• Last Updated:
  • Aug 30th, 2017 2:49 pm
Administrator
User avatar
Jun 17, 2013
8480 posts
12853 upvotes
Scarborough
WorldIRC wrote:
Jul 17th, 2017 10:05 am
I do believe overall, this is the best option.
We're going to be reviewing the voting system soon and this is one of the options being considered. Down voting for OP's will likely still remain but since those are detached from users already, it shouldn't be an issue. Hopefully I'll have an update on this by the end of next week.
RFD Staff [Forum Rules] [Facebook] [Twitter].
Deal Addict
Jun 18, 2008
4400 posts
2735 upvotes
Montreal
WorldIRC wrote:
Jul 12th, 2017 7:16 am

Because instead of posting disagreement, people just click a button now. Hopefully we can get that list made visible to provide visibility. Still waiting on admins to review though.
Well, just to prove you wrong, I posted 'disagreement' today in a thread where totally wrong information was posted. So what do I get for posting the correct information? A slew of downvotes and condescending replies probably from the 2 posters (ironically one who is active on this thread and not understanding why he gets so many downvotes) who I corrected. So how do you think I reacted? I simply responded in the same tone and issued downvotes of my own. So you can add having your ego bruised and butthurt as another reason to downvote. Great system eh? :D

EDIT.....And to add. Another poster agreed with me and posted more correct information and now he has 2 downnvotes for his troubles. That poster is so butthurt anyone questioning his incorrect information gets a downvote. Too funny. :D
Deal Addict
User avatar
Aug 16, 2010
3934 posts
521 upvotes
Aurora
ottofly wrote:
Jul 17th, 2017 3:20 pm
Well, just to prove you wrong, I posted 'disagreement' today in a thread where totally wrong information was posted. So what do I get for posting the correct information? A slew of downvotes and condescending replies probably from the 2 posters (ironically one who is active on this thread and not understanding why he gets so many downvotes) who I corrected. So how do you think I reacted? I simply responded in the same tone and issued downvotes of my own. So you can add having your ego bruised and butthurt as another reason to downvote. Great system eh? :D

EDIT.....And to add. Another poster agreed with me and posted more correct information and now he has 2 downnvotes for his troubles. That poster is so butthurt anyone questioning his incorrect information gets a downvote. Too funny. :D
Well to be fair, the tone of your post (if I got what you're referring to right) did sound just a bit personal as you attacked his video and questioned his credibility as a poster. I'd say general niceness and civility is important as are facts. But did you deserve the downvotes? Probably not. For the record, I support completely doing away with downvoting.
Deal Addict
Jun 18, 2008
4400 posts
2735 upvotes
Montreal
DiceMan wrote:
Jul 17th, 2017 5:11 pm
Well to be fair, the tone of your post (if I got what you're referring to right) did sound just a bit personal as you attacked his video and questioned his credibility as a poster. I'd say general niceness and civility is important as are facts. But did you deserve the downvotes? Probably not. For the record, I support completely doing away with downvoting.
Of course the tone of post may be crass, I'm being downvoted into oblivion posting the correct information. Smiling Face With Open Mouth And Smiling Eyes Obviously I'm going to question the credibility of a self proclaimed 'aircraft engineer' as he knows very well he is wrong. And I know he knows he's wrong. The ego gets hurt so they respond how, with a slew of downvotes lol...I've got 9 so far for correcting wrong information, all from the same 2 posters no doubt. So no one else wants to get involved, cause they'll also be hammered with downvotes. So I respond in kind. Just thought I'd contribute on why people don't post unless they are towing the RFD line. Too funny :D
Banned
Dec 5, 2015
1344 posts
439 upvotes
Thornhill, ON
Mars2012 wrote:
Jul 17th, 2017 10:03 am
My choice would be to get rid of downvoting altogether. I have never used it and I don't think it does much good. It might have been started out with the best intentions, but it has resulted in some members posting less because they don't want to get downvoted for frivolous reasons. Alternately, there are members who hardly, if ever, post, and all they do is downvote. That is not right, imo.
If you're going to get rid of down votes, might as well get rid of upvotes too

If rfd needs to create a safe space for those who can't even handle down votes on a deals forum online , then why have voting at all.

It's no different than not keeping score in a sports game if nothing negative or criticism is allowed

People post bad deals and wrong information all the time, downvotes work to bury those

Rfd tried to emulate Reddit at users request and now regrets it. Which is fine, have no upvotes or downvotes at all

It's stupid and pointless to only allow upvotes.

Are there so many members who are insecure that they need to worry about inconsequential downvotes on a deals forum online?

And people saying downvotes should be explained? Then upvotes needs to be explained as well
Deal Guru
Jan 7, 2002
10498 posts
3319 upvotes
Waterloo, ON
Mars2012 wrote:
Jul 17th, 2017 10:03 am
My choice would be to get rid of downvoting altogether. I have never used it and I don't think it does much good. It might have been started out with the best intentions, but it has resulted in some members posting less because they don't want to get downvoted for frivolous reasons. Alternately, there are members who hardly, if ever, post, and all they do is downvote. That is not right, imo.
I agree. Moreover consider why someone might want to post a "legitimate" downvote. (As opposed to someone who's just vindictive, flaming or being frivolous, etc.)
1. If it's because the poster made a serious violation of the rules then they should Report that to moderators. That will get action faster and more effectively than a downvote.
2. If it's a minor transgression then they'd help everyone out by posting a polite reminder/explanation in the thread.
3. If it's because a poster made a factual error then surely posting a correction or clarification rather than a downvote without explanation is more constructive approach.
4. And if it's because they disagree with another poster's opinion then it's better to say so and explain why you disagree.
veni, vidi, Visa
Banned
Dec 5, 2015
1344 posts
439 upvotes
Thornhill, ON
bylo wrote:
Jul 17th, 2017 9:07 pm
I agree. Moreover consider why someone might want to post a "legitimate" downvote. (As opposed to someone who's just vindictive, flaming or being frivolous, etc.)
1. If it's because the poster made a serious violation of the rules then they should Report that to moderators. That will get action faster and more effectively than a downvote.
2. If it's a minor transgression then they'd help everyone out by posting a polite reminder/explanation in the thread.
3. If it's because a poster made a factual error then surely posting a correction or clarification rather than a downvote without explanation is more constructive approach.
4. And if it's because they disagree with another poster's opinion then it's better to say so and explain why you disagree.
Downvotes because someone posted a deal that's not hot or something that's wrong

Majority of people don't have time to go through all the comments/posts to discover if a post is valid /good or not. A upvotes/downvote aggregates and disseminate the results quickly

I mean all successful sites just have an upvote/downvote system such as Netflix, TripAdvisor, Amazon, eBay, rotten tomatoes, etc...it's all just a upvotes/downvote aggregate and out pops a score that's a ratio of the upvotes/downvotes

Those with time to kill can read individual posts/reviews if they want more details

Reddit and Slickdeals etc are much more successful due to upvotes/downvotes and a lot more useful

Should upvotes be explained as well?

Not like a single user can downvote a post multiple times and a user's upvote/downvote can't be seen without clicking into profile and the ratio has absolutely zero relevance whatsoever to their activity on here

A post or thread with many downvotes is a good indicator to avoid or do more due diligence. This is 2017, where everything is instant... upvotes/downvotes allow you to instantly decide if it's worth looking into.

Who has time to click into every post/thread, some of which are many pages long to find out if a deal is good or not . A quick glance in the hot deals or whatever forum now instantly by number of net votes allows you me to decide to click in or not
Deal Guru
User avatar
Feb 8, 2014
13436 posts
3339 upvotes
Toronto
Doubleshot wrote:
Jul 17th, 2017 10:07 pm
A post or thread with many downvotes is a good indicator to avoid or do more due diligence. This is 2017, where everything is instant... upvotes/downvotes allow you to instantly decide if it's worth looking into.
Not really, the title tells me whether its worth looking into, a thread with 200+ upvotes selling grey market windows licenses does not make me want to buy it, another thread with a $30 tool chest at Home Depot grabs my interest even if it was rated -10 because people don't like the grade of steel used in it (for $30 its not going to be on par with $500-1000 items) or its not available in their province so they downvoted it
Lies, damned lies, statistics and alternative facts
Banned
Dec 5, 2015
1344 posts
439 upvotes
Thornhill, ON
Quentin5 wrote:
Jul 17th, 2017 11:28 pm
Not really, the title tells me whether its worth looking into, a thread with 200+ upvotes selling grey market windows licenses does not make me want to buy it, another thread with a $30 tool chest at Home Depot grabs my interest even if it was rated -10 because people don't like the grade of steel used in it (for $30 its not going to be on par with $500-1000 items) or its not available in their province so they downvoted it
And nobody is saying get rid of the titles... So that's a moot point .

Well just like ratings and rankings .. they're all important and while there maybe exceptional circumstances as you hypothesised where a low ranked thread is of interest to you and a high ranked one isn't. Just like in real world..the aggregate matters most ...

No different than a credit score or cgpa ...sure lots of reasons why they maybe bad. But it allows quick filtering that 99% of people want majority of the time

Title is like the name of the hotel/restaurant/product... the upvote/downvote is a quick summary of people's rating of that item . Sure title/name is probably most impt...second would be the ranking/rating . No different than going through TripAdvisor or Amazon and sort by ratings
Deal Expert
User avatar
Oct 13, 2009
15609 posts
4372 upvotes
Iqaluit, NU
Pete_Coach wrote:
Jul 16th, 2017 9:41 am
Therein is the problem with the down vote system. You have no idea what the reason is because they have no reason to post it.
If someone would have to provide reasons for the down vote, at least the poster and even the down voter could discuss it or let it be.
This is exactly what I do. If the post is egregious enough for me to downvote it, I follow up with an explanation outlining the reason that the downvote was awarded.
Firebolt wrote:
Feb 12th, 2016 1:09 pm
give lots of head for sick knee fadez, give lots of lap dances for ca$h wallet fades. Always pop that leg when kissing for dope honey combs, knee lots of mans in the crotch for killer whiskers, low ride like an og for them stacks. And traintracks? Only achievable by a legend in the denim game
Deal Addict
User avatar
Apr 5, 2016
2295 posts
143 upvotes
Here's what I was thinking, I don't mind keeping the down vote but the down voting function should also come with a reasonable explanation. If the explanation is not reasonably given by the person who's down voting, the person that is getting down voted has the option to report to admin (or not). Since the down voting options is easy to abuse neither the person who's getting down voted or is the one down voting have the space to reflect on the 'why'.
Last edited by Dumbbelldore on Jul 18th, 2017 7:34 am, edited 3 times in total.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Sep 9, 2010
2935 posts
2106 upvotes
Burnaby
As I see it there aren't too many options for tally-based feedback for posts. And no one is perfect or easy to implement.

Option 1. Making downvotes public.

This option doesn't add any advantage other than downvoters self-refrain, supposedly. I doubt it. A post deserving a downvote will get a downvote even if the caster is made public. OTOH, it's clear that this option would easily lead to retaliatory downvoting (by downvoted user or their clique/'friends'), bickering, feuds, and snide reply posts (toxic environment.) Irrespective of whether the downvotes were well deserved or not.

Option 2. Eliminating downvotes.

IMO, this option is the worse one. The forums would get overwhelmed againg by thread crapping posts, trolling posts, disruptive just-for-giggles posts, rude posts, etc. because the only recourse against this kind of posts would be callouts/retorts within the thread or reporting to mods/admins. Unruly posters would multiply and would claim 'persecution' and overbearing moderation. Mods would be swamped with reports and would advocate for lax moderation that would result in lowering RFD's quality content standards. RFD forums quality would be at par with unmoderated forums typical of 4-chan or reddit/pol.

Option 3. Separating downvoting as sign of negative feedback from downvoting as a sign of disagreement.

This option would require a lot of work in design and implementation and would require educating users about how to properly use two feedback options: upvote/downvote and agree/disagree.

IMO, the problem with anonymous downvoting does not stem from its anonymity but from the downvote feature being a catch-all for "negative" feedback qualyfication of a post (from violation of forums rules to plain disagreement of opinion.) For instance, when a post is upvoted/downvoted to mark agreement/disagreement it gets automatically transformed into a poll (upvote = agree vs downvote = disagree).

In a fair world, upvotes should be reserved for thanking or giving positive feedback to posts that are valuable contributions to a discussion and that have been expressed constructively. Conversely, downvotes should be reserved for posts that are disruptive 'negative' contributions to the thread (threadcrapping, lame jokes, self-promotion, shilling, spam/repetitive-posts, etc.) or that have been expressed in a disruptive non-constructive manner (inflammatory, flamebait, personal attacks, doxxing, bickering, stereotyping generalizations, derogatory, snide suggestions, expletives/language, etc). Any of the downvoting reasons just mentioned is enough to justify getting scorn from the RFD community. Displeasure that can be expressed casting a downvote for such post. Again, the main reasons why the downvoters must remain anonymous to the downvoted poster and regular members are clear: (1) it prevents retaliatory downvoting from such posters or their
clique (friends/sympathizers) and (2) it prevents bickering/feuds/snide-remarks.

IMO, the upvote/downvote feature, tally and statistics should remain the same as it's currently implemented [anonymous downvoting tally]. But, it could be enhanced with a mandatory selection as to the reason(s) for downvoting. These reasons could be categorized so the options available are just a few and without including a vague catch-all option (like "other" for the downvotes of the Opening Posts/Thread Starter Post). These downvoting statistics could be visible only to the mod/admin teams and the poster being downvoted. This way he/she can get feedback of what he/she's doing wrong and correct their behaviour [hopefully without intervention from the admin/mod teams!!!!]. Regular users would only see a total tally for downvotes (i.e., not discriminated by reasons in order to not led up other downvoters and prevent crowd mentality behaviours). In summary, a portion of the moderating actions would be carried out by the RFD community [alleviating the workload for mods/admins, improving the forums contents quality, and making the forums a friendlier environment].

A fully disclosed Agree/Disagree poll could be added to each post [with buttons/controls etc, in addition to the Upvote/Downvote buttons]. This "poll" would allow to express agreement/disagreement with a post [without recording reasons] and it would allow identifying all the members who voted [ids disclosed to everybody] for each option. Such "poll" wouldn't need to be processed any further beyond tallies and voters lists [unlike the Upvote/Downvote statistics which are currently processed to keep the user's reputation stats.] There's no need to create stats for posts agreed/disagreed like the one currently used for up/down voted posts [A/D poll stats for a particular post can be displayed as a pop up clicking on an info button, for example].

This third option has its own vulnerabilities that need to be patched. For example, A/D pollsters might gang up praising a disruptive post (for example, when upvoting posts berating another poster). In this case, if such a post is reported and penalized, the cheering or heckling A/D voters would share the poster's infraction [i.e., make users responsible for their own posts and their feedback votes].

====

What a long post. I shouldn't be wasting so much time on RFD!
yare yare daze...

[space reserved for peddling, shilling, self-promotion and advertising]
Moderator
Sep 27, 2003
8216 posts
1585 upvotes
Newmarket
aviador wrote:
Jul 18th, 2017 7:36 am
As I see it there aren't too many options for tally-based feedback for posts. And no one is perfect or easy to implement.

Option 1. Making downvotes public.

This option doesn't add any advantage other than downvoters self-refrain, supposedly. I doubt it. A post deserving a downvote will get a downvote even if the caster is made public. OTOH, it's clear that this option would easily lead to retaliatory downvoting (by downvoted user or their clique/'friends'), bickering, feuds, and snide reply posts (toxic environment.) Irrespective of whether the downvotes were well deserved or not.

Option 2. Eliminating downvotes.

IMO, this option is the worse one. The forums would get overwhelmed againg by thread crapping posts, trolling posts, disruptive just-for-giggles posts, rude posts, etc. because the only recourse against this kind of posts would be callouts/retorts within the thread or reporting to mods/admins. Unruly posters would multiply and would claim 'persecution' and overbearing moderation. Mods would be swamped with reports and would advocate for lax moderation that would result in lowering RFD's quality content standards. RFD forums quality would be at par with unmoderated forums typical of 4-chan or reddit/pol.

Option 3. Separating downvoting as sign of negative feedback from downvoting as a sign of disagreement.

This option would require a lot of work in design and implementation and would require educating users about how to properly use two feedback options: upvote/downvote and agree/disagree.

IMO, the problem with anonymous downvoting does not stem from its anonymity but from the downvote feature being a catch-all for "negative" feedback qualyfication of a post (from violation of forums rules to plain disagreement of opinion.) For instance, when a post is upvoted/downvoted to mark agreement/disagreement it gets automatically transformed into a poll (upvote = agree vs downvote = disagree).

In a fair world, upvotes should be reserved for thanking or giving positive feedback to posts that are valuable contributions to a discussion and that have been expressed constructively. Conversely, downvotes should be reserved for posts that are disruptive 'negative' contributions to the thread (threadcrapping, lame jokes, self-promotion, shilling, spam/repetitive-posts, etc.) or that have been expressed in a disruptive non-constructive manner (inflammatory, flamebait, personal attacks, doxxing, bickering, stereotyping generalizations, derogatory, snide suggestions, expletives/language, etc). Any of the downvoting reasons just mentioned is enough to justify getting scorn from the RFD community. Displeasure that can be expressed casting a downvote for such post. Again, the main reasons why the downvoters must remain anonymous to the downvoted poster and regular members are clear: (1) it prevents retaliatory downvoting from such posters or their
clique (friends/sympathizers) and (2) it prevents bickering/feuds/snide-remarks.

IMO, the upvote/downvote feature, tally and statistics should remain the same as it's currently implemented [anonymous downvoting tally]. But, it could be enhanced with a mandatory selection as to the reason(s) for downvoting. These reasons could be categorized so the options available are just a few and without including a vague catch-all option (like "other" for the downvotes of the Opening Posts/Thread Starter Post). These downvoting statistics could be visible only to the mod/admin teams and the poster being downvoted. This way he/she can get feedback of what he/she's doing wrong and correct their behaviour [hopefully without intervention from the admin/mod teams!!!!]. Regular users would only see a total tally for downvotes (i.e., not discriminated by reasons in order to not led up other downvoters and prevent crowd mentality behaviours). In summary, a portion of the moderating actions would be carried out by the RFD community [alleviating the workload for mods/admins, improving the forums contents quality, and making the forums a friendlier environment].

A fully disclosed Agree/Disagree poll could be added to each post [with buttons/controls etc, in addition to the Upvote/Downvote buttons]. This "poll" would allow to express agreement/disagreement with a post [without recording reasons] and it would allow identifying all the members who voted [ids disclosed to everybody] for each option. Such "poll" wouldn't need to be processed any further beyond tallies and voters lists [unlike the Upvote/Downvote statistics which are currently processed to keep the user's reputation stats.] There's no need to create stats for posts agreed/disagreed like the one currently used for up/down voted posts [A/D poll stats for a particular post can be displayed as a pop up clicking on an info button, for example].

This third option has its own vulnerabilities that need to be patched. For example, A/D pollsters might gang up praising a disruptive post (for example, when upvoting posts berating another poster). In this case, if such a post is reported and penalized, the cheering or heckling A/D voters would share the poster's infraction [i.e., make users responsible for their own posts and their feedback votes].

====

What a long post. I shouldn't be wasting so much time on RFD!
What if the admins simply removed the downvote total counts from users public profiles. My thoughts are that would remove most "stigma" associated with receiving a downvote as most downvotes would would be contained to a specific post.
RFD Forums Moderator
Corporate Account Manager for a Bell Mobility Reseller
Deal Addict
User avatar
Sep 9, 2010
2935 posts
2106 upvotes
Burnaby
WorldIRC wrote:
Jul 18th, 2017 7:44 am
What if the admins simply removed the downvote total counts from users public profiles. My thoughts are that would remove most "stigma" associated with receiving a downvote as most downvotes would would be contained to a specific post.
Unfortunately (or fortunately?) that 'stigma' is what compels posters to behave properly. In this regard, downvoting has been a heavens sent feature for improving the forums. IMO, the public downvote history should stay as it's.

I was against tallying the opening post downvotes in hot deals (and similar forums) because it'd deter people from posting potential deals. The solution found by the admin team was appropriate as it allows giving feedback and knowing reasons for feedback given by others without affecting too much the thread starter's 'reputation'.
yare yare daze...

[space reserved for peddling, shilling, self-promotion and advertising]

Top