Asklemmy

43831 readers

964 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

Should downvotes require a summary textfield? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) by ganymede@lemmy.ml to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

17 comments fedilink hide all child comments

across a variety of modern up/down vote based platforms, some make it a personal mission to avoid downvoting (the only real exceptions when someone is being utterly objectionable, ie. ridiculously racist/sexist etc or blatant spamming ^(1)^

in general, it is almost always better to have a respectful discussion than mindlessly downvoting and moving on. if two parties can meet for respectful discussion the outcome is almost always superior to the text-book divisiveness of a downvote war etc ^(2)^.

in a great many cases people usually find they don't disagree as much as previously thought, have their mind opened to a valuable new perspective, or at worst accept to disagree respectfully. definitely a better outcome.

yes it is time consuming, but don't we all generally want quality over quantity?

^(2)^ the original idea of a self-moderating community through up/down votes is a good idea, yet appears to have been hijacked by the modern social-media-type weaponised web, which is being turned against humanity to divide and polarize us against eachother. and is particularly suspectible to bot manipulation.

^(1)^ which can have eg. their own flags

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] morrowind@lemmy.ml 17 points 3 years ago (2 children)

That would have the unfortunate side effect of increasing negativity, as people are pushed to actually voice it instead of giving a harmless downvote. And when you consider the extra effort required, the downvote itself essentially becomes meaningless, turning this into a mechanism of "if you don't like it, make sure to let everyone know why, or shut up" which I don't think is very helpful.

That said, maybe something like adding an extra step where you choose a reason for the downvote from a list like "spammy, offensive, rude/toxic, annoying, misleading/innacurate" etc. or write your own, and those could be visible to moderators (anonymously) as a sort of micro-report. Would dissuade people from mindlessly downvoting and help improve moderation in the process.

[–] lemmy_check_that@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 years ago

Also I often think people easily tend to downvote things just because they disagre, even though it might be constructive content. I have at least caught myself doing that before.

[–] ganymede@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago)

adding an extra step where you choose a reason for the downvote from a list like “spammy, offensive, rude/toxic, annoying, misleading/innacurate” etc. or write your own

This sounds like an excellent idea & the perfect compromise. As outlined in ^1^ of the OP i think spam/toxic/offensive could have their own flag. But definetly inaccurate etc could be a perfect compromise.

and those could be visible to moderators (anonymously) as a sort of micro-report. Would dissuade people from mindlessly downvoting and help improve moderation in the process.

Definitely another good idea, the only possible exceptions might be if a user is just spamming the wrong reasons merely to keep downvoting mindlessly, it may be good for mods to have a way to detect that. As it it could indicate possible bad faith and especially possible bot manipulation.

unfortunate side effect of increasing negativity, as people are pushed to actually voice it instead of giving a harmless downvote. And when you consider the extra effort required, the downvote itself essentially becomes meaningless

I agree with the mechanisms you've described here, except that I wonder if it might actually help rather than hinder. If people are entering mean things then it would increase the negativity, but if they're voting for mean reasons then isn't that that type of behaviour we want to weed out (and possibly even discount such a downvote for such mean reasons?).

And if they're providing respectful, helpful criticism then I don't think that is increasing negativity, but potentially makes a net positive overall.