Upvotes and Downvotes

[maxal]

For me the question remains intact: when is it warranted to put a post in the red? Nobody has broached this topic yet. 

[Stormgate]

From what I have gathered, if a comment is rude, mean, or disrespectful or something like that, it's appropriate to downvote to red. If I see a red post that I don't think should be red, I usually upvote it, especially if it's a Sharder's first post.

[Mestiv]

I think posts should be put in the red zone if they are breaking forum etiquette, but are not rude/aggresive/offensive enough to be reported. I can accept eventually the downvotes used on popular posts that try to balance them, but making posts red should be limited to the cases I've mentioned.

[FeatherWriter]

For me the question remains intact: when is it warranted to put a post in the red? Nobody has broached this topic yet. 

 

The staff is fairly firm on not setting down a list of "you may only downvote a post if it contains X, Y, or Z" because that's not the way rep is intended to work. Aside from outright downvote abuse—getting other members to gang up on a member's post or wantonly downvoting just because you dislike someone—members may use upvotes and downvotes as they please. And with the new downvote quota, it's even more difficult for Perhaps downvoting someone just because you don't agree with them could be seen as petty or rude, it is not against the rules. If a user wants to downvote a post, it is their right to do so.

 

Everyone is going to have a different philosophy of how the best way to upvote or downvote, and that's okay. The system is there to be used in the ways that members wish to use it.

[Blaze1616]

Everyone is going to have a different philosophy of how the best way to upvote or downvote, and that's okay. The system is there to be used in the ways that members wish to use it.

 

There has never been a truer truth spoken in this thread.

Edited January 12, 2016 by Blaze1616

[Kobold King]

The staff is fairly firm on not setting down a list of "you may only downvote a post if it contains X, Y, or Z" because that's not the way rep is intended to work. Aside from outright downvote abuse—getting other members to gang up on a member's post or wantonly downvoting just because you dislike someone—members may use upvotes and downvotes as they please. And with the new downvote quota, it's even more difficult for Perhaps downvoting someone just because you don't agree with them could be seen as petty or rude, it is not against the rules. If a user wants to downvote a post, it is their right to do so.

 

Everyone is going to have a different philosophy of how the best way to upvote or downvote, and that's okay. The system is there to be used in the ways that members wish to use it.

 

 

I find this frustrating to hear. The staff is, as you say, very firm against putting down concrete rules about the "proper" way to vote posts. However, the newest quota was instituted with the expressed intention of countering the specific voting habits of a large segment of the forum.

 

To me this represents a clear case of the staff regulating the way we use the rep system. A sparing use of the upvote system has been declared to be proper, and the liberal use of it has been made impossible with the coding of the forum. The rules the admins set about upvotes are as concrete as can be, but they will not even institute an etiquette guideline where downvotes are concerned.

[little wilson]

The rules the admins set about upvotes are as concrete as can be, but they will not even institute an etiquette guideline where downvotes are concerned.

Feather never said there wouldn't be an etiquette guideline. If you go back and read Chaos' posts about the rep post that is forthcoming, I think you'll find the opposite to be true. What Feather said was that there won't be a set rule of "you can *only* downvote a post that has these very specific things wrong with it." The rep system is meant to be to be at least partially up to each user's interpretation. But is there an etiquette? Yes. Absolutely.

[Kobold King]

Feather never said there wouldn't be an etiquette guideline. If you go back and read Chaos' posts about the rep post that is forthcoming, I think you'll find the opposite to be true. What Feather said was that there won't be a set rule of "you can *only* downvote a post that has these very specific things wrong with it." The rep system is meant to be to be at least partially up to each user's interpretation. But is there an etiquette? Yes. Absolutely.

 

 

Very well, I will concede that.

 

However, Feather's statement that "The system is there to be used in the ways that members wish to use it" remains incongruous with the limitations that have been put into place. The admins have clearly decided that one way of using upvotes is superior to the rest, and have instituted a quota in favor of their vision.

[Blaze1616]

To replies since I started typing. Sorry for any potential ninjas.

 

I find this frustrating to hear. The staff is, as you say, very firm against putting down concrete rules about the "proper" way to vote posts. However, the newest quota was instituted with the expressed intention of countering the specific voting habits of a large segment of the forum.

 

To me this represents a clear case of the staff regulating the way we use the rep system. A sparing use of the upvote system has been declared to be proper, and the liberal use of it has been made impossible with the coding of the forum. The rules the admins set about upvotes are as concrete as can be, but they will not even institute an etiquette guideline where downvotes are concerned.

 

I disagree with your assessment, because they've also limited our downvote usage, and the limitation is far more strict than the upvote limitations. The current downvote quota is so low that users who approach downvotes like littlewilson has described can only adjust the upvote count on two posts a day. That's 1/5th the amount of upvotes. Suggesting that they have set rules for upvotes that are "as concrete as can be", but are not doing the same for downvotes is, quite simply, ludicrous. Heck, the amount of downvotes won't even allow me to issue them against a user who's particularly aggressive or offensive if said user makes more than 2 posts before a staff member intervenes (which is not uncommon in those situations), which is the method you employ for downvoting.

 

In addition, I feel we've beaten the downvote issue to death. There have been a multitude of threads that were hijacked by the issue in the past, and the staff have continuously stated that downvotes can be used how each individual user wishes so long as there isn't abuse of the system. People who have abused the system have always been caught, and I can't think of a single time on 17S where such a user got away without some form of punishment or warning. 

 

You're allowed to have your own opinion, but just because you only downvote when you feel a post has offended you or was an attack on a friend does not mean that all downvotes you receive mean the same. Just because I think giving gift cards is lame because it's less useful than money, but also means you couldn't think of a single thing to give the individual, doesn't mean I get upset when others give me gift cards. They might not view it the same way I do.

[Chaos]

The staff is fairly firm on not setting down a list of "you may only downvote a post if it contains X, Y, or Z" because that's not the way rep is intended to work. Aside from outright downvote abuse—getting other members to gang up on a member's post or wantonly downvoting just because you dislike someone—members may use upvotes and downvotes as they please. And with the new downvote quota, it's even more difficult for Perhaps downvoting someone just because you don't agree with them could be seen as petty or rude, it is not against the rules. If a user wants to downvote a post, it is their right to do so.

 

Everyone is going to have a different philosophy of how the best way to upvote or downvote, and that's okay. The system is there to be used in the ways that members wish to use it.

To clarify, this topic regarding Reputation will have some guidelines to make it more clear what both upvotes and downvotes are utilized for, in a very broad manner that should satisfy every use case.

I also have a post with more information regarding things brought up in this thread that is forthcoming, hopefully today.

[maxal]

The staff is fairly firm on not setting down a list of "you may only downvote a post if it contains X, Y, or Z" because that's not the way rep is intended to work. Aside from outright downvote abuse—getting other members to gang up on a member's post or wantonly downvoting just because you dislike someone—members may use upvotes and downvotes as they please. And with the new downvote quota, it's even more difficult for Perhaps downvoting someone just because you don't agree with them could be seen as petty or rude, it is not against the rules. If a user wants to downvote a post, it is their right to do so.

 

Everyone is going to have a different philosophy of how the best way to upvote or downvote, and that's okay. The system is there to be used in the ways that members wish to use it.

 

I believe there has been a misunderstanding pertaining the point I was trying to make. Allow me to clarify my thoughts.

 

1) I do not want a detailed step-by-step test procedure revised, approved and stamped by all members of both the moderation and the administration team in order to determine if a given post is worthy or not of a downvote.

 

2) I do not want the administration to redesign and/or modify the existing platform to allow it more flexibility. It is counter-productive to try to fix something which isn't broken, unless someone has a particular fondness for sand-boxing.

 

3) I do want clearer guidelines as to giving negative reputation for posts who aren't aggressive, vindictive, offending or inappropriate. Removing an upvote is one thing, purposefully putting a post into the red is another one entirely and this behavior should be reserved for posts who go overboard. The red square should be used as a warning the post at hand is being interpreted as offending: it should not be used to target unpopular opinions. Approving of this behavior is the equivalent to agreeing to negatively label all posters guilty of not sharing the opinion of the majority. 

 

In order to encourage positive and constructive discussions, unpopular opinions should not received a red square unless they are formulated in a purposefully confrontational way. Posters should think twice before giving a red square to another post and I wish for this to be stated, somewhere. 

 

It seems a perfectly reasonable request to demand the rules around the attribution of red squares to be reinforced. 

[STINK]

Surely if a post goes in the red, others will just upvote it anyways, right? Like how people get annoyed when I downvote stuff when it already has upvotes. That effect must be stronger for red posts.

[Mestiv]

Surely if a post goes in the red, others will just upvote it anyways, right? Like how people get annoyed when I downvote stuff when it already has upvotes. That effect must be stronger for red posts.

Only if the post is in no way confrontational. If I saw a post with negative rep and I wasn't 100% certains that there is nothing offensive, I wouldn't up it.

[Ookla the Absent]

Sorry, I feel a bit late to the opinion party. I typed this up last Friday, but never posted it. I can't tell if we're in the discussion stage or still in the griping stage, but I've been out of it lately. Sorry.

Honestly, one of the biggest proofs of devaluing is that 1: Stormgate (IIRC, sorry if I'm wrong) joined in October and has over 1000 rep already, and that someone (don't recall who) who joined about then has 300 and describes themself as having "not that much". I'm about to have my second "birthday" and don't even have 250.

Sorry if this post is redundant and irrelevant, but hey. You asked for opinions.

I've gotten too attached to the numbers, and it occasionally genuinely upsets me. Which isn't all that hard considering I've had depression to some degree or another since I was 5, but still.

I really like the titles and feel a sense of accomplishment for reaching new ones. But at the same time, it's too easy to compare myself to other people, which never ends well.

I try to give out upvotes sparingly when I feel people really deserve them, but I feel like my effort goes to waste because my 1 doesn't do much to most of the people. At the same time, I get really cheered up when I get an upvote because they're fairly rare for me. I can go a week of solid posting and not get any, then take the next week off and get 5 upvotes and I can't even tell what they're for.

The only time I've hit the cap was when I decided to upvote all of Brandon's posts, 'cause I figured he deserved to have a higher overall reputation. So yes, I spamvoted. And honestly, I regret it.       

I suggest we keep a really low daily cap (I like 10) but add a way to undo so that if you've hit 10 and you feel one post needs it more than another you can still upvote that one. Also, then we wouldn't have to worry about "accidental downvotes" (which, I've noticed, often garner the downvoter a couple condolence rep)

So I guess I'm representing the depressed low-self-esteem portion of the forum? But we tend to be quite individualistic, so I don't really think I can stand for others.

And I'm not bringing that up for attention, I really hate admitting to it. But it's part of why I view the world the way I do, so I explain.

[khchick]

Purposefully putting a post into the red is another one entirely and this behavior should be reserved for posts who go overboard.

 

I put your post into the red because I feel you went overboard.

[The Invested Beard]

I feel it my duty to point out:

 

These are numbers with imaginary value on the internet. Is it all really such a big deal?

[baby]

Let's say you were playing a game. Some people give out paper to people who behave and act nice, and people who act bad get paper taken away. The paper has no value outside of the game, and inside it is to show who can be reliable. Now some people are telling you they're gonna take the paper away. Now what?

[KaIadin]

Sorry, I feel a bit late to the opinion party. I typed this up last Friday, but never posted it. I can't tell if we're in the discussion stage or still in the griping stage, but I've been out of it lately. Sorry.

Honestly, one of the biggest proofs of devaluing is that 1: Stormgate (IIRC, sorry if I'm wrong) joined in October and has over 1000 rep already, and that someone (don't recall who) who joined about then has 300 and describes themself as having "not that much". I'm about to have my second "birthday" and don't even have 250.

Sorry if this post is redundant and irrelevant, but hey. You asked for opinions.

I've gotten too attached to the numbers, and it occasionally genuinely upsets me. Which isn't all that hard considering I've had depression to some degree or another since I was 5, but still.

I really like the titles and feel a sense of accomplishment for reaching new ones. But at the same time, it's too easy to compare myself to other people, which never ends well.

I try to give out upvotes sparingly when I feel people really deserve them, but I feel like my effort goes to waste because my 1 doesn't do much to most of the people. At the same time, I get really cheered up when I get an upvote because they're fairly rare for me. I can go a week of solid posting and not get any, then take the next week off and get 5 upvotes and I can't even tell what they're for.

The only time I've hit the cap was when I decided to upvote all of Brandon's posts, 'cause I figured he deserved to have a higher overall reputation. So yes, I spamvoted. And honestly, I regret it.       

I suggest we keep a really low daily cap (I like 10) but add a way to undo so that if you've hit 10 and you feel one post needs it more than another you can still upvote that one. Also, then we wouldn't have to worry about "accidental downvotes" (which, I've noticed, often garner the downvoter a couple condolence rep)

So I guess I'm representing the depressed low-self-esteem portion of the forum? But we tend to be quite individualistic, so I don't really think I can stand for others.

And I'm not bringing that up for attention, I really hate admitting to it. But it's part of why I view the world the way I do, so I explain.

Stormgate does like to post a lot. And I mean A LOT.

[Young Bard]

(If you think I've gotten an argument wrong, please explain and I will edit this.)

 

Summary for those who can't be bothered reading through the whole thing:

 

People who are for the reduction of / removal of reputation points say:

 

- "You used to be able to judge how cosmere aware / thoughtful a person was by the amount of reputation they had. You can't anymore"

- "People grow too attached to these imaginary numbers, which leads to reputation abuse."

- "The current way the system is wired encourages people to post memes and jokes for quick rewards rather than theories."

- "The current system is biased towards the social community as opposed to the theory making community."

 

People who are against the removal / a severe reduction of reputation points say:

 

- "Reputation is a way of showing appreciation. There shouldn't be a limit on how much appreciation you can show."

- "If you remove reputation, people might start clogging the boards with comments such as "Nice", or "Upvote!", reducing readability."

- "It should be up to the people to decide what's upvote worthy. If they decide that that's a meme or joke, then trying to prevent that is unfair and slightly elitist."

 

(I know I've missed arguments. If you feel there's something else I should say, then tell me, and I'll add it on.)

[Kaymyth]

For those of you puzzling over the value being places on imaginary internet points:

 

Please remember that there is a sizeable proportion of members these days made up of younger folks and/or people who suffer serious social anxiety.  For many of them, the Shard has become a social support system.  The rep system has been incorporated into their interactions and mini-culture - it has value because they have an emotional investment in it and the people that they give/receive those points from.  It isn't a number on the screen, it's a tool to show appreciation and validation, and an indication of feedback to show their feelings and support to one another.

 

Note that I'm not saying that this is necessarily the right viewpoint, I'm just pointing out the reasons why people would have strong feelings about the changes to the system.  And I guarantee that the most vulnerable of those people won't post on this thread; their social anxiety is too great.  I think we can continue to have this discussion while still extending a bit of kindness to the ones who have gotten emotionally wrapped in the reputation system.

Edited January 13, 2016 by Kaymyth

[Stormgate]

Stormgate does like to post a lot. And I mean A LOT.

Guilty. I might have a problem.

[The Invested Beard]

For those of you puzzling over the value being places on imaginary internet points:

 

Please remember that there is a sizeable proportion of members these days made up of younger folks and/or people who suffer serious social anxiety.  For many of them, the Shard has become a social support system.  The rep system has been incorporated into their interactions and mini-culture - it has value because they have an emotional investment in it and the people that they give/receive those points from.  It isn't a number on the screen, it's a tool to show appreciation and validation, and an indication of feedback to show their feelings and support to one another.

 

Note that I'm not saying that this is necessarily the right viewpoint, I'm just pointing out the reasons why people would have strong feelings about the changes to the system.  And I guarantee that the most vulnerable of those people won't post on this thread; their social anxiety is too great.  I think we can continue to have this discussion while still extending a bit of kindness to the ones who have gotten emotionally wrapped in the reputation system.

 

I understand this, but I don't know how healthy it is...

[Blaze1616]

I understand this, but I don't know how healthy it is...

 

It probably isn't very healthy given how much they might come to rely on this place (and more notably it's lack of in-person discussions), but I would say that it's better that those individuals have some place they can go to where they feel comfortable vs. having no place to go and drowning in their problems.

 

That said, we also must realize that we're not a therapy website. We're an author's Official Fan Site, the one which he sends people to of his own accord.

 

It's a tough line to walk, particularly when you appreciate the users that the first paragraph speaks of, but also understand the needs of the second paragraph.

[ccstat]

Having read through all the posts here, I want to add my voice.

 

First, I think our users are pretty adaptable, and while a change in any direction would be disruptive and (clearly) upsetting for a while, I don't think it will take long for the community to adjust to whatever the system becomes. People here are friendly and welcoming, and I believe that the culture here will continue to be friendly and welcoming regardless of what happens to the rep system.

 

Therefore, ignoring for a moment my own preference on the role of upvotes, I think the primary consideration should be the amount of headache involved for the staff/admins. Rubix didn't give specifics of how the rep system demands his time, but I believe him that it does. While the rep system is a big positive aspect of the 17S experience, if managing it takes our staff away from all the other good work they do to support the site and community then it is a net loss. The mods and admins are dedicated volunteers, and we have had many threads in the past about how they make this one of the very best communities on the internet. Let's not endanger that with a high-maintenance rep system. I for one would be willing to settle for a sub-optimal rep system that I didn't agree with if having a better one required all of the staff's time and energy.

 

As for what the rep system "should" look like, I have a few opinions to share. These are the factors I would consider in making a decision, but are relatively lacking in concrete suggestions. For what it's worth, I spend most of my time in the theory boards and in Creator's Corner.

 

1) Many have talked about what getting upvotes means to them, or what they think when they see the rep count for a post or user. But for me, upvotes are primarily experienced in the act of giving them, and it is a huge part of what I love about the Shard. I read far more than I post, and since I don't come to the site daily I often encounter threads after the discussion has moved on to something new. It would be redundant or distracting to post a response, but I feel involved by upvoting the posts I consider particularly worthwhile. I have never hit the upvote quota, but I do it frequently enough that when I see something I like it is habit to look for the little green arrow. There have been multiple times when I have tried to upvote emails or blog posts, and realized sadly that I can't because they only exist in this corner of the internet. Like I said initially, I'm sure I would adapt to whatever quota or valuation were put in place, but I would be sad if the rep system went away entirely. Not being able to upvote (or downvote) things would remove a large part of what makes me feel engaged and involved in the community, and I suspect this is true for other semi-lurkers who read more than they post.

 

2) I hope that any quota takes into consideration that some people "binge" on the site on weekends or once a month, and they might hit the quota much faster and more frequently than those who get daily doses of the community. (Though, honestly, I suspect those members won't encounter the limit nearly as much as some of the daily power users.)

 

3) I delurked about 6 months before the WoR release, and followed 17S intermittently before that, so I have experienced the shift in upvote culture and in membership. They are absolutely different, but (as has been mentioned) they didn't occur in isolation. Prior to the expansion in membership that came with Words of Radiance and Steelheart, 17S would more or less go dark between book releases. It was primarily theory boards, and there were maybe a dozen people that would log in and sometimes post on a given day. At the moment, there are 15 members logged in and 84 more viewing the site. Apparently 315 people have been online in the past 24 hours. That is probably a little above baseline because of the upcoming Bands of Mourning release, but it is a far cry from what we used to have. While I rarely if ever go to the social and RP subforums, the members who do go there keep the site active with their daily posts and, yes, daily upvotes. Without those members logging in and occasionally checking out the cosmere threads, I suspect the theory boards would have far lower traffic than they do.

 

I believe that the social and RP community (who, I gather, are the ones most opposed to limiting upvotes) will adapt to quotas and policies, but if the culture there does suffer and begin to feel less active or welcoming, then I think the whole site will be affected. If the answer that keeps the whole community thriving is decoupling post and user totals, or moderate quotas, or unlimited "devalued" upvotes, I would be okay with it.

 

4) With that said, I do think that upvotes are more valuable (and meaningful) in relative scarcity. By which I mean that a posts' upvote total should tell you something more than how many people saw it. Perhaps I am wrong, but I see the admins' decision to change things as an attempt to prevent further explosion of upvote numbers, not primarily an effort to correct or alter the way things are done now. i.e. they are changing the trend, not the situation.

 

Given the current state of upvote culture on 17S, I think the balance to be struck is not the one discussed so far (between theory posts and joke posts), but rather keeping the upvote value high (translation: scarce) while also having enough in the system that new members or infrequent posters can accumulate a handful and not feel left out.

 

 

[Kaymyth]

I understand this, but I don't know how healthy it is...

 

I don't necessarily disagree.   As Blaze said, it's a fine line to walk.  I'm not saying that it should figure into the final decision, I'd just like to see a touch more understanding in relation to it.  I know that *I* was a hot mess when I was a teenager.  Heck, I was still a hot mess into my twenties.

 

 

1) Many have talked about what getting upvotes means to them, or what they think when they see the rep count for a post or user. But for me, upvotes are primarily experienced in the act of giving them,

 

When the system went down temporarily, I saw mostly people being upset at not being able to give out votes.  Nobody seemed all that concerned about not being able to get them.  I think this opinion is probably quite widespread.