By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Website Topics - Article Downvotes should be removed - Yay or Nay?

 

Should down votes be removed?

YES!!! 22 27.16%
 
NO!!! 45 55.56%
 
Keep it but stop comments from being removed 14 17.28%
 
Total:81

Regarding making up/down votes public.....

I see the theoretical benefits here insofar as people are less likely to downvote legit comments if their name is attached to that vote. But, I worry that an unintended consequence may be the occurrence of more back and forth bickering and the like because an unhappy person now knows exactly who to talk shit to.



Around the Network
Ryuu96 said:
Norion said:

I'd prefer keeping downvotes but tweaking the system since I don't like the idea of only having positive votes. For forum post likes I enjoy them and it does make me feel at least a bit more encouraged to post though it's possible the overall impact when taking into account everyone is negative.

I didn't really consider that receiving an upvote on a forum comment could encourage more posting.

So it seems like

+ Upvotes could encourage more comments as it's nice to know your comments are appreciated
+ Upvotes stop the spam of "Agreed" posts - Although technically, this is against the rules anyway.
-  Upvotes could cause a decline in detailed "Agreed" responses as there's no reason to think out a response when you can just slap a like on the post.

I've done the 3rd a lot...It has made me a bit lazier, I don't know about everyone else. There's been multiple times in this very thread where I've almost just slapped a like on a comment and moved on but for the purposes of this thread I've told myself I should respond, I wouldn't really do that in other threads, I'll be like "That's a good post, I agree with it, maybe I should write a response...Nah I'll just like it and go do something else"

But if the former two are stronger than it's worth keeping, I wouldn't touch the forum upvotes at this stage as it needs a more detailed breakdown.

I don't think I do the 3rd though I can why it's tempting to do so. Either way it is a small thing and even if it's overall negative it's for sure not as bad as letting users rate a post with various things including a "dumb" rating which is a system I've seen in use before.



zero129 said:
Zippy6 said:

Because the people wanting change are the people more likely to post. I voted no, I didn't make a post in this thread before now. That doesn't make my opinion less valid.

Don't get annoyed because the poll doesn't reflect your desired outcome and now claim it's being manipulated. The majority do not want downvotes to go. 

Thats not true. Everyone wants them to be removed across threads you see people complaining about the broken down vote system that VGChartz has.

The only people who have posted in here to keep the down votes is people who have supporter status and clearly they are not going to want change.

But something is going to have to change as the system is just broke and giving supporters twice the voice or more of none supporters with such a small pool of active users is clearly a broken system and this site is one of the only ones that seems to have this system in place.

I think if a mod can remove the vote count from the top and have the people voting for it to be kept to have to post in this thread would be much better and a much clearer picture as i bet the amount of posts from users for it to be removed will far out number the clone accounts thats clearly manipulating the pull.

Its clear something is going to change and instead of you guys being so against it maybe give answers to how it can be fixed like VAMatt has been doing.

He is the only supporter in this thread that i have not seen give their own childish comments or cry about it being removed etc and instead has been trying to give his opinion on how it should be fixed.

Not a supporter and voted no.  Like someone else that got 7 up votes, I had little desire to post in this thread but I see nothing wrong with the down vote system. The only reason I'm even posting is to try to put your mind at more ease.  You seem to think the that the posters vs people replying to the thread being off is evidence of some sort of manipulation.  I could be wrong but I just don't see anyone caring enough about the issue to manipulate the poll.

I read a fair amount of the articles (when I'm here which has been less and less the last couple years) and never really seen this bombing of posts in articles.  Could be happening, but is it really that big an issue?

Also for the record I don't care that supporters get extra votes.  If I really cared I'd become a supporter to even the playing field.



Ryuu96 said:
Jaicee said:

First of all, HAPPY NEW YEAR everyone!! Had to say that since this my first post of 2022. Anyway...

This subject gets revisited every so often and my opinion remains unchanged: I don't really see the policy as a big deal one way or the other, but personally I dislike down-voting, mainly because my comments often get down-voted, seemingly because I often offer nuanced views about things and that's way too independent a thought pattern for most people. Either that or I dared write with more feeling than an Amazon Alexa response. It's discouraging because I tend to put a lot of effort into my contributions for them to just be lazily swatted down and stigmatized with the click of a button. Detractors should have to put more effort into their gripes than that, I feel. But then maybe there wouldn't be so many of those because most people are too lazy to actually explain why they object, especially if it involves writing more than one or two sentences.

I don't feel like I fit in very well as things are, so the unfortunate truth is that I become discouraged easily. Half the time if I see a down-vote by a comment I made, I'll just delete the comment to avoid the impending, humiliating pile-on that may hurt my reputation on the main forums as well, to say nothing of frankly my soul. And them maybe I'll think two or three times before offering another opinion on an article in the future. Maybe other people with higher self-esteem than me respond differently, but that's how it often goes for me.

There's surely a reason why down-voting ain't an option here on the main forums. I don't see why there's a divergence in the policy that way. Makes no sense to me.

Jaicee said:

Maybe that's how people with higher self-esteem them are inclined to respond, but I can't help getting discouraged, besides which I simply lack the energy to bother half the time these days. I mean it's an anonymous down-vote; what's there to respond to? It's not like the other person offered a counterpoint or something. It's also not like most people are persuadable anyway, and least of all the kind of lazy asshole who goes around throwing those out anonymously (it usually happens in waves, in my observation, with people going through and down-voting everyone who criticized company A or something like that) and then just vanishes.

I'd at least like to know WHO is doing the down-voting because if it's certain people then I won't care. I don't hold everyone here in equal esteem and will have an easier time disregarding certain people's negative opinions.

That's a shame and exactly my worry, I don't consider you or Zkup to be trolls who make crappy posts, quite the opposite, your posts are often detailed and thought out but we have you both claiming to have received downvote barrages in the past which have pushed you away from commenting, I don't see how this issue gets better, I see it getting worse, downvotes weaponised more and good users discouraged from posting.

I'll say again, the chances of someone not posting anymore because they were downvote bombed is hugely higher than someone deciding to not comment anymore because they lost downvoting power, it's a weigh up of which is hurting the site more and I believe downvotes are.

I also agree, I'm not sure why downvoting isn't an option in the main forums, I also don't understand why there's a difference in policy, it does make no sense, I've asked why in this thread multiple times and nobody else seems to know why there should be a difference either, not that I would want downvoting in forums, I think that would be awful but I think that's what most others would think too, so why the difference?

I'd be fully in favour of making downvotes and upvotes not anonymous anymore.

I have rarely seen meaningful discussion in the comments on articles.  Normally I see shallow opinion and by shallow I mean not well supported. People don't typically write half a page worth of response in support of their view in the comment section.  The default sorting option is by popularity.  Simply put I don't see it as in depth discussion.

Threads on the other hand often contain replies (gems here and there) that have a good deal of effort behind them and I believe the evolution of the conversation is important (i.e. being in chronological order is quite important).  Sorting on the metric of popularity has no place in a thread but finds a good home in the comment section. If someone wants to disagree and make it known then they can make a comment rather than just give a thumbs down.



The_Yoda said:

I have rarely seen meaningful discussion in the comments on articles.  Normally I see shallow opinion and by shallow I mean not well supported. People don't typically write half a page worth of response in support of their view in the comment section.  The default sorting option is by popularity.  Simply put I don't see it as in depth discussion.

I can't speak for the others, but on my part, I've noticed on several occasions a chance for proper discussion, yet I've refrained from even properly starting because the moment you say something enough people might disagree about is the moment you heavily risk getting downvoted - and often if there's substance for a proper discussion, there's also room for disagreement because otherwise there wouldn't necessarily be much to really discuss about. Why would I invest in a proper comment when it has a high risk of getting downvoted to oblivion? That, and articles get buried quickly enough for discussions to get buried as well, and I feel the tree structure of the comment sections also helps bury discussions. For a proper discussion, a traditional forum thread is more suitable due to its greater persistence even without the downvotes, but I can personally say that the downvotes don't help either.

In a way, comment sections feel like Twitter: They're suitable for witty and likeable comments that don't go to any great depth, but they're a poor forum for proper discussions.



Around the Network
Zkuq said:
The_Yoda said:

I have rarely seen meaningful discussion in the comments on articles.  Normally I see shallow opinion and by shallow I mean not well supported. People don't typically write half a page worth of response in support of their view in the comment section.  The default sorting option is by popularity.  Simply put I don't see it as in depth discussion.

I can't speak for the others, but on my part, I've noticed on several occasions a chance for proper discussion, yet I've refrained from even properly starting because the moment you say something enough people might disagree about is the moment you heavily risk getting downvoted - and often if there's substance for a proper discussion, there's also room for disagreement because otherwise there wouldn't necessarily be much to really discuss about. Why would I invest in a proper comment when it has a high risk of getting downvoted to oblivion? That, and articles get buried quickly enough for discussions to get buried as well, and I feel the tree structure of the comment sections also helps bury discussions. For a proper discussion, a traditional forum thread is more suitable due to its greater persistence even without the downvotes, but I can personally say that the downvotes don't help either.

In a way, comment sections feel like Twitter: They're suitable for witty and likeable comments that don't go to any great depth, but they're a poor forum for proper discussions.

Bolded, very well put and it mirrors my own opinion of the comment section of articles.  Lord knows if there is enough meat for a discussion someone should be creating a thread.  For the record I liked your comment and still replied take that @Ryuu96

Thanks for sharing what sometimes keeps you from posting.  I can see that point of view and motivation or lack there of for posting.

I really like the articles and appreciate the effort that goes into them, the real draw for me personally is the discussion in threads. Although I don't spend the time here I once did I still very much appreciate the site and it's users.



The_Yoda said:

Bolded, very well put and it mirrors my own opinion of the comment section of articles.  Lord knows if there is enough meat for a discussion someone should be creating a thread.  For the record I liked your comment and still replied take that @Ryuu96.

And as a contrary case, I liked this post with no 'real' reply because I found the comment good but had nothing to add. I think liking without posting is fine, but I can definitely see the potential problem there as well.



...late to the party and don't have the stamina now to actually read through 100+ comments here, but I would just note a few things:

- On the "up votes" in posts, @Ryuu96 already stated their exact purpose - to eliminate the "Agreed!" or "Truth!" or similar spam-like posts. I sincerely doubt somebody clicking the "up vote" ever had any intentions of posting "I agree, and for these reasons..." and then decided to just hit the thumb. If they had something to add to the discussion, they simply would - I really don't believe they wouldn't suddenly decide to short-circuit their thoughts like that, just because the option is there. If anything, I think more people actually click that thumb and then ALSO post something in the thread. Very hard for me to offer proof in any way, so just speculation on my part.

- On the "voting power" for Supporters in articles - I definitely like the idea of limiting the use of them to a "extra votes per day" or "extra votes per week" basis. That said, I also have no interest in coding for that at the moment as it would take some effort - effort that I can't spare right now. Perhaps if the need arises to make additional changes to the comment section, this is something that can be worked on at the same time. But imo, that functionality is fairly solid at the moment and I think I'll leave it alone for now. :P

Edit: Immediately after I posted this, I'll note that the comment right before mine supports my "theory" that there are people who click the thumb and then also post something, too!! LOL!!!



TalonMan said:

Immediately after I posted this, I'll note that the comment right before mine supports my "theory" that there are people who click the thumb and then also post something, too!! LOL!!!

In my 'defense', I wouldn't typically have posted after liking but it was... kind of a special case. That said, I don't see the two as mutually exclusive, even though usually I do only one of them.



TalonMan said:

Edit: Immediately after I posted this, I'll note that the comment right before mine supports my "theory" that there are people who click the thumb and then also post something, too!! LOL!!!

And here's another. ;)

Myself, @Ryuu96 and several others have discussed the idea of making votes (both for articles and forum posts) non-anonymous, and that seems to be a solution that a lot of people in here think could solve or mitigate the problems.

What's your take on that? And would that also be too much effort to code at the moment?
The reason I ask is because I believe we discussed this when you first introduced forum likes. So perhaps it's something you've already coded in, but just disabled it? At least for forum likes.