Is this the typical behaviour of fediverse users? Posts in Apple and Nintendo communities immediately get downvoted by people disliking the companies. Can’t they just block the communities?
-
If we’re using votes to rank content then downvotes are redundant because now you have to upvote „right” stuff and downvote „wrong” stuff. Assuming everyone is waging the same kind of information warfare then downvotes won’t anything… but we’re not. Those that downvote willy nilly just want to have more say in things than others who don’t have energy to religiously clean website from „wrong” content. You’re not responsible for safeguarding users from „wrong” content unless you’re reporting rule breaking one. If you don’t like what’s being said but it doesn’t break rules then reply and explain why is it wrong, let others upvote if they agree.
Tildes solved this already. They have regular upvotes and they have labels for offtopic/noise/malice. Being able to use labels is reserved to users with good standing and can be applied once only. Noise downranks things without removing them, malice is essentially same as reporting them. Notably, there is no label for „wrong”.
downvotes are redundant
In practice they are redundant because most people vote based on opinion, so both become the same (agreement gauge). However ideally they aren't redundant; upvotes are to be given to things that stand out, and downvotes to things that detract from the discussion (noise, trolling, etc.)
Those that downvote willy nilly just want to have more say in things than others who don’t have energy to religiously clean website from „wrong” content.
Some see this as an abuse of the system, not as its normal usage. I'm not sure on the dividing line between both things, though.
If you [=anyone] don’t like what’s being said but it doesn’t break rules then reply and explain why is it wrong, let others upvote if they agree.
The problem with that is Brandolini's Law: even if we ignore "intention" (whatever this means), it takes far more effort to address bullshit, assumptions, oversimplifications, "ur sayin dat cuz ur..." etc. than to come up with it. And if it takes too much effort, people won't do it.
As such, a system can't rely solely on replies to let users show each other "hey, this post/comment is bad".
You can rely on stricter moderation; but that comes with additional costs.
Tildes solved this already.
Incidentally my proposal to fix downvotes isn't too different in spirit from what Tildes do.
So, people want to up/downvote based on opinion, right? Let them do it. But give people other ways to quickly show some piece of content is bad, and why. Effectively splitting the downvote button.
-
Downvotes are useful to make bad content sink. Without them, the bad content has the exact same score as fresh new content, content that failed the Fluff Principle, etc
I don't see how downvotes help filter content. It makes sense at first, but either people are sorting content by New, in which case votes do not matter, or they are sorting by Top and will get only the "good" content. Several instances already have downvotes disabled. I don't see any complaints from their users about "bad" content having the same scores as "good" content.
lemmynsfw had to disable downvotes because gay content posted in gay communities was being downvoted. It wasn't being downvoted for quality, but for not being what the majority of users wanted to see. That doesn't mean all users now have to see gay content they don't like because they can't downvote it. It's still easy to filter using the block feature. Again, I've never seen users there complaining about being unable to filter good from bad because they can't downvote.
if you don't reduce its visibility, some clueless muppet is bound to interact with it, usually generating more bad content.
I've seen posts and comments with -100 votes often get lots of interaction from people who can't stop themselves from arguing with a troll. Sometimes there's only 1 or 2 comments under a post so the score doesn't even change its visibility at all.
Either way, giving people way to say "I disagree!" without interfering on the main purpose of the button - sorting content.
The way to say "I disagree!" is with the reply button! Votes don't prove who is right and who is wrong. I've never changed my opinion because of downvotes. Sometimes I even agree with a downvoted comment because I form my opinion based on arguments, not votes.
I also like seeing different opinions. Yours gave me a lot to think about! It'd be a shame if people didn't post their thoughts because they feared being downvoted for it.
I don’t see how downvotes help filter content. It makes sense at first, but either people are sorting content by New, in which case votes do not matter, or they are sorting by Top and will get only the “good” content.
Think quantitatively. Ideally "meh" content should still be easier to see than the bad one.
lemmynsfw
In their situation (as admins of an instance where downvotes were consistently misused), I agree with their decision. However I still think something needs to be done on a software level.
Again, I’ve never seen users there complaining about being unable to filter good from bad because they can’t downvote.
Note this is prone to selection bias.
I’ve seen posts and comments with -100 votes often get lots of interaction from people who can’t stop themselves from arguing with a troll. Sometimes there’s only 1 or 2 comments under a post so the score doesn’t even change its visibility at all.
If it wasn't downvoted, you probably would've seen way more interaction with it.
(Additionally I think people who argue with trolls should get 1d~3d bans. Just a "stop it, you baka!". Including myself. But that's an aside.)
The way to say “I disagree!” is with the reply button!
I mentioned this in the other comment, but basically: if the reason you disagree is due to some issue in the content (e.g. it's an oversimplification, assumption, or plain bullshit), it takes more effort to address it in your reply than to generate that content with the issue. As such a quick-and-dirty way to voice "hey, something wrong with this" is necessary, even if some people abuse it.
-
I don't think you're wrong about the tradeoffs, I just think the tradeoff is worth it.
What if all votes were hidden? You could still press the buttons and it would affect the sorting, but nobody sees the number.
Perhaps it's my personal bias, but I don't like the idea of hidden information. If you can't see it, it's easier to manipulate.
What if it was the opposite - all votes were shown, including who up/downvoted? From what I've noticed, people think twice before mindless downvoting if they know they can be called out for it.
-
Jet has an automated removal bot that will nuke someone for a single down vote. Their opinion is worthless because their moderation is dog shit.
Your question made my brain hurt because I had no idea how you think my opinion did a 180 because I pointed out that you don't practice what you preach.
Jet has an automated removal bot that will nuke someone for a single down vote. Their opinion is worthless because their moderation is dog shit.
Not actually true, there is nuance there: https://hackertalks.com/post/13655318
But hey, everybody makes mistakes including me, would you like to participate in those communities? If I unban you would you positively engage?
-
If you're modding a small community trying to get off the ground and you're suffering from downvoters who aren't participants in your comm, ban the downvoters.
Edit: Hilarious that I got downvoted by an account with 0 comments
You have two downvoters, probably the same person
:::spoiler flyingsquirrel a sockpuppet with 0 comment / 0 posts
https://lemvotes.org/user/flyingsquirrel@lemmy.dbzer0.com
::::::spoiler nothis a vote manipulation account with 0 comment / 0 posts
someone I've had to remove from my communities
https://lemvotes.org/user/nothis@sh.itjust.worksProbably a real person's main account, but just really combative with nothing to say
::: -
preferring to try to curate the fediverse at large
In my opinion, it is presumptuous and arrogant to attempt to curate the fediverse at large according to one's own preferences.
-
preferring to try to curate the fediverse at large
In my opinion, it is presumptuous and arrogant to attempt to curate the fediverse at large according to one's own preferences.
It is arrogant to think the context of a community overrides anyone's personal preferences on how to interact with the voting system.
-
preferring to try to curate the fediverse at large
In my opinion, it is presumptuous and arrogant to attempt to curate the fediverse at large according to one's own preferences.
Piefed has the answer:
-
This post did not contain any content.
Why care? There is no karma system. Just move on
-
Why care? There is no karma system. Just move on
If you're moderating a small community, downvotes can bury posts and hurt its growth.
-
Perhaps it's my personal bias, but I don't like the idea of hidden information. If you can't see it, it's easier to manipulate.
What if it was the opposite - all votes were shown, including who up/downvoted? From what I've noticed, people think twice before mindless downvoting if they know they can be called out for it.
Votes are public as far as the API is concerned and there are tools to show you who voted in what way.
-
Votes are public as far as the API is concerned and there are tools to show you who voted in what way.
I'm aware of lemvotes.org. However, I think this should be part of the default interface, for everyone.
In Lemmy currently this feature is exclusive to comms you moderate:
Sadly I don't expect anything similar for PieFed. I really like plenty of its features, but when it comes to vote visibility it's going the opposite direction - making them unavailable by the API instead.
-
I'm aware of lemvotes.org. However, I think this should be part of the default interface, for everyone.
In Lemmy currently this feature is exclusive to comms you moderate:
Sadly I don't expect anything similar for PieFed. I really like plenty of its features, but when it comes to vote visibility it's going the opposite direction - making them unavailable by the API instead.
making them unavailable by the API instead.
Votes are available via the API. There is a setting to limit it to your local instance. By default, they federate.
-
making them unavailable by the API instead.
Votes are available via the API. There is a setting to limit it to your local instance. By default, they federate.
That's a rather recent change, isn't it? From what I remember the votes were cast by alternate profiles, so even if you tried to grab them from the API you wouldn't know who voted on what.
-
That's a rather recent change, isn't it? From what I remember the votes were cast by alternate profiles, so even if you tried to grab them from the API you wouldn't know who voted on what.
It's been around for a while, I don't remember the dates
Basically, this is what it looks like
-
It's been around for a while, I don't remember the dates
Basically, this is what it looks like
Ah, OK. Thanks for the correction + further info!
-
Valve is exempt from this for some reason however. It’s more like stereotypical basement dwellers treat this like a game where you win by accumulating more imaginary internet points. This kind of tribal behaviour is why threadiverse seems to be failing but at least some people get to feel superior to others in the meantime.
Valve isn't perfect but they've gotten a lot of community good will by not being shitty and vindictive. Nintendo has been just really shitty to their own fans for a long time, with unnecessary litigation and criminal prosecution.
I do agree that tribalism is pretty extreme within the fediverse, but I also don't think that's anything new for any small internet community.
