LOUNGE all new asksnapzu ideasforsnapzu newtribes interesting pics videos funny technology science technews gaming health history worldnews business web research entertainment food living internet socialmedia mobile space sports photography nature animals movies culture travel television finance music celebrities gadgets environment usa crime politics law money justice psychology security cars wtf art google books lifetips bigbrother women apple kids recipes whoa military privacy education facebook medicine computing wildlife design war drugs middleeast diet toplists economy fail violence humor africa microsoft parenting dogs canada neuroscience architecture religion advertising infographics sex journalism disaster software aviation relationships energy booze life japan ukraine newmovies nsa cannabis name Name of the tribe humanrights nasa cute weather gifs discoveries cops futurism football earth dataviz pets guns entrepreneurship fitness android extremeweather fashion insects india northamerica
+89
Save

[Feature/Site Behavior] Mandatory Reason for Downvote

Briefly searched, and didn't see this suggested yet, so I decided to make a thread here about it. Please let me know if it has already been suggested several times, etc.

I know you can select various reasons for downvoting, but I think it would be nice for an alert to come up in the middle of the browser saying, "Please specify a reason for downvote.", requiring those who are downvoting to give a specific reason. I think this could help deter trolls, potential downvoting brigades, and even help submitters because:

  1. It adds another screen for the end-user and thus makes it slightly more difficult to downvote. It may inhibit people who only downvote because, "....for reasons", and if a downvote is truly warranted it will:

  2. Aid the submitter in knowing if there was a fault (incorrect tribe, spammy, etc.) so they know what went wrong.

1 year ago by massani with 65 comments

Join the Discussion

  • Auto Tier
  • All
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Post Comment
Conversation 34 comments by 17 users
  • Cobbydaler
    +21

    There is already a small 'icon' that says 'reason' when you downvote. Unfortunately, you can choose to give no reason.

    • Idontmindturtle
      +17

      I've done a bit of work around reason codes/classifications. If you take away the option to give no reason, an actual reason becomes the new default reason and you lose any kind of meaningful analysis on the actual reasons that were being given. I've suggested this previously, but I think the best thing to do is to cap users daily downvotes based on tenure, or admins to do analysis around downvotes per user and remove people who don't seem to be able to grasp the concept of not contributing vs disagreement.

      • AdelleChattre
        +5

        The metered cap based on reputation is, subtly, already in place.

        • Idontmindturtle
          +3

          In the form of shadow banning downvotes (not downvoters)?

          • AdelleChattre
            +12

            As I understand it, the more downvotes one casts over a certain period, the less weight they carry. The idea of shadow banning is absolutely terrible, and not in the cards here, I should hope.

            • Idontmindturtle
              +6

              Not shadow banning the user, but ignoring their downvotes. I don't like shadowbanning users either. Great system if it's already in place.

            • kxh
              +2
              @Idontmindturtle -

              How about downvoting more than a certain limit could reduce their rep or exp points. As long as it was made clear to the downvoter.

            • thesavagemonk
              +3

              Shadowbans are great tools for one use: fighting spammers. Aside from that I agree that shadowbans are a bad moderation tool.

            • AdelleChattre
              +3
              @thesavagemonk -

              Like capital punishment is a great tool for fighting murder. Sounds fine until you give it a moment’s thought, something nobody at Reddit itself has done. They make up for it, though, with a strict covenant of silence, so they’ve got that going for them. It’s ridiculously bad policy.

            • thesavagemonk
              +4
              @AdelleChattre -

              I'm not sure I follow. For true spammers, e.g. a bot account, shadowbans are a great moderation tool, since they don't allow the bot/spammer to know it's been banned. The problem comes when shadowbans are used for other purposes. As long as they're only used as a tool to fight true spam, I don't see the problem.

            • AdelleChattre
              +3
              @thesavagemonk -

              It’s not a moderation tool, for one thing. At Reddit, mods don’t shadowban, admins do. Anyone can ask for a user to be shadowbanned, including mods, but that’s still not a moderation tool.

              What you’re suggesting is, to my mind, like saying capital punishment, if it was only ever carried out on actual murderers, would somehow fight murder itself. In the scenario you describe, it’s trivial for the spammer to detect and confirm that they’ve been shadowbanned. It can be and is, in fact, easily automated. It’s no more effective against determined spammers than capital punishment prevents crimes of passion in the heat of the moment.

              In the complementary scenario, where some poor schlub gets shadowbanned and never knows it, they can participate for in some cases years without knowing. So no, shadowbans aren’t magically secret to spammers, but they can be to innocents. Imagine if summary capital punishment was doled out arbitrarily based on whispered guesses made by power mad paranoiacs, and the practice itself was forbidden to discuss. People might object to that policy, which along with ever sending a piece of mod mail, could subject you to that policy.

              If you’re working security and someone gots to go, you put them outside. You don’t put them in a sound--proofed cell in the basement to keep an eye on them. Never do someone a minor injury.

            • thesavagemonk
              +3
              @AdelleChattre -

              Ah. That makes more sense to me. Thanks for the explanation.

      • massani
        +4

        Those are great suggestions. Although it may be a bit hard to do the analysis around the downvote one.

        In particular, I wasn't lobbying for the "No reason option" to go away but to specifically have an alert come up right when the user hits the downvote button. That way it will potentially dissuade people from just spamming downvotes or not considering the full weight of the downvote button.

      • blue2501
        +3

        If you take away the option to give no reason, an actual reason becomes the new default reason and you lose any kind of meaningful analysis on the actual reasons that were being given.

        What? If you force the user to provide a reason, then they will have to pick a real reason. You lose any meaningful analysis by including "no reason" because they are not forced to pick a reason. I think it's okay to have an Other option with a freeform result. You can use that to create other static reasons, if Other becomes popular.

        • Idontmindturtle
          +2

          There is nothing that will force them to pick a real reason, there is something that will force them to pick any reason. I've worked in note type/interaction classification analysis in a CRM system for more than one company any when you go from a system of not leaving notes as a habit, to forcing people to leave classifications, you find that some groups inevitably get set up as default options by users unless their classifications are being audited and managed.

          By forcing people to leave value, It doesn't just mean you are getting nonsense data input into one category, it means you are also losing the true value of the category as it is not possible to distinguish the true values from the default entries (nonsense data).

    • jarekb84 (edited 1 year ago)
      +9

      Where does this icon appear? Tried downvoting temporarily on this post and didn't see any icons appear.

      Edit: Nvm, see it now, but only on snaps, not text posts. Looks like it takes a few seconds for it to appear. Would recommend to change this to a required field when downvoting since it shouldn't be used for not agreeing with the content, but basically breaking Snapzu's terms and conditions.

      • cmagnificent
        +6

        It seems to be buggy. I've only down voted once since I've been here and that was to a comment that was literally "OP is a phaggot" and a dialogue box didn't appear. I specified my reason in a comment however.

        • drunkenninja
          +22

          The down vote reason function is currently only available for snaps. We will be expanding this functionality into other areas of the site like comments, text posts as well as from all source like the font page and feed. This functionality expected to be release sometime next month.

          • jarekb84
            +5

            Any chance this will be a mandatory action when downvoting?

            • drunkenninja
              +8

              This is something we will need to discuss at length as we create the functionality. We will definitely test what works before it makes it into the live release.

            • kvn
              +2
              @drunkenninja -

              Suggestion: Have a cutoff % for when it prompts with a message. For example, if a snap is above 95% upvotes, then a downvote will prompt with a message asking the reason why. If it's below this %, downvotes are free to be used without explaining why.

          • cmagnificent
            +2

            What are your feelings at this time on the possibility of a mandatory reason for the down vote? I mean if you're going to be expanding and implementing new functionality already, it seems like it would be an optimal time to do it.

          • GlyphGryph
            +1

            I'm not seeing it for snaps, either...

        • VoyagerXyX
          +6

          This is also the only time I've ever downvoted anybody. It's also the only time I've ever seen a negative comment score on this entire site.

      • massani
        +5

        When I tested it, it's a small icon that appears just right of the downvote button. It should say, "reason?". You can click that then an alert comes on the screen showing you different selections.

      • Cobbydaler
        +4

        It doesn't seem to be working at present, it usually just slides in immediately to the right of the downvote arrow.

        • AdelleChattre
          +5

          It comes up, but it’s as laggy as the site is busy at that moment.

    • massani
      +4

      Yeah I've seen that. I just think an alert in the center of the screen or something would be more beneficial.

    • feyes
      +2

      When I hit downvote, nothing pops up.

      • Cobbydaler
        +2

        Seems to have stopped working for me as well.

    • i208khonsu
      +2

      Not any more there isn't.

    • GlyphGryph
      +2

      Where is this icon? I tried to find it by downvoting your post but couldn't find anything. I was honestly expected a pop up or something with "no reason" as an option, but do I actually have to hunt for some obscure symbol in order to say why? That seems counterintuitive...

    • 3rdWheel
      0

      It doesn't apparently work on mobile, even on snaps.

Conversation 20 comments by 13 users
  • Cobbydaler (edited 1 year ago)
    +10

    2 downvotes for this? WTF? There are certainly some shitty new users coming to Snapzu.

    • massani
      +10

      Either they were testing and didn't see drunkenninja's comment and forgot to remove their downvote, or they simply disagree with my suggestion. There shouldn't be any downvotes at all on this, but some people just want to watch the world burn Cobbydaler.

      • Cobbydaler
        +4

        Well said. I'm beginning to think this influx of new users is a bad thing.

        • drunkenninja
          +20

          Cobbydaler, I wouldn't take it so personally, there is no perfect community out there. What matters is that we are able to mitigate and live with our imperfections.

          • Cobbydaler
            +2

            I'm not taking it personally. I'm just sad for the good people who are trying to make this a better place when idiot trolls are downvoting them.

            • drunkenninja
              +7

              We will try our best to educate, but there is only so much you can do until mitigation is the only reasonable path. We are of course checking all suggestions, and are always interested in good solutions.

            • 5irKarl
              +3

              Why do you assume its idiot trolls, its most likely what massani said. Either that or they just disagree, no need to just insult the community like that.

            • utesred
              +3
              @5irKarl -

              While 'idiot trolls' may a bit harsh, Cobbydaler is right. In a perfect world without 'idiot trolls' and where everyone knew what a downvote signified; this post wouldn't have any downvotes. The fact that they are downvoting because they disagree means that they either are oblivious as to what a downvote signifies on snapzu, or they're just an 'idiot troll' who doesn't care.

              I don't think Cobbydaler is insulting the community. It can be difficult transitioning from Reddit to Snapzu. I've noticed that downvotes tend to carry much more weight around here, because they are far less common. They're really only used to signify spam, effortless posts, incorrect tribe, or NSFW content that's not labeled as such. When people use them when they don't fit, it's a lot more insulting to see than it is on Reddit. I think that's Cobbydaler is a bit more offended over a couple downvotes than the typical redditor might be.

            • frohawk
              +1
              @5irKarl -

              Cobby isn't though. The word troll puts assumption on the individual's character, not the whole of the community. Not saying anyone's wrong or right, but y'know. Syntax and things.

        • cmagnificent
          +8

          As one of the new users I sincerely apologize for this. The main reason I chose snapzu over other potential sites was because of the positive atmosphere and the excellent community the veterans had built for us. For what little I can do, I'm trying to mitigate and educate on the differences that make snapzu special, but as massani said, some people just want to watch the world burn.

          • TheDylantula
            +7

            Same here. I love the bright atmosphere the veterans have created. I hope our fellow reddit migrators don't ruin it :(

            • utesred
              +2

              I don't think that us new people will ruin it, TheDylantula. The culture here seems to be really strong, and I would expect to see the new members integrate into it. The site is certainly setup to be more conducive to the atmosphere. I wouldn't worry too much. :)

          • VoyagerXyX
            +5

            Fellow ex-redditor here. I've been trying very hard to prove myself on Snapzu and show some of the original Snapzu users that we aren't all bad! It's hard to make up for the behavior of others but damnit, I'm trying!

        • imnotgoats
          +5

          I wouldn't tar everyone with the same brush. It might seem disheartening (and I agree that there is absolutely no reason to downvote this), but the fact the option is there means it will be used from time to time. I generally prefer the 'upvote only' approach - the good stuff still rises (I think I've used the downvote button less than 10 times in years of reddit).

          From what I have seen regarding this influx, it appears that the majority of migrating users are pleasantly surprised with the friendly vibe here, along with the far smaller prevalence of mean-spirited idiots. I think voat is seen as the other primary option for those who are really behind the 'anything goes, act how you want' mindset.

        • massani
          +5

          Well as a new user, it can't certainly be all bad. Like drunkenninja said, it's more about mitigating the problem. With these 3500 new members, I'm sure a very small percentage of them are bad eggs. If we as a community provide enough support to one another then it will prevent them from breeding their hate. Just a matter of doing it now rather than later so it doesn't make the situation worse.

        • MrLithium
          +4

          I disagree. I think growing of a community is usually always a good thing. The only thing I can see being an issue is that the new influx (presumably from reddit) is unfamiliar with the rules of Snapzu. On reddit, people downvote usually because it goes against the hivemind. On here, I'd imagine that if there were a reporting system that pops up when you downvote, it would lessen the downvotes because the people who are downvoting for an illegitimate reason wouldn't do it because they would have to go out of their way to downvote.

          • Cobbydaler
            +3

            There is a reporting system when you downvote a snap. People are ignoring it.

            • MrLithium
              +6

              Oh, there is? I haven't seen it because I haven't downvoted anything. Noted

        • double2
          +2

          Dicks are always, and have always been, an unavoidable member of any community that is big enough to actually support itself. This is due to the number of dicks IRL. You can't stop them from existing, but you can totally take the wind out of their sails through clever algorithms and automatic flagging of suspicious use. Personally, I just think downvoting should be a fairly high-level privilege - like level 10 or something. Perhaps even weighting the value of your downvote power in line with your level? Maybe there could be threats of having xp deducted from you if you are spot checked and found to be abusing your downvote power, which would then reduce the weight of your downvotes?

      • 3rdWheel
        -2

        There shouldn't be any down votes at all on this...

        Come on now, that's a bit high and mighty, Don't you think? This issue was already touched on in a blog post and maybe the down voters thought making downvoting more difficult it arbitrary and unnecessary. Of course, they could also be jerks. I don't know, but never assume something should never have down votes.

  • sriehl
    +9

    I really do see this as a plus.

    As a new poster, I'd really like to know what I'm doing wrong when down voted.

    On reddit, I do admit voting down a few comments that I just didn't agree with (I'm trying hard not to do that here). Having to give a reason, would stop me, or someone like me, from mindlessly voting down.

    • AdelleChattre
      +8

      Try this: if you're in a comment thread with someone, upvote them for keeping up the conversation. That way, if they let you down or lose your interest, you can simply not give them their upvote. Save the downvote for especially galling, hopefully rare moments.

  • caelreth
    +5

    I'm for this for one simple reason: if my snap is being downvoted, I would like to know why so that I can attempt to avoid making the same mistake in the future (especially if I find a trend in why I'm being downvoted). I looked at a snap of mine earlier and it had 1 downvote, but when I clicked on the downvote arrow it told me that no users had given a reason for downvoting the snap.

  • BlankWindow
    +4

    Mandatory 140 character reply to the snap/txt/comment? If something is wrong I don't see an issue with someone having to publicly explain why it is.

    Visible ratio of upvotes to downvotes of an individual overtime? Dropping below a certain thresholds disables voting for progressively longer periods of time.

    There are a lot of options that may have not even been considered as of right now.

    • ClassyCritic
      +3

      I think that there should be some kind of ratio limiting users on their down-voting. In my opinion, upvote things that add to the discussion, and things that don't add will naturally drop. I use the downvote similar to the way I would a 'report' button. By adding some kind of requirements for downvoting, or by using up/down vote ratios, this would stop the excessive downvoting.

  • Roundcat
    +3

    I honestly think its too early to decide whether we should change the downvote system or not. For the most part, I feel it works fine the way it does, and even though we've had an influx of downvotes due to the number of new users from reddit, I feel most of the people from there will either adapt to the culture here over time, or move over to a site that they'd be more comfortable at like voat.

    There are always going to be people who downvote for petty reasons, and they'll make there distaste known no matter how many roadblocks you put in front of it. Its ultimately up to the community on whether we encourage it or not. We can usually tell when a post deserves downvotes or not, and usually when a post gets wrongfully downvoted, we can tell just by looking at the content and the numbers.

    I feel its better to call out this behavior when it happens, rather than change the rules for everyone. Say I'm running a tribe, and I see an influx of downvotes in recent posts. I thinks its far more civil and fair to the users to open up a discussion about it, rather than place restrictions on all users. I never think its a good idea to let the abusers set the direction for how things are run.

    And finally, I feel some of the suggestions being thrown around have the potential to be ineffective or even harmful. Making reasons mandatory can be bypassed simply by lying, and Identifying downvoters would could not only put people on the spot, but also set them up for retaliation. If the downvote problem does get out of hand, we could turn the downvote button into a spam button, or just get rid of it all together, but for the time being I wouldn't mess with it.

  • Atilly
    +2

    Honestly, I don't like browser-interrupting anything and I vote 'no' for this feature. It's better to try to instill a commonality of 'give a reason for downvoting' amongst Snapzu (And Reddit converts like myself) than making it mandatory.

  • phosphorescent
    +2

    If we want to prevent spam, we could also limit downvotes (and possibly invite codes) to verified users. Prevents doing things like creating a bot that uses its invite codes to make new accounts, and those accounts making new ones, and then all of those downvoting.

  • TheDylantula
    +1

    /u/Idontmindturtle already mentioned that with a requirement of a choice that there will become a default choice, so I have a different idea.

    What if we make it where you have to upvote, say, 10 posts/comments in order to be able to downvote 1 post or comment? Yes, there would still be some wrongly downvoted posts, BUT, at least it would make sure that the general atmosphere is positive.

    Maybe I should make this into a post of its own for the xp, but I'm lazy.

    • kvn
      +2

      What if you see two very troll/negative comments? You will need to upvote 20 good comments/posts? I feel like your idea is too restrictive.

      • TheDylantula
        +2

        Maybe 10 is a bit much, but if you are active on the site, you should over time build a small stockpile of downvotes in case you do see a couple posts that truly need downvotes.