Remove Thumbs Down

[Vegeta897]

So, since the topic of making the forum a less hostile environment has been pervasive today, I figured I'd suggest something here that would actually be a simple step to prevent some of it.

Down voting doesn't serve any purpose other than to annoy the person on the receiving end.

Unlike upvotes which save people the need to post things like "haha" or "good post" or "cool!", and make the person happy who receives them.

Down votes are usually used when you disagree with something someone posted. And when the downvote is issued, the person will want to know why, and a post will be needed to explain it, which defeats the purpose in the end.

I challenge anyone to show me a downvote that actually had a useful purpose. Sometimes people downvote and then reply anyway, which is just redundant. It only feels good for the person giving it to them, and it's a malicious way of feeling good.

Thoughts?

 

[Krynn72]

I once downvoted someone because I disagreed with what they said in their post. I didn't even say anything in the thread, but when I returned to the site I had an angry pm waiting for me.

The only other times I've downvoted have been for fun, like that time when you yelled at me for downvoting your post in one of the music thread. Though something good did come out of that, I learned that the label "electronic" has no real meaning. So maybe we should keep downvotes after all!

 

[Vegeta897]

Thank you for sharing, that's the kind of thing I mean when I say it annoys people and cannot replace an actual post.

If you don't want to address a person's post that you disagree with or don't like, better to keep it to yourself rather than annoy that person with an unhelpful downvote.

 

[Stylo]

I dunno, man. It seems useful for small green turtles to express a lot of anger they've probably been burying for some time.

 

[Krynn72]

Thank you for sharing

You're welcome, friend.

I dunno, man. It seems useful for small green turtles to express a lot of anger they've probably been burying for some time.

Wait a minute, Vegeta you're just trying to get a better Like : dislike ratio than me again! God damnit, I got Araviss to downvote you fair and square! You and your schemes Vegeta, this is why we can't be nice to each other on nicetime.net!

 

[Viperidae]

Well, there was the one time every post me and Vegeta made in a two month period was downvoted by the same person. Took that person at least half an hour of just clicking thumbs down. It was entertaining, because it showed how he was desperate/attention seeking; so I guess downvotes have entertainment value if you dgaf?

 

[Bad^Hat]

I agree haha.

 

[Shem]

Well, there was the one time every post me and Vegeta made in a two month period was downvoted by the same person. Took that person at least half an hour of just clicking thumbs down. It was entertaining, because it showed how he was desperate/attention seeking; so I guess downvotes have entertainment value if you dgaf?

How did that downvote feel?

 

[Wanted Bob]

Yeah, I kinda agree on this. Most of the times someone downvotes me (which oddly enough adds on like 5 to the existing count), I get a response saying why they disagree with me anyways. They don't seem to contribute much aside from making people feel bad about themselves (though there is the occasional downvote rampage which is kinda funny).

It's certainly not a huge deal, but getting rid of negative reinforcement and keeping positive reinforcement can only help the community, I think.

 

[ríomhaire]

I actually agree. They're just little snarky jabs at people and they don't really do anything but promote a slight hostility. Thumbs up can at least to be used to show support and as has been said replace superfluous "agree" messages while thumbs down are by definition pure nastiness.

 

[Vegeta897]

You're all god damn hilarious.

 

[Chris D]

We are currently discussing this in the board room.

I recall that our intended use of the add-on (by default, XenForo only has Likes) was to have a number of ratings (some positive, some negative), but you and some others shit all over the idea pretty much as soon as we launched.

So, how should we proceed?

Revert back to default behaviour and have Likes only? Or actually consider having a wider variety of ratings? They could all be positive or we could still have a mixture.

 

[Vegeta897]

I was against the idea of any post ratings back when it was first brought up, but that's ancient history. Through the course of the argument I had with someone on the Facebook post, and especially after seeing it in use on the boards, I've changed my mind. I like the like system. I even liked the ratings with different types, but they weren't really necessary. This thread is only about removing something that I think only causes drama and irritation. If you want to bring back the other post ratings, go crazy.

Negative post ratings could be playful depending on what they were. That would be down to a matter of everyone's opinion really. For example, I wouldn't mind a "typo" rating, but I'm sure it could annoy some people. And some others still might even find it helpful.

 

[Omnomnick]

Well they're back. We decided on "Like", "Funny", "Informative" and "Useful", so give some feedback on the updated system in this thread and we'll see if they're all necessary/welcome.

 

[Chris D]

And Agree.

 

[Omnomnick]

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo...

 

[Vegeta897]

Informative and Useful seem redundant. I can't imagine a post being useful without containing some sort of information. But neat!

Can we have a rating that says "That's just like, your opinion man"?

 

[Chris D]

They are usergroup based so I might add a staff only one that reads: "**** you".

 

[Vegeta897]

Can I have my own user group, with a special tag that says "I'm typing up a reply to your post"

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

So, since the topic of making the forum a less hostile environment has been pervasive today, I figured I'd suggest something here that would actually be a simple step to prevent some of it.

Down voting doesn't serve any purpose other than to annoy the person on the receiving end.

Unlike upvotes which save people the need to post things like "haha" or "good post" or "cool!", and make the person happy who receives them.

Down votes are usually used when you disagree with something someone posted. And when the downvote is issued, the person will want to know why, and a post will be needed to explain it, which defeats the purpose in the end.

I challenge anyone to show me a downvote that actually had a useful purpose. Sometimes people downvote and then reply anyway, which is just redundant. It only feels good for the person giving it to them, and it's a malicious way of feeling good.

Thoughts?

Vocalized. http://vocaroo.com/i/s0QxbhgbmjoH

(audio regulates after the first sentence)

 

[Vegeta897]

It would be totally awesome if we had a plugin that let users submit their own narration of any post, and it would show up on the post.

 

[Stylo]

It would be totally awesome if we had a plugin that let users submit their own narration of any post, and it would show up on the post.

Yeah, this way we could type stuff like "I award this post a Thumbs Down"

 

[Vegeta897]

If there's one slight thing that bothers me about having a "funny" rating, is that sometimes posts have very subtle humor, and sticking a "funny" rating on the post feels like it kind of ruins that. I guess for those posts I will just use Like, so people don't hunt for the joke upon seeing the rating.

 

[Omnomnick]

Chris recently changed the way profiles display ratings. He removed the old system and replaced it with a more robust system showing the breakdown of all the individual ratings.

 

[Vegeta897]

Random bug, for some reason this pops up when I try to view the Like on this post: http://www.valvetime.net/threads/newbie-need-some-explaination.243511/#post-3407789

 

[Higlac]

Bring back tags and the blue theme.

 

[Vegeta897]

Ok so, any post ratings are unable to be viewed, with that permissions error.

 

[Chris D]

Fixed now, thanks.

 

[Vegeta897]

Just realized, I can't seem to give any ratings to news post comments. Before they could be liked and disliked.

 

[Naph]

Yay, all my furry posts will not get downvoted! Including this one!

 

[Shem]

My posts are hairy, not furry.

 

[Sheepo]

Late to the party, but devils advocate here: Generally I find downvotes are a good way to call out a person who makes a somewhat out of line, inappropriate, or just dumb post, as determined by a consensus among several posters. Not everyone needs to have a four page quote war telling someone they're an ass or dumb and downvotes allow one person to post a clear and specific response and then show that their words have the weight of much or all of the community behind them.

I typed this and then realized everyone could just like the response of the clear and specific response poster. Still, a little less obvious to the person who people have a fault with.

On this general topic: The amount of positive options I find a little bothersome. I suppose it's not hurting anything, but it just seems very arbitrary. Generally you can determine from the context of the post what people liked about it.

 

[Vegeta897]

Late to the party, but devils advocate here: Generally I find downvotes are a good way to call out a person who makes a somewhat out of line, inappropriate, or just dumb post, as determined by a consensus among several posters. Not everyone needs to have a four page quote war telling someone they're an ass or dumb and downvotes allow one person to post a clear and specific response and then show that their words have the weight of much or all of the community behind them.

If their post is enough out of line to be reportable, you can report it. If it's just plain stupid, you can either explain why in a reply or move on. Downvoting does not tell the person why they're dumb, and thus only serves to irritate them. If a four page quote war is going to happen, a downvote certainly isn't going to replace or prevent that. If anything, it can make it more likely, because people get angry. The situation you're describing where one person gives a clear and specific explanation, backed up by tons of downvotes, is just unrealistic and pointless. The original poster gains nothing from having a ton of downvotes tacked on to their post when they already have someone explaining clearly why the post was bad. And if he wants to further contest it, it's going to happen, and other people may join in to drive home the point.

Like you said, agreeing with someone who replies to him is a much better way to show community consensus than piling on negativity. The only reason the original poster wouldn't "get it" is if he was stubborn, and I don't know how you think a person like that would fare better with a pile of downvotes instead.

I have only very rarely seen the scenario you're describing before we removed downvotes, and even then it wasn't effective or necessary.

 

[Sheepo]

I just think sometimes someone will be defensive and ignore a rational explanation when confronted because they can write it off as one person being over-sensitive/stupid, but the backup of downvotes can show him he's in the minority without having a ton of people falling all over each other and filling up a thread trying to show him the error of his ways. I honestly don't think it's a scenario that's that uncommon (atleast when specifically looking at cases where posts are commonly rejected by people, if you mean in general you're most definitely right), but I agree it's probably not worth keeping them over that one point. Just advocating Satan.

 

[Hamdoud4ussuf]

I think that RATING should be an "Advantage" for old and active users who don't give downvote just to have fun and not give an opinion