parent
  • Retzilience
    +5

    IUnder the belief that you can't curb people will to downvote things that they disagree 'd be willing to propose a simple system that work in two ways.

    One - Make the downvote just a tiny bit more difficult to cast than the upvote on a two-step procees.

    Two - Make the differentiation of the downvote compulsive.

    It would work like this:

    Once you decide to downvote, a second in-promptu box opens asking you to differentiate your downvote. You would have two options:

    1 - I disagree

    2 - It doesn't contribute for the discussion.

    If you don't select, the downvote isn't cast.

    That way the programers could differentiate the relevance of the post, and keep it on the light of day even if a bunch of people disagree with.

    And things that are inane, like puns or memes could be downvoted on the bases of contributing for discussion properly.

    I hope that the user when facing the written statement of why he is downvoting an opinion will make it harder to try to burry something because you disagree with by lying saying it doesn't add to the discussion, keeping everything more civil.

    • kigurame
      +6

      On snapzu the downvotes are not for disagreeing but more a moderation tool see here in one of my previous Posts. Specifically this by /u/drunkenninja

      If we can all agree that the down vote button is a "moderation tool" instead of a "I don't agree with your opinion tool" we will all be better off and it will promote a far better community experience where unpopular opinions are discussed and hashed out instead of downvoted into oblivion. It would make general interaction so much more interesting.

    • VoyagerXyX
      +2

      If the user selected #1 in this example it would be more appropriate to not cast the downvote and the restrict the user from attempting them to downvote again with a prompt that reminds them that disagreeing with something is not a viable reason to downvote.

      • Retzilience
        +4

        But then, next time he would simply click on "it doesn't contribute to the discussion". Also, this would seem like a punishment.

        In those cases I think it's better to behind the curtains, trough programming, not to cast the proverbial downvote that sends the comment down, but flag the comment with a symbol badge of "Highly Disagreed" and keep the comment up.

        That way the discussion isn't polar on its visibility and the users that disagree feel that their disagreement was made vocal.

        The key problem here is that people will try to downvote what they disagree because that's their only non-vocal action. If you give them a vocal action to disagreeing that doesn't break the intended rules of structuring you may be able to educate the community in the long run instead of looking for workarounds and algorithms to curb the misuse.

        • VoyagerXyX
          +3

          I suppose as long as being disagreed with doesn't affect a users reputation it would be a viable solution. I feel like there's an old school courtesy in typing "I disagree" and stating why rather than just pushing a button to add to a count but that's not really what this is about.

          • Retzilience (edited 8 years ago)
            +6

            Totally,

            I think on Snapzu (at least for now, that creating an account is not so trivial) this will hold for a bit.

            But as soon as trolling by downvoting is easy to do and (in reddits case) the more straightforward action, it will be abused by the (loud and) immature userbase, and then the whole community level is brought down.

            If somehow an education and culture of avoiding burring a comment because you disagree with is dissolved the whole system takes shape and become less and less attractive to angsty teens and trolls.

            • VoyagerXyX
              +3

              If somehow an education and culture of avoiding burring a comment because you disagree with is dissolved the whole system takes shape and become less and less attractive to angsty teens and trolls.

              Yeah but this is incredibly unlikely and that's why I think it would make a very strong impact if people needed to sign their name next to a downvote their giving out. It would send a clear message that this is to be used for quality control ONLY and abuse rates would nosedive. So what if it led to people being flamed by others for downvoting something. It would send a clear and consistent message to people misusing the system that this isn't something we f*ck around with here on Snapzu and that we're serious about the community moderating itself, not just with the quality of POSTS but the quality of feedback. Do you know what I mean?

            • Retzilience
              +3
              @VoyagerXyX -

              @VoyagerXyX -

              Yes,

              And to be quite honest, I think any sort of system trying to tinker and optimize this is top priority, because this system of community is heavily based on the flow of down and up votes, and it is clear as day that the binary system of upvoting "things you like" and downvoting "things you don't like, but don't do it for things you don't disagree with but we know that you will use it to disagree" is terrible for large communities.

              Something has to be done about it.

            • Gozzin
              +2
              @Retzilience -

              A middle button for "disagree"?