wow, i have such a completely different idea of what voting is. see, i think its *exactly* for registering disagreements of opinion. you know, like the whole internet.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Can we please remove the vote buttons?
- Thread starter InsanelyApple
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
wow, i have such a completely different idea of what voting is. see, i think its *exactly* for registering disagreements of opinion. you know, like the whole internet.
The problem is that it has not been used to register only differences in opinion. As stated several times in this thread, the voting has been abused by some people downvoting all posts by posters they personally dislike, with no regard to the content of the posts, even if such posts contained nothing more than a simple statement of fact or the only correct answer to a question. Likewise, it's been abused by some upvoting posts, even when the content was clearly incorrect.
I dont disagree with you here, but the current implimentation is not the answer. Either toss it all together or have both options to balance it out.
The time I spent reflecting over up/downvotes I felt that the ones who made a mistake (like admitting to like Android better than iOS or opting for Windows over OS X) got all of their posts in every thread downvoted no matter what they said. I have a question that maybe you can answer; How was downvoting of any importance if one wasn't quoting at the same time? I mean, the writer was never notified. I for one don't read my own posts after posting so if someone didn't agree with me I just hoped they would tell me.
Of course it's in my head, I didn't say it was fact.
And again, I'm not linking the "I don't agree, mate" to a silent downvote.
Downvote appears to be gone. So, now I have to upvote the posts that quote the abysmal posts while adding a :roll eyes: to have the same effect.
Brilliant.
Brilliant.
I respectfully disagree. But had to post to just say that.
I agree with everything after "rubbish." But I believe that there's a way to have a civil discourse that is respectful of other members and not unnecessarily rude. I do not think "rubbish" added anything to this post and arguably detracted from otherwise an excellent opinion.
In threads like this one, where the point of discussion is whether we agree/disagree with a certain topic, downvoting to show disagreement would be appropriate. But I've seen posts getting downvoted for saying something like "I like red." Where apparently the person downvoting just didn't like red, even though it's really none of anyone's business what anyone's opinion is on the color red.
Still, unreasonable downvotes like that usually get upvoted back fairly quickly. So in my experience, the up/down voting system worked, because posts don't accumulate extreme number of votes either way unless there is a clear consensus among forum users regarding a post.
That was not my post. You commented on someone else's post and I commented on yours.
Again, not my post. Just wanted to clarify.
You can disagree, but it's true. The amount of bickering has increased since the voting system was installed because a new thing to bicker over was introduced.
The system is flawed because everyone has their own definition of what a "+1" or a "-1" means. Some use it to agree/disagree. Some use it to show favoritism. Some use it to flame and annoy other members. Some use it to bully (there are members who get systematically downvoted regardless of the content of their posts). Some use it because they think it's amusing to upvote/downvote every post in a thread (I've seen that countless times). And some of us just ignore it. Because of all these reasons, it isn't really an accurate representation of what people who are viewing or participating in that thread really think anyway.
I'd rather see the vote buttons entirely removed... because then people would actually have to post responses if they cared THAT much, and a written response explaining your reasons for liking or disliking a post beats an ambiguous +/- 1 anyday.
Simple observation: the posts in this thread getting the most +1 votes over the last few days seem to actually be posts requesting the return of the down button.
Oh, the irony.
Oh, the irony.
Well, looks as though Remove and Like Button Only is no longer a clear winner and the "No" option is the clear winner. What a difference a couple of days makes.
Oops, sorry!
Things were going pretty fast in the thread, I clearly lost sight of who had said what.
Downvoting posts you disagree with is abuse? Isn't it the point?
This post kinda shows the limitations of voting. How can I upvote the second half but down vote the first. I guess I can always post a reply
Please bring back the down button. Only having an up doesn't reveal the true sentiment of the readers. Say for example, a highly controversial comment is posted that many people have an opinion about. With both up and down buttons, you may get 200 down votes and 10 up votes. With two buttons, the score will be -190. With one button it will be 10.
Facebook has only a Like button for marketing reasons. Macrumours doesn't need to follow in their footsteps.
Facebook has only a Like button for marketing reasons. Macrumours doesn't need to follow in their footsteps.
It seems this is a reflection of how removing down voting is going to lead to more flaming and bickering. Because people can't just express disagreement with a vote anymore, they are much more likely to get into a slanging match. So actually on topic really
Downvoting posts you disagree with is abuse? Isn't it the point?
This post kinda shows the limitations of voting. How can I upvote the second half but down vote the first. I guess I can always post a reply
Well, it's not like we can ONLY vote -- we can always post, too!
I didn't phrase the part about downvoting just because you disagree very well, though. I was thinking about posts like where someone writes a very articulate and well-reasoned post about why, for him, Windows worked better than OS X, then gets downvoted for it. However, I've seen such posts get a few downvotes, like -2, -3, but never something extreme like -10+. In my experience, it's only posts that are seen as trolling or particularly idiotic that accumulates that many downvotes. So in my mind, the system works, so long as you ignore a few negative votes here and there for having an unpopular opinion.
it didn't reveal the true sentiment of the readers with the down vote button either. Too many people abused it to make it an accurate representation of approval or disapproval.
Unless people were going around upvoting comments they disagreed without or downvoting comments they agreed with this can not really be true. They may have been disapproving of comments for petty reasons but that doesn't mean they didn't disapprove.
So are you saying just having up is somehow more accurate? It's the most stupid thing about FaceBook. Either both buttons, or neither.
It seems this is a reflection of how removing down voting is going to lead to more flaming and bickering. Because people can't just express disagreement with a vote anymore, they are much more likely to get into a slanging match. So actually on topic really
There has always been flaming and bickering on MR, it's always been against the rules, the problem is always moderated (if the moderators know about it, that is).
So no, it's not on-topic.
We still expect people to stay within the rules, even when expressing strong feelings for or against something.- Status