environment". That would instead include a system that does not punish users for speaking their opinion, but instead allows readers the option to express their feelings in the form of a reaction.
-
Context should be understood by the individual reader, if additional context is necessary, it should be provided by the author, not assigned by people that decide its meaning for all to see via a vote.
I have also referenced the votes on either side, I am disheartened to see some users created hours ago with no posts, comments, rep or even profile views voting on this topic.
@Finn In regards to your YouTube comparison, I agree with you, but YouTube does not penalize the poster for having negative reactions. If that same system was implemented here, it would not prevent mass downvoting, but it would remove the incentive in the sense that the community wouldn't be able to silence the individual because of it. I would support that.
@LizEllie Calling someone "whining" and hating on a post here for something you disagreed with isn't spurring friendly conversation, drop the hostility, then we can have a conversation. Making accusations about people and when and where they post is below adult conversation. Stop using this as your venting platform. Also, while I would appreciate the fact that you initially upvoted some of the posts to "balance out the negatives", It is yet another reason why the rep system is flawed and needs to be reworked. Also, you seem to only recognize one person in this description, even though it was most definitely many people being rude and lacking maturity, sending memes, calling names etc. Those people seem conveniently absent from your description.
TL;DR: The rep system would function better as a system of reactions on a per-comment basis. (Like Facebook) or a simpler up and down reaction (Like YouTube).
Fapu is best Wolf.
-
-
@PrIsMaTiSm
*I'm just a vocal person in general, so I usually give my two cents in when a situation arises. I'm really just here for assets but I like the community so far.
*You do realize that all of this is one of the first things new people see when they sign on to this forum right? It gets bumped constantly. Most people just read/react to what's going on, and new people join every day. Lurkers are the majority, we are the vocal minority.*Also for the original comment, while I'm still personally for most of my original points, the ones you brought up are also valid
