Can we please remove the vote buttons?

[Joe-Diver]

If you're going to allow voting, rating, or whatever....you MUST allow both opinions to be registered.

Only allowing one...an upvote...is worthless....cowardice.....Orwellian.

Either allow it or not. Or, make it up to each user...an option in CP....like seeing sigs or avatars....

 

[maflynn]

If you're going to allow voting, rating, or whatever....you MUST allow both opinions to be registered..

I'm not making a case for either position, but I will had the facebook has implemented a like only type system. While this is not the exact same thing, it is similar.

My advise, if you don't like the up vote only button, then ignore it completely. Those that do like it will use it.

Its not like we're voting on the next world leader, or anything.

 

[BigPrince]

Okay experiment over please!

More then 50% did not want them removed!

 

[Swordylove]

Why is anyone so bothered by being downvoted? Unlike YouTube, no matter how many downvotes you get, it doesn't cause your post to be hidden or deleted. Just accept the fact that you can't be popular all the time. Sometimes most people will disagree with you, but doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong.

So you came to an Apple forum and get lots of downvotes because of your pro-Microsoft/Samsung comment... boo hoo big deal! Your life ends here. Goodbye.

 

[azentropy]

Okay experiment over please!

More then 50% did not want them removed!

Time to see if MR listens to the majority of their users or not.

 

[theanimaster]

Bet there are a lotta people posting stupid stuff now, while that 'down vote' button is gone :roll eyes:

----------

If this is a trial however, I suggest waiting a few more days/weeks for those in favour of removing the down vote button to wake up and realise the ones not in favour have beat them to the poll...

..yeah, what a difference a few days could make.

 

[dejo]

Time to see if MR listens to the majority of their users or not.

50% of voluntary poll responders is hardly the majority of MR (and, in no way, scientific).

 

[azentropy]

50% of voluntary poll responders is hardly the majority of MR (and, in no way, scientific).

You realize all polls are voluntary, right? I'll assume you meant unsolicited poll. Just like the up/down voting a post polls can get negative - so will they be the next to go? Then after that maybe they will just start deleting posts they find negative don't agree with...

I'll miss people being able to down vote my opinion in this post! 😀

 

[dejo]

I'll assume you meant unsolicited poll.

Yup, that's what I meant. Sorry. Been too many years since my statistics course.

 

[Fortimir]

Removing the downvote is flat-out ridiculous. This is "everyone gets a trophy" mentality at its finest.

First off, the votes don't mean anything. It's not like enough downvotes and the post gets hidden. It's just a barometer of the general likability or agreement towards a post. Big deal. We gained very little in removing it, but lost a lot.

I like that it can be seen if something is blatantly inaccurate at a glance. This is especially beneficial to newbies. If they see a post with 12 downvotes, they can be confident to not trust what is said.

Also, so many threads in here already get long enough without people having to explain their displeasure. Every downvote has just been moved to a comment that will make the threads more unmanageable.

Finally, I have to agree with what someone else said. Over 50% of the votes were to keep the downvotes, and I think that number would be even higher if the poll were seen by all. I never had any reason to complain, therefore no reason to find this poll.

I highly suggest bringing back the downvotes. Most of us are adults.

----------

50% of voluntary poll responders is hardly the majority of MR (and, in no way, scientific).

Agreed. There is likely a larger number of respondents who were displeased than were pleased. I know I was happy with the way it was, so I had no reason to find this poll.

 

[GGJstudios]

I like that it can be seen if something is blatantly inaccurate at a glance. This is especially beneficial to newbies. If they see a post with 12 downvotes, they can be confident to not trust what is said.

That is exactly the problem. There have been far too many cases of accurate, factual and beneficial posts being downvoted simply because the voter disliked the poster, which can be misleading to newbies, who may think such negative votes means the content of the post isn't to be trusted.

Most of us are adults.

Unfortunately, some adults don't act like adults.

 

[Fortimir]

That is exactly the problem. There have been far too many cases of accurate, factual and beneficial posts being downvoted simply because the voter disliked the poster, which can be misleading to newbies, who may think such negative votes means the content of the post isn't to be trusted.

Is this seriously enough of a problem to invalidate an entire system? I don't pay attention to usernames. I pay attention to content. I'd be inclined to believe the majority of users do the same. Which is my point. It's a heavy-handed solution to a small problem. I believe the benefit of the downvote button far outweighed the occasional abuse.

----------

Unfortunately, some adults don't act like adults.

Correct. But there's enough evidence in the world that imposing regulation on 100% of the mostly-insignificant actions of 1% festers disdain and resentment.

Since the votes don't ACTUALLY do anything, the people that don't like them should just ignore them. Otherwise, I believe most of us find good use in them.

 

[darkplanets]

You realize all polls are voluntary, right? I'll assume you meant unsolicited poll. Just like the up/down voting a post polls can get negative - so will they be the next to go? Then after that maybe they will just start deleting posts they find negative don't agree with...

I'll miss people being able to down vote my opinion in this post! 😀

To play devils advocate it could be technically involuntary if they so desired (except their site setup doesn't allow it). An example would be you having to sign an updated agreement upon logging into a service again before continuing -- in this case it would be a poll.

 

[Fortimir]

I flat-out think they should come back, but I wouldn't object to having a post count requirement (like avatars).

If votes could only come from people with more than 50, 100, or 250 posts... do you believe they could be more trusted?

 

[darkplanets]

Is this seriously enough of a problem to invalidate an entire system? I don't pay attention to usernames. I pay attention to content. I'd be inclined to believe the majority of users do the same. Which is my point. It's a heavy-handed solution to a small problem. I believe the benefit of the downvote button far outweighed the occasional abuse.

That's optimistic, I'd say. Without naming a few people, I'm sure you can imagine who receives daily downvotes simply based on their names. We know who they are. Sure, they often have an outlying view... but their content isn't per se bad.

I personally retain my original position of removing them -- if you dislike a post, a constructive comment or criticism means far more than an ambiguous vote.

 

[GGJstudios]

If votes could only come from people with more than 50, 100, or 250 posts... do you believe they could be more trusted?

No, as some with much higher post counts have been part of the problem of inappropriate downvoting. I think getting rid of all post voting is the only way to resolve this. The forum worked fine before they were introduced and their introduction added a new level of dissension and bickering that detracts from the enjoyment of the forum.

 

[Fortimir]

No, as some with much higher post counts have been part of the problem of inappropriate downvoting.

Out of genuine curiosity, what makes a downvote inappropriate? Also, from a hive-mind mentality, I would think that a large number of votes either way would be enough to be outside the margin of error. Is there an example of this abuse, and who is making this judgment at all?

 

[GGJstudios]

Out of genuine curiosity, what makes a downvote inappropriate? Also, from a hive-mind mentality, I would think that a large number of votes either way would be enough to be outside the margin of error. Is there an example of this abuse, and who is making this judgment at all?

Read post #811.

 

[VulchR]

50% of voluntary poll responders is hardly the majority of MR (and, in no way, scientific).

Depends on what you mean by scientific. if you mean that the sample might not be representative of the population of MR members, then of course that's a possibility. However, it would be incumbent on people taking this view to provide a plausible reason why the sample might not be representative, otherwise one would invoke Occam's Razor and tentatively accept it is representative. Note that as the number of MR members who answer the poll increases (currently n=716, which would be considered quite a good sample size in the behavioural sciences), the likelihood that it is unrepresentative decreases.

Trust me - I have a Ph.D. 😛

 

[Fortimir]

Depends on what you mean by scientific...it would be incumbent on people taking this view to provide a plausible reason why the sample might not be representative...

As I was happy with the system, I had no reason to find a place, and subsequently a poll, to complain. I merely found out it existed after wanting to downvote and searching out an explanation.

I'm led to believe the people who supported the downvote were not accurately represented. This is the general nature of the internet. There are more complaints than praises, because people who are happy voice their view less than those who are unhappy.

----------

Read post #811.

But how do we *know* that this was always the case? How do we know there was personal vendetta against "so many" posts? And again, I cannot imagine it being an issue on more than a, relatively, small number of them.

 

[GGJstudios]

But how do we *know* that this was always the case? How do we know there was personal vendetta against "so many" posts?

When you see every post by a particular poster downvoted regardless of its content, and those posts contain no statement of opinions, but only factual answers to questions, there is obviously an abuse of downvoting. I have seen this happen on numerous occasions. As an example, look at post #781 in this thread, along with the upvotes supporting it. Notice that no reference was made to downvoting posts based on content, but rather based on who posted them. That's exactly what I'm talking about. If someone posts an opinion, downvote or upvote to your heart's content. That's fair game. However, if you're accurately answering questions for newbies and giving facts, not opinions, downvoting is inappropriate and potentially misleading to the newbies reading the advice given.

 

[SkyBell]

So you came to an Apple forum and get lots of downvotes because of your pro-Microsoft/Samsung comment... boo hoo big deal! Your life ends here. Goodbye.

This is what caused a lot of commotion about down-voting in the first place. Yes, this is an Apple forum and you've gotta expect it to be a bit biased, but it was frankly ridiculous seeing someone make a well informed, helpful comment, suggesting a better alternative to an Apple product or pointing out a valid flaw in one, and seeing it down-voted mercilessly. Simply because it wasn't in line with the voters' willfully ignorant opinion.

Is it a big deal? No, it really isn't. But why even have a voting system in the first place if it's just going to be abused like that? In a perfect world, posts would be voted upon for their merits and in an unbiased fashion. But as it stands, I see the current solution as perhaps needing a bit of tweaking, but much improved upon what we had.

 

[VulchR]

As I was happy with the system, I had no reason to find a place, and subsequently a poll, to complain. I merely found out it existed after wanting to downvote and searching out an explanation.

I'm led to believe the people who supported the downvote were not accurately represented. This is the general nature of the internet. There are more complaints than praises, because people who are happy voice their view less than those who are unhappy.

Ah... the silent majority argument. That does seem to be the implicit theory of many here, including some mods and perhaps the site's owner. However, if we're being scientific, there would have to be some sort of evidence that this was true rather than some sort of stereotype. The alternative hypothesis is that the people who participated in the poll care about the format of MR, and that they are very committed members. That could be checked by comparing their post counts to the distribution of all MR users. I do not have those those data, but perhaps those running MR do.

 

[firestarter]

I like that it can be seen if something is blatantly inaccurate at a glance. This is especially beneficial to newbies. If they see a post with 12 downvotes, they can be confident to not trust what is said.

I'm in general agreement of this. I usually limited my down-voting to where I thought that someone was trolling the forum by over-posting unhelpful or unreliable information.

 

[GGJstudios]

I'm in general agreement of this. I usually limited my down-voting to where I thought that someone was trolling the forum by over-posting unhelpful or unreliable information.

If someone is trolling or posting false or misleading information, they should be reported, as there are forum rules against such posts:

Trolling. Do not post in order to anger other members or intentionally cause negative reactions. For a given post, this can be a subjective call, but a pattern of such posting or an especially egregious case will get you banned.

Hoaxes. Purposely misleading other members to their detriment. Giving advice you know to be incorrect or harmful. Sensationalism.

Overposting. Making the same post many times, making multiple pointless posts in the same thread, making numerous posts with no real content, or posting for the purpose of gaining a higher post count.

Sources. If you make claims of fact but don't cite sources when requested, the posts may be removed. If you started the thread then the thread may be closed or removed.