Downvote option.

kneemos

Boards seriously needs this to eliminate the endless crap jokes and rubbish responses you get in AH in particular.Makes it unreadable for the most part.
It would vastly improve the quality of threads imo.

Zaph

kneemos wrote: »

It would vastly improve the quality of threads imo.

But surely downvoting would mean that nobody would ever get to see your threads. :pac:

A number of years ago we had a reputation system which turned into a complete train wreck. The potential for abusing the system was huge, and was fully exploited. The potential for abuse by introducing dowwnvoting is even greater and consequently every year or two when it's brought up the answer is always the same - it'll never happen.

kneemos

Zaph wrote: »

But surely downvoting would mean that nobody would ever get to see your threads. :pac:

A number of years ago we had a reputation system which turned into a complete train wreck. The potential for abusing the system was huge, and was fully exploited. The potential for abuse by introducing dowwnvoting is even greater and consequently every year or two when it's brought up the answer is always the same - it'll never happen.

How would it get abused?

Zaph

You don't think that it's likely that a group of people would conspire to downvote a thread to suppress opinions they don't like? Or to suppress posters they don't like?

kneemos

Zaph wrote: »

You don't think that it's likely that a group of people would conspire to downvote a thread to suppress opinions they don't like? Or to suppress posters they don't like?

Kind of the whole point of it really isn't it? No conspiracy,unpopular opinions would be unpopular. These threads and posters get slagged anyway.

The level of inane crap that destroys almost all of AH has reached rediculous levels,a downvote option would clean up the predictable gibberish.

Zaph

But what if something isn't genuinely unpopular, it's just a view that certain people want to suppress because it doesn't fit in with their worldview? All it takes is a few PMs to round up a few like-minded individuals, get them to spread the word and then all of a sudden the thread that goes against their opinions, no matter how well constructed and reasonable it is, gets downvoted into oblivion.

kneemos

Zaph wrote: »

But what if something isn't genuinely unpopular, it's just a view that certain people want to suppress because it doesn't fit in with their worldview? All it takes is a few PMs to round up a few like-minded individuals, get them to spread the word and then all of a sudden the thread that goes against their opinions, no matter how well constructed and reasonable it is, gets downvoted into oblivion.

Seriously? I think it would be worth it for the improvement. The chances of a handful of sad individuals doing such a thing would be slim.
If that's your sole reason for objecting to it you need to do better.

Flint Fredstone

kneemos wrote: »

Seriously? I think it would be worth it for the improvement. The chances of a handful of sad individuals doing such a thing would be slim.
If that's your sole reason for objecting to it you need to do better.

I think you're underestimating the cliques you get on sites like this.

Zaph

kneemos wrote: »

Seriously? I think it would be worth it for the improvement. The chances of a handful of sad individuals doing such a thing would be slim.
If that's your sole reason for objecting to it you need to do better.

You believe it would be an improvement, the opinion of many on this site who were around for the rep debacle is that it would not be. As it stands it's a moot point because it's not a function that's available on the legacy or touch sites (I've no idea about the responsive site) and unless it could be implemented across all platforms it would never be a runner.

dudara

We had a reputation system before, and to say it was a trainwreck would be kind. I would not be in favour of introducing any such attempts again. If a topic or thread is unpopular, then it will die anyway as no one will post.

kneemos

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

I think you're underestimating the cliques you get on sites like this.

Well so what if it did happen occasionally? Somebody gets some downvotes.Serious posters probably aren't that bothered anyway,it's those that repeat the same unfunny stuff repeatedly for a few thanks are the ones that need to be discouraged.

maregal

Terrible idea. It's less censorship we need, not more.

Steve

kneemos wrote: »

it's those that repeat the same unfunny stuff repeatedly for a few thanks are the ones that need to be discouraged.

If you report them then the mods will (if appropriate) remove that crap.

Boards has used humans over voting algorithms to do the moderating so far. It's been working well for for nearly 20 years now...

Barry Badrinath

Down voat option would be ridiculous for this site.

Aaaaaand to be honest, you'd be fcuked OP!

:pac:

LoLth

In a perfect world it would be a good idea . or in a site with enough of a userbase where the extremes are just that, an extreme without a disproportionate representation.

In reality, it just results in unpopular opinions being pushed out of the way so they can be easily ignored as if they never happened. Given that boards quite frequently is the target of organised attempts to divert or subvert the course of a discussion I would think we'd quickly become an echo chamber which, I think everyone who has posted an opinion in the bias thread seems to agree, is not what anyone wants apart from the same extremes that cannot accept an alternative opinion existing.

you see peer based systems used in sites that can afford the "levelling" out period where the gaming of the system dies down after the extremes get tired and opinions get more evenly distributed. problem is, who's going to pay to keep the site running while the reputation gets repaired enough to bring the user base back? Boards is big but its not that big.

K-9

Zaph wrote: »

You don't think that it's likely that a group of people would conspire to downvote a thread to suppress opinions they don't like? Or to suppress posters they don't like?

Politics.ie tried something similar and I gave up reading posts about who thumbs downed who, fecking mind numbingly boring.
I see your point kneemos but I haven't seen a better alternative yet, think of the crap as the price you pay for the genuinely funny or informative post.

Beasty

Something like this may well destroy a forum like Soccer where the tribalism amongst a minority is quite clear and every opportunity would be taken by some to have a dig at fans of certain other teams

ThisRegard

Reddit, imo, is a brutal site because of how their voting system works. Can you imagine any of the politics threads with such a system?

GLaDOS

I'd probably stop using boards if a reddit style voting system was brought in

Overheal

Downvoting as you say, is only used on some sites "would clean up the predictable gibberish"

On boards though there's a pretty strong and well established moderation system that takes care of that instead. You know, so After Hours and such are (constantly) ridden with posts about "yore ma" "blast them with piss" etc.

Downvoting in most other contexts is equivalent to "safe-spacing," for instance someone might bring an unpopular view about abortion, religion, the role of feminism, etc. and in the current system, mods check the content for trolling/wind-up artistry/gibberish and other users are free to report the post with their outlined reasons for objecting to the content as well. If the content passes that (ie. the controversial open, while controversial, has merit in discussion), other users are free to explain why they disagree, rather than simply silence the viewpoint with downvoting. It should be noted, as well, that users have the option to ignore specific posters they really don't feel like engaging with period. With a downvoting system you skip all of that, and the point of discussion is lost: you get mob rule/soapboxing/circle jerking.

eg. "That guy was shot by the police!"
100 posters: "Asshole! Police State! Fire him! Hang him! Rabble"
1 poster: "Hang on, there's a lot of conjecture here and no evidence..."
*poster muted by mob*

And then whether or not it turns out there is strong evidence to support the cops actions ie. the 1 poster's contribution, the discussion point was already downvoted and lost.

I really don't see the added benefit of having a downvote system in place here with moderation, reporting, ignore features, and thanks. Users can already parse through a thread and gravitate to the most heavily-thanked posts if they so wish. From what I've seen they're only in place on some sites where the site moderation is weaker, so the automated tool is placed there for users to self-moderate. From what I've seen though the results of that system are rarely as constructive as a well moderated site without such a feature.

Cabaal

maregal wrote: »

Terrible idea. It's less censorship we need, not more.

Its actually amusing,

We have threads claiming mods are censoring topics but here we have somebody actually suggesting a way that groups of users could actively censor a topic or poster they didn't like.

Darkglasses

The lack of downvoting and each post having equal priority is one of the best things about this site. Unpopular opinions getting hidden is such a lame way to run a discussion forum.

EmptyTree

kneemos wrote: »

Kind of the whole point of it really isn't it? No conspiracy, unpopular opinions would be unpopular. These threads and posters get slagged anyway.

Unfortunately unpopular and valid often cross paths.

Judging from this thread, looks like this idea got the downvote :cool:

batistuta9

Could be a thumbs down though.

But I think the thanks system is pretty pointless anyway unless you're late to the threads.

Beasty

batistuta9 wrote: »

But I think the thanks system is pretty pointless anyway unless you're late to the threads.

Again it's been covered many times before. The thanks option avoids posters simply posting +1s all over the place

batistuta9

Beasty wrote: »

Again it's been covered many times before. The thanks option avoids posters simply posting +1s all over the place

Just put a no +1s posts in the charters.

You've still no idea who thanked/agrees with it if you're not behind in the threads

Isn't the most thanked tab, essentially upvotes, which can be abused in the sameways the downvotes could

Overheal

If there was a No +1 rule:

"I agree 100%" and other 1-2 line comments ad nauseum.

There's a difference between the Thanks lending weight to a well-liked contributing post, and the downvoting/squelching of an unliked post. Under the current system there are no "applause" posts (12 pages of "I like what you say and would subcscribe to your newsletter") and no spoiler posts (eg. "STFU you asshat") because they are moderated. Neither style of post contributes any subject matter to the discussion.

5starpool

I'm not sure why this thread is even still open. There is more chance of me winning the lotto jackpot that something like this being introduced here. It has been discussed and dismissed so many times it is boring.

Overheal

5starpool wrote: »

I'm not sure why this thread is even still open. There is more chance of me winning the lotto jackpot that something like this being introduced here. It has been discussed and dismissed so many times it is boring.

You're right, it should have been downvoted straight away :cool:

hatrickpatrick

Zaph wrote: »

You don't think that it's likely that a group of people would conspire to downvote a thread to suppress opinions they don't like? Or to suppress posters they don't like?

OP has clearly never been on Reddit. Dear God, the level of strategic voting is a cancer over there.

The_Valeyard

I could see a downvote system working like a plane shot out of the sky slowing falling to the ground.

Its horrible on reddit, the amount of political, cliche voting is unreal. Even look at the Ireland section. Post something that the regulars do not like, or agree with. You get down voted to death. Bizarre way of doing things.

Can see it easily abused on boards. "I do not like person A because of an earlier thread, so I will down vote everything they say from now on"