Should RFD get rid of the "Unable to get the deal" box when voting on a deal?

Temporel wrote: ↑ What the Hell do I care if someone can get a deal or not?
"Not a good price", "Poor merchant reputation" and "Bad product/service" are helpful information but not "Unable to get the deal".
It only brings frustration on people who post deals.

Well, in fact, the "unable to get the deal" is used when a deal is dead (for which you do not need to downvote, but can report to get the MODS to move it to expired hot deals, or you can kindly notice OP for him to move it) OR when a deal is only available in a certain area of the country... RFD is a Canada-wide deals forum. It's kinda normal to find deals in only a certain area of the country. It's normal to have merchants that does business in only a certain area of the country... Now, should we post deals that are only available all across Canada? this would kill RFD's spirit of sharing deals...

Thanks for starting up this poll

The breakdown of vote reasons is available to anyone interested in looking at that data. If the "Unable to get the deal" reason wasn't there, people would just select a different reason which would then incorrectly represent the voting data.

Deal posters are only credited for upvotes so a thread with 10 upvotes and 10 downvotes would only cause that users total to go up by 10. I understand that it can still be off-putting to see a deal be in the negatives though. In the future we may be able to change it so that a deal score only shows the upvote total.

TomRFD wrote: ↑ The breakdown of vote reasons is available to anyone interested in looking at that data. If the "Unable to get the deal" reason wasn't there, people would just select a different reason which would then incorrectly represent the voting data.

Deal posters are only credited for upvotes so a thread with 10 upvotes and 10 downvotes would only cause that users total to go up by 10. I understand that it can still be off-putting to see a deal be in the negatives though. In the future we may be able to change it so that a deal score only shows the upvote total.

Thanks for the reply but offering the "Unable to get the deal" box encourages people to downvote for a stupid reason.
If it wasn't there, the "Other (downvote)" box would be the logical selection if you insist about communicating the useless information that you were unable to get the deal.

Temporel wrote: ↑ Thanks for the reply but offering the "Unable to get the deal" box encourages people to downvote for a stupid reason.
If it wasn't there, the "Other (downvote)" box would be the logical selection if you insist about communicating the useless information that you were unable to get the deal.

I figure there is a very logical reason for "unable to get the deal" box. There are quite a few posters who will post very YMMV hot deals (i.e. limited stock at one lone location) AND don't put YMMV or a location in their post. There are also some who will post telecommunication deals that are so YMMV you can only get it through second level retentions.

chimaican wrote: ↑ I figure there is a very logical reason for "unable to get the deal" box. There are quite a few posters who will post very YMMV hot deals (i.e. limited stock at one lone location) AND don't put YMMV or a location in their post. There are also some who will post telecommunication deals that are so YMMV you can only get it through second level retentions.

So, all of this solved by a simple YMMV that everybody understands?

Temporel wrote: ↑ So, all of this solved by a simple YMMV that everybody understands?

Pretty much.

Posters need to add a location and/or YMMV into their title. I figure they get that downvote from people because their posted deal is so isolated and limited. It's like the Wal-Mart clearances where it's like one store out of the entire country with 2 left in stock but OP fails to mention any of that - they just post hot deal.

I am wondering whether we need ask the reasons for downvote at all. If people want to downvote, they will downvote. They probably just pick up a random reason regardless whether it's the reason they downvote.

Also @TomRFD , what does RFD use downvote reason for? Or do you actually use it at all?

smartie wrote: ↑ I am wondering whether we need ask the reasons for downvote at all. If people want to downvote, they will downvote. They probably just pick up a random reason regardless whether it's the reason they downvote.

Also @TomRFD , what does RFD use downvote reason for? Or do you actually use it at all?

I don't.

Downvotes are useful when you are not too knowledgeable about a deal.
It's an indication if the general consensus is that it's been cheaper before (Not a good price), if it's a bad product/service or a sketchy merchant.

The only downvotes that add no useful information is "Not able to get the deal".

Temporel wrote: ↑ The only downvotes that add no useful information is "Not able to get the deal".

Personally I think that it's because "not able to get the deal" is misused. What it should mean is "(I followed the instructions but was) not able to get the deal".

I went to the store and asked for the discount, and they said it was only for people who bought something there during the holiday period. That wasn't in OP's instructions. I was not able to get the deal; it's a bad post and should be downvoted. Fair enough.

It absolutely shouldn't be used in situations where someone posts a deal for Bob's Tires and there's no Bob's Tires store in or near your town. That's not "not able to get the deal", that's "decided the requirements for the deal were too inconvenient so did not try to get the deal" and shouldn't get a downvote.

Patrickpete wrote: ↑ Wait what? I've always thought that the downvotes cancels out the upvote? So if you had 30 ups and 20 downs, you would get a total of 10 upvotes; have I been wrong all this time?

Yes. If you post a deal that gets 1 upvote and 100 downvotes, the upvote counter in your profile will go up by 1. It's not "net upvotes".

TomRFD wrote: ↑ Deal posters are only credited for upvotes so a thread with 10 upvotes and 10 downvotes would only cause that users total to go up by 10. I understand that it can still be off-putting to see a deal be in the negatives though. In the future we may be able to change it so that a deal score only shows the upvote total.

I think a better change would be to only show the net total, with a floor of zero. That way people can affect the total by downvoting to counteract upvotes, but it doesn't allow people to pile on (rather than showing -200, it will just show 0: same as a new deal or a deal that no one has voted on). It also means we avoid the situation of OP getting mad at downvotes when there's 10 upvotes and 3 downvotes; it would just show 7.

Temporel wrote: ↑ I don't.

Downvotes are useful when you are not too knowledgeable about a deal.
It's an indication if the general consensus is that it's been cheaper before (Not a good price), if it's a bad product/service or a sketchy merchant.

The only downvotes that add no useful information is "Not able to get the deal".

I guess my question is if people downvote and gave whatever reason, then what? What insight others can get from it and how it helps others?

smartie wrote: ↑ I guess my question is if people downvote and gave whatever reason, then what? What insight others can get from it and how it helps others?

I guess my answer could have been clearer: if I don't pick up a random reason when I downvote, why would any one else do that?
Of course if people do silly things, then nothing else matters.

Patrickpete wrote: ↑ Wait what? I've always thought that the downvotes cancels out the upvote? So if you had 30 ups and 20 downs, you would get a total of 10 upvotes; have I been wrong all this time? Then why does the up and down votes automatically get subtracted on the thread?

it does in a single thread, for OP (posts in a thread cannot be downvoted, and it's ok that way) but downvotes doesn't count towards your profile's total

Nope, its a valid option to tell people OP forgot to add YMMV and not waste time going after the deal.

And a valid score for a deal that is not very accessible either. Its not like downvotes affect personal profiles.

This is a great option. I downvote if people post in-stock threads that are not deals.

Perfect example, PS5. "Unable to get the deal" because OP didn't show me any actual deal and should have posted it in Video Game thread.

But moderators don't move the thread (very inconsistent), so I will keep downvoting such threads.

kenchau wrote: ↑ This is a great option. I downvote if people post in-stock threads that are not deals.

Perfect example, PS5. "Unable to get the deal" because OP didn't show me any actual deal and should have posted it in Video Game thread.

But moderators don't move the thread (very inconsistent), so I will keep downvoting such threads.

that’s a misuse of unable to get deal you could get deal but your opinion is it isn’t a deal…

Shamus66 wrote: ↑ that’s a misuse of unable to get deal you could get deal but your opinion is it isn’t a deal…

No, because there is no deal. Something simply being in stock at regular price is not a deal. So I'm unable to get deal.

this thread isn't going how the OP planned.