this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2023
163 points (95.0% liked)
sh.itjust.works Main Community
7648 readers
29 users here now
Home of the sh.itjust.works instance.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No one is looking up the votes of every single comment/post they make and keeping up with that. I guarantee you admins of instances are doing literally nothing about it because it’s not a priority. It’s a visual cue to anyone browsing a thread, and it encourages dogpiling. This is well documented, a cursory Google search will show you plenty about this. You’re welcome to disagree, but it’s not like I’m just making this up.
Let me ask you this: why do you think we need downvotes? It’s not about saying they don’t hurt, it’s rather that they need to serve a purpose. What purpose do you think they serve currently? Because it isn’t sorting.
+80/-20 +50/-50 +20/-80 +1/-99 +100/-0
Just from those vote counts, I can be pretty sure the first comment is insightful, the second controversial, the third a troll, and the fourth is definitely spam. The fifth is probably a cat pic, relevant xkcd, meme, or a single-sentence comment that everyone loves, but doesn't actually add anything important to the topic. If I'm looking for an interesting conversation, I'm focused on the first two, maybe the third. If I'm looking to be pissed off, the third and fourth. And if I'm looking for an easy read, the fifth.
+80, +50, +20, +1, and +100 doesn't provide the same information. It's the downvotes that provide the relative context.
You can also be "downvoted into oblivion" if you're 100%, objectively correct, but your conclusion goes against the "hive mind." I have had comments with a ton of sources and detailed analysis that got downvoted like crazy, and then the top comment is like "X group, amirite?"
You're 100% correct that reddit rewards snark far more than constructive discussion. That's part of why I'm here, and why I'll probably be perennially disappointed with social media.
I value the ability to view the community sentiment more than I value artificial manipulation of the voting system to make the community seem more fair and open minded than it actually is.
When my opinion is not well received by the community, either I am wrong, or I have not presented it in a way they can understand and accept.
"Downvoting to oblivion" is not an inherently bad thing, even when it is due to a mistake or misconception. Just because that particular conversation has ended and 99.9% of the traffic has passed through does not mean the topic is finished. It will come back up in the future, and I know I will need to focus on that mistake or misconception when it does.
I also reject your characterization that upvotes are a "reward".
That's a moderation issue, not a community voting issue.
I disagree that this is a "problem". Votes are opinions, not objective fact.
Again, that's primarily a moderation issue, not a community voting issue. The moderators enforcing a zeitgeist is certainly a problem; the community, not nearly so much.
For the community, it's really only a problem if we assume upvotes are "good" and downvotes are "bad". You have thus far completely ignored my point that the 80/20, 50/50, and even the 20/80 comment threads are consistently superior to the 100/0 threads. You need disagreement and conflict to have debate. Without the downvotes, you just have a weakly upvoted comment. With the downvotes, you have an immediate indication of a divisive position, ripe for a lively debate.
So what is the desired end result of a voting system, to promote popular opinions, or to promote interesting opinions? Because as implemented, voting-based SM tends to promote the former, and I think many people prefer the latter.
So to me, it is a problem because it's not meeting the goals that presumably most people have.
Many platforms, like Reddit, hide comments that get too many downvotes. So many people just won't see the interesting, controversial discussion, and I think that's a problem.
We should be sorting based on likeliness of being interesting, not popularity.
The voting system just presents the community opinion on the comment. There are any number of ways to weigh those opinions. The other metrics I would want to see are number of threads, average length of threads, average word count in replies, etc. But raw upvoted and downvote counts go a long way toward finding good content.
It only really works in smaller communities imo, as the community gets larger, it just reflects what's popular, and that's a separate scale from good vs bad, especially once your community has self-selected itself into a common way of thinking.
So the question is, how do we mitigate that self selection? How do we promote diversity? Voting doesn't seem to cut it, and I don't think moderation is the way either (we just need the "right people" argument). So yeah, I'd like to see a lot more experimentation with different ways of sorting comments and posts, because I think promoting diverse content is better long term.
It's both. You're not wrong with the groupthink thing, but they absolutely do help to combat disinformation and useless comments. I get that you've made a decision, but you don't need to rationalize away the negatives.