OzBargain [angry] mob

Davo1111 on 06/06/2013 - 22:22
Last edited 06/06/2013 - 23:50

It's kind of a sad day, i've always described ozbargain as a "community", and today it's turned into a "mob"

As a result of these events

Summary of events

  • rep offers deal of 8GB micro sd card for $2.50 delivered
  • Clearly advertises, only 100 in stock
  • scrounges up an additional 50 units.
  • site goes down (ozbargained)
  • people neg to oblivion (including comments like "i'm only commenting so i can vote neg")
  • scotty closes the thread after many reports

link

this community has morphed into something really ugly.

A few years ago, everyone would have been happy as larry that there were 500 cheap sdhc cards for the folks who frequented the deals sections, and would have accepted that not everyone always wins. Everyone has this horrible sense of self entitlement which makes them believe that bargains aren't really bargains unless they personally get one.

congratulations neggers, you are the reason that 4th placed ribbons are in demand.

So i suppose it might be worth discussing the effects of this, and what we can learn from this (without sounding to much like a parent).

  • reps are going to stop posting deals if they get screwed around (this has happened in the past)
  • tarnish the name of the site (excessive scrounging/angry mob/leaches) - just like how whirlpool is known as 'whinge-pool'

Moving forward…. What can we do about this?

ozbargain constitution? ethics? any ideas?

Update 1:

  • A similar discussion about OzB is also occurring on a 'rival' site
  • An old discussion about ozbargain ethics
Site Discussion

Comments

  • berger on 06/06/2013 - 22:37
    +6

    What can be done? Reps will cease posting awesome deals. People get excited, expect too much, and find any reason to vent thier anger when they miss out on a deal..

    There is over 3000 users on the site right now, I'm guessing 2500+ during the day at any point. You can't get every deal. Server loads struggle, it happens with a lot of companies, Kogan, HN, catch, etc. at least the next time there is a deal, cpl will be better prepared.

    The rep offered to fix any issues, and they are a good company to deal with, I spent thousands over the years. The pickup service is a bit slow, but I keep going back!

  • TheAviator on 06/06/2013 - 22:49

    Not much that can be done I suppose, other than refusing to engage with people who downvote etc for the wrong reasons. Anything else would probably require a lot of effort on the part of the moderators and they already do enough as is!

  • The Quote Train on 06/06/2013 - 22:55

    "tarnish the name of the site (excessive scrounging/angry mob/leaches)"

    Oh you should go read what they think of us on OCAU.

  • mycosys on 06/06/2013 - 23:00

    have been pointing this out to reps - the ugly attitudes and mobs descending on people - i have even been told off for 'berating people for berating a rep' why i just tried to give a 'chin up' speech to a rep.
    There are heaps of these people that dont even have the guts to post a deal - just put everyone else down.
    Tighter moderation to existing rules would likely do - or beyond that bring in rules akin to state and national slander and vilification rules - but the moderation take i keep getting is that the members speak on what deals they want and if merchants dont get a good reaction then they shouldnt come here or should use different tactics

    • mycosys on 06/06/2013 - 23:02

      btw - if you wanted to see a mob you should have seen the one that descended on the last natal horoscope deal - was actually a good deal for the work involved - and the rules say that if a deal isnt for you then you should just keep going, not neg - but this was outright slanderous

      • The Quote Train on 06/06/2013 - 23:06
        +8

        Some of the worst mobs I've seen on here are those that appear in the pricing error 'deals'.

        • nowlan on 08/06/2013 - 22:56
          +1

          yeah, pricing error, i dont know why people expect them to honor when its clearly an error.
          what is annoying, is when they honor some people, but reject the rest.

          bait and switch is another issue.

          having said that, i have been pissed off when a site takes my money and then says they cant fulfill order, eg hp microserver

  • issh on 06/06/2013 - 23:43
    +2

    I was just reading upon another thread(Should Dick Smith Deals be banned?)

    I think this is quite a good idea

    I've suggested an "almost no stock" tag in the past

    (From user igowen)

    or as you Davo mentioned here

    [Likely SOLD OUT] and/or [limited stock] tags (similar to the red "SOLD OUT" tag.

    • Macgyver on 06/06/2013 - 23:50
      +2

      People never seem to learn/remember that officeworks/dicksmith deals are low stock so something like that would work well.

  • [Deactivated] on 07/06/2013 - 00:25
    +2

    I clicked on the micro sd deal reasonably early (to no ultimate avail - and much frustration).
    Unless I am very much mistaken there was no reference whatsoever to the specific number of cards available, in the initial deal post .
    Long after people were having difficulties ordering (you'll notice that update times and thread posts don't mesh), the deal was 'updated' with the reference to the 100 + 50.
    Immediately after the reference to the extra 50 'available' cards was made, I again (multiple times), with card in still in cart, attempted to checkout. Never achieved.

    Understandable website malfunctions notwithstanding, my posts in the thread accurately reflect on what was a poorly executed deal. Long after stock levels (actual or prospective) were nil, people were able to 'add to cart'. Very basic error for any online retailer, especially one dealing with a specific small quantity offer, and especially for a dealer not new to the business - AND not unfamiliar with OzBargain.

    Any ill will incurred by CPL was, in my opinion, entirely justified in this case.

    • Davo1111 on 07/06/2013 - 01:22
      +2

      Actually, you might be right. I had a look at the revision history, It appears 40 minutes after the deal was posted he said " 100 pieces have been sold out", then another 40 minutes later "we confirm that we got another 50 units for today's deal". Still far greater than the minimum quantity

  • ode1online on 07/06/2013 - 00:28
    -4

    I made a comment on the XBOX one topic stating I was looking forward to seeing it and made no negative comments on opposing products and it was NEGGED

    I cant understand it, it was a general discussion about our thoughts on the new console and for my comments to be negged was just shamefull

    You are right its a real MOB mentality

    • scrimshaw on 07/06/2013 - 00:38
      +5

      ….er, that's a little different. This thread is mostly about Ozbargainers being overly narcissistic, thinking if that they can't score the bargain, they simply conclude that the deal is either a sham or some bait/switch exercise. This sort of behaviour would discourage a lot of store reps from posting deals or giving us an exclusive — because if something goes wrong, the whole mob effect happens and everyone starts stringing all sorts of insults and complaints.

      An outsiders perspective from Topbargains

      but from personal experience the People on Ozbargain can be unreasonable. For instance one guy was counting the days on comments section that i hadnt delivered yet. It clearly stated that we have a 14 day period but he decided to taunt us like a little child, then everyone gets involved, its a real free for all slander competition. People seem to get some sort of thrill to see a vendor getting smashed

      • sauce2k6 on 07/06/2013 - 11:59
        +3

        I'm negging you because I think it will be funny

  • Kelalako on 07/06/2013 - 00:37
    -2

    I wish i could dislike forum posts oblivious.jpg

  • Moderatorneil on 07/06/2013 - 00:41

    When the site first started out, almost every deal has polite comments, thanks etc. As we've amassed 77,000 users, we've attracted all sorts of people. Some happy, some angry, some weird. I think that's respective of the people you get in a general population whereas a few years ago, it was a more targeted group of people.

    I'll respond to some points.

    What can we do about this?

    I'd love to hear suggestions. We've tried reasoning (everyone loves to argue), banning accounts, revoking votes, and closing threads. We are promoting meetups (when they don't get canceled), charitable efforts, and giveaways to steer the community in a positive direction. It's kind of a sad state when there are more comments on this "negative" thread than on a charity thread that seeks to give away extra money for more comments. Meh.

    I've suggested an "almost no stock" tag in the past

    I think you got the right idea. There's no silver bullet for this issue but rather tackling specific issues. Is a limited stock tag going to help? Maybe. At least, if a deal can be marked as limited stock by a mod and then a user can choose not to see limited stock deals? We are working on something similar with location. Deal in Sydney only, well those from Melbourne and elsewhere can choose not to see it. Matching up deals with those who like them (or filtering deals that people don't like) is one of the challenges going forward

    i have even been told off for 'berating people for berating a rep' why i just tried to give a 'chin up' speech to a rep.

    Sigh. This was me and this was discussed with you.

    People hate hearing this but use the report link. Use it then use it again. Sometimes the report won't go in your favour but you should still continue to use it. If there is an issue with a user, don't engage them in an argument. Just use the report link.

    Tighter moderation to existing rules would likely do - or beyond that bring in rules akin to state and national slander and vilification rules - but the moderation take i keep getting is that the members speak on what deals they want and if merchants dont get a good reaction then they shouldnt come here or should use different tactics

    Yes, members are free to talk about what they want as long as it doesn't violate the commenting guidelines.

    Racial vilification falls under personal attack. Personal attacks comments are removed, users temporarily banned or warned.

    one that descended on the last natal horoscope deal

    For reference.

    I think that Ozb, are fine with OCAU and Whirlpool

    Whirlpool is the #1 referred site to OzBargain. Even more than Facebook!

    A similar discussion about OzB is also occurring on a 'rival' site

    Quiltsdirect had many shipping issues. Also, Topbargains charges it's reps to post (I think they get x amount free and then additional for paid accounts) , whereas we don't. I respect TopBargains but there is a conflict of interest where you have reps paying to post. I can't say much more but we many, many discussion with QD which were not pleasant to say the least.

    EDIT:

    I wish i could dislike forum posts oblivious.jpg

    Voting on forums has been up for discussion. I think it would be good to track what the most liked threads are.

    • Geewhizz on 07/06/2013 - 07:53

      I'd love to hear suggestions.

      Abuse of down-voting, numerous (3 times?) = suspension of account

      • Moderatorneil on 07/06/2013 - 09:12

        I can't recall the exact numbers and time but I believe if a user's negative vote gets revoke 3 times (either by community or moderators) then the user loses the ability to place another negative vote for a month. If it happens further than the vote ban length is longer. I think it was originally Davo's idea ;).

        • Davo1111 on 07/06/2013 - 10:56

          I think it was originally Davo's idea ;).

          <3 :)

    • mycosys on 07/06/2013 - 10:54
      +1

      Yes neil, and to be fair you respectfully disagreed with me that we were headed for being seen as an angry mob.
      "Do you think it desirable that this site become known for bullies, rather than just bargains?
      Those guys dont reflect most consumers, they dont reflect the quiet majority of users, they dont reflect anything other than the ugly side of australia, but yet they are who seems to run the site."
      was the exact statement, and nothing to do with the thread you linked to, to be clear.

      As for suggestions you guys do an amazing job, but perhaps depend on community reports more than might be desirable at this stage. Perhaps expanding the team could help toward acting in a more pro-active manner - BEFORE the angry becomes mob.
      Equally software that alerts the mod team to unusual patterns of activity or patterns consistent with mobs forming could be used to avert them forming. OzB has a lot of friends, I am sure one or 2 are final year software engineers who could use a heuristic analysys project, or somebody that has such software in their stock already and wont mind adapting to OzBs database.
      I think stricter, faster moderation will help a lot, with an eye to keeping things nicer and a move back to removing votes that break the guidelines would discourage their abuse (what would be the point of a neg if it will just disappear).
      I think that spelling out behaviors that count as personal attack may help too - spelling out that non-specific racial and cultural vilification are not tolerated would be good.
      I think a GUIDELINE of be nice - you are getting a chance at something you would never have known about - might be nice in the commenting guidelines.

      I dont disagree with you about the report thing, but I PERSONALLY think it would be nice to allow those of us who disagree with the nastiness to post support for the victim in response, let them know we are not all greedy and angry and entitled. I get it - you disgree and see it as fighting and I have to respect that.

      Anyway - much respect - more moving to do :)
      WRT to the past post about the religious discrimination - I put it badly but I meant the damned thing to be about these angry mobs and how to deal with them - it was hideous and I did not feel deleting the offer seemed fair - it seemed like victimising the victim, though it was effective at stopping the mob

    • mycosys on 07/06/2013 - 11:44
      +4

      oh, one more thing - i dont think this is a negative thread - i think this is a lot of people wanting to make a positive difference. Dont be disheartened neil - this is a lot of people who like OzB enough to care.

      • andy19363 on 07/06/2013 - 11:54
        +1

        Absolutely….. This is a great site…… (but it used to be/can be a whole lot greater)

        • deal88 on 07/06/2013 - 12:12
          -1

          However, some of the deals do seem worse now.
          People posting no stock deals. Reps taking advantage of OzB to post bad deals.

          Unfortunately the success of OzB and the traffic it creates can't be handled by some websites. As OzB grows this needs to be understood by users and OPs/Reps.

        • mycosys on 07/06/2013 - 13:18

          In some respect the larger userbase will also make deals that once seemed ample seem far less generous.
          It also means that a lot of sites get 'OzBargained' - this seems to be the common and accepted name - whereby so many ozbargain users join in a mad scramble to grab a deal that the site virtually or actually crashes, or grinds to a halt, or starts dropping packets just to protect the system from crashing which has much the same effect.
          It seems entirely unreasonable to expect every merchant mentioned or posting on OzB to have enough (extremely expensive) server power to cope with the demand of selling us something at a loss without showing any effects of the added load on their servers.
          To paraphrase and old saying - quality, price, server - choose two. The added cost of the hardware would make the bargain impossible.

      • neil on 07/06/2013 - 14:11
        +1

        Dont be disheartened neil

        Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I'm disheartened (I'm not). I just meant it's a negative issue (angry mobs) albeit with people trying to find positive answers going forward. I just wanted people to expend their energy in the charity thread as well ;)

  • StewBalls on 07/06/2013 - 00:41
    +16

    Everyone has this horrible sense of self entitlement which makes them believe that bargains aren't really bargains unless they personally get one.

    That pretty much sums it up…

    • deal88 on 07/06/2013 - 09:50

      I am devided about this. I am not a big Negger, and I usually think the reps deserve a chance to fix an issue if the is a problem (and CPL did a good job fixing this after the deal expired) But I don't think we should discourage people from reasonable negs. Though I did not neg the CPL deal, my personal experience (I wasted an hour) and the less than helpful timing of the rep feedback, did resulting negs being appropriate. If the item stated out of stock, most people would not have negged. If the site can't handle the OzB traffic, the rep should just mark expired and all negs from then on would be unreasonable. In this instance the rep did say 500+ people were trying to get 50 cards and there website could not handle 500 people.

      I am concerned that by telling people not to neg, the next COTD Catchalooser deal of a $100 iPad with only 1 available with get lots of + votes and no negs. People do need to be warned when there is close to zero chance of getting a product. I have noticed a great improvement in people posting the Dick Smith deals and now highlight where stock is/was available.

      These minimize negs…..,

      If the deal is clear from the rep or poster
      The deal states quantity available
      The website states "out of stock" when limit reached.
      The rep replies quickly when people highlight problems
      Free shipping works properly (a lot of this issue lately)
      The rep marks the deal expired as soon as the limit is reached

      I think the rep has a responsibility to do the above and this would minimize the chance of them getting negged. As far as I am concerned, any poster of a deal has a responsibility to keep an eye on the deal for questions (especially straight after posting) and answer these ASAP.

      • Moderatorneil on 07/06/2013 - 10:12

        Good suggestions.

        Unfortunately, the timeline is:

        Marked Expired at 1:30pm
        23 (out of 27 total) negative votes after 1:30PM

        • Davo1111 on 07/06/2013 - 10:51
          +8

          maybe when a deal is marked as expired both positive and negative votes are locked down?

        • deal88 on 07/06/2013 - 10:58

          Good statistics. I think one issue for some people is that once they open a deal, they only read the top section once. After that, they are only following the comments. So they never go back to the top to see if there are any additions or been marked expired.

          On this exact CPL post, I think a lot of people tried for 30-60 minutes before getting frustrated and negged. It took me an hour. The big CPL let down was it never showed out of stock on the website. And the rep also stated they added 50 units, so I kept on trying as he clearly stated it was not out of stock and I had already spent a lot of time having to fill in all my details to get to the last step. At least with the bad DSE deals it does eventually tell you it is out of stock and can not be added to cart.

          Hopefully CPL keep posting deals but learn there are some improvements that may help them in the future.

        • deal88 on 07/06/2013 - 11:02
          +1

          Not sure if locking down the votes is good. With the CPL deal some people tried for a hour because the CPL website said the item was in stock. I can understand why these people would eventually neg the deal.

          In fact, possibly the fact they waited so long to neg shows restraint?

        • mily on 07/06/2013 - 23:03

          I think positive votes should be left open as if it's a real good deal, people sometimes may like to vote up just for supporting.

          Voting down close seems ok, however many people keep their vote until they actually get the deal or it eventually turns out to be a fake/luring/cancelled deal. In this case, if someone jumps in and gets pissed off, he should be able to vote down at least.

          It's really hard to make a fair rule for both the merchant and ozbers I reckon. But I do agree vote down should be used more carefully.

          Maybe do a statistic filter to find out experienced/responsible OZBers and only members with enough record can vote down a deal? Kind of a ranking for all members.

  • kabigon on 07/06/2013 - 10:11

    Reiterating some things from various DSE threads, but some people just don't understand the nature of 'clearance' deals i.e. the fact that there is limited stock is the very thing that allows the product to be reduced in price in the first place. If a deal has limited stock and said stock is able to be pinpointed by online stock levels then the OP should put some effort into demonstrating at least a few stores where there is stock.

    One thing that's uncontrollable however is inaccurate stock levels and conflicting reports over whether or not stock has been sold out (e.g. the iPad deal). It seems some people were told by phone that stock had sold out even though this wasn't the case. Ultimately the only way to know for sure is to go to store in person, so perhaps a disclaimer should be added automatically to lower some of the animosity e.g.

    As this deal has limited stock, please visit a store to verify whether stock exists. Be aware that stock enquiries by phone can be inaccurate as staff may be swamped by phone enquiries during popular deals and stock can be sold before you reach the store, even if a hold has been allocated to you.

    On that last point I've seen many reports of people being told they had a product on hold but even going to the store straight away the product suddenly can't be located, so remind people not to count their chickens etc. Staff shouldn't guarantee holds if they not guaranteeable but that's out of our control, so at least we can warn people.

    The last thing we want is genuine deals to not be posted for fear of a negative reaction, so some reminders may not be such a bad thing (not everyone visits this site everyday or can appreciate that a deal doesn't have to be available in every store).

  • aim54x on 07/06/2013 - 10:24
    +1

    I have been throughly disgusted by some of the behaviour that has been shown on certain posts, the micro SD one mentioned here, as well as the Zingy torch one as examples.

    I am a recent member, and even the difference between behaviour now and the behaviour I saw when I first joined seems to be worlds apart. There seems to be an increasing amount of hazing of suppliers with repeated negative comments. Unfortunately it is the whingers that are going to bother to complain and post, this drowns out the many that have had no issues.

    With the DSE deals, users really have to sit back an realise that they are clearance products that may not be available. Yes a "low stock/availability" tag may help but it is madness to expect to be able to get the item at your local DSE.

  • andy19363 on 07/06/2013 - 10:57

    I've said it many times before….. The whole 'neg' process needs to be removed.
    People use them as weapons to hammer posters, retailers and other members of the community. Once upon a time it was a useful tool to highlight cheaper alternatives or problems with products or retailers. These days they are used purely as a weapon to smack someone. People will neg posts based on who the poster is, irrespective of the content.
    The guidelines are not known/ignored by many, the 'community revoking votes' is severely limited, as many either don't care, or don't bother as the system is largely ineffective.

    I and a great many others no longer post bargains for this reason. It takes a brave, or ignorant first time poster to click submit these day, (I recall the attacks that one recent enthusiastic poster received…. many questioning his motives, many seemingly no-post leechers….)

    It's still a great site, but it has fallen considerably from what it was…..

    • deal88 on 07/06/2013 - 11:13
      +2

      I think the negs are very useful. And I understand why people have negged the DSE, CPL, Shopping Square and Catch of the Day deals.

      What annoys me is a newbie posting a deal but missing some of the details in the post. A nice comment would be sufficient to remind the poster of what is required. Some people automatically negg and attack the poster. To me this is the worst. We want to encourage people to post.

      Also, some people take negs too seriously. Most of the time they are not a personal attack, it is just someone highlighting an issue with the post.

      Just a thought, do we need something between a + and a neg? Would a Yellow vote to highlight an issue be better than a red neg? Then the red neg would have more power for the really bad deals. Some would say just not vote, but I think the voting adds value.

      Edit: in life yellow usually means "proceed with caution" so may be appropriate for some of these deals.

      • andy19363 on 07/06/2013 - 11:27

        Also, some people take negs too seriously. Most of the time they are not a personal attack, it is just someone highlighting an issue with the post.

        That's when the report button should be used…. Mob negging a listing error will get the same result as a terrible deal… ie the poster banned from posting for a time, the deal will disappear to most users, and the retailer's reputation will go down the pan.

        Nope…. get rid of the red cross I say….. Then great deals/posts have lots of positives…. crap deals have none.

      • mycosys on 07/06/2013 - 13:22
        -1

        what is supposed to be inbetween a positive and a negative, according to the guidelines, is a comment. but you are possibly right - it would give people something else to click - people like to click, it is simple and they feel heard.
        a 'not bad but i have something to say' button, maybe not yellow (which is still an alarm colour) but purple or blue or something, and just shown on the info page?

  • SKiZO on 07/06/2013 - 11:29
    +2

    I don't see the point of voting on deals. It means nothing to me and seems a bit wanky overall. I know you can filter on negs, but how many users actually do this? Personally, I want to see all deals and comments regardless of what they say so I can decide for myself, and I'm sure there are many in the same boat, otherwise how would so many even see the deal mentioned above?

    I don't know what happened to the "hot deals" section on the front page, it's missing for me now, but that used to be a great gauge on deals to check out first.

    The voting on comments however is to give thanks to the poster for saying something informative or funny. Which is fine and adds to the community aspect.

    I like the voting system on comments. Yes there are a lot of wankers that neg for the hell of it. That's because they are anonymous. I'm pretty sure the neg voters never used to be hidden. One easy fix is to bring back so that you can see who neg voted and make people think about their vote before they post it.

    • SKiZO on 07/06/2013 - 11:54

      Oh yeah and what's the "4th placed ribbon" reference? What did I miss?

    • Moderatorneil on 07/06/2013 - 14:02

      Personally, I want to see all deals

      All deals are shown at http://www.ozbargain.com.au/deals You can change the threshold of what you see and block things you don't want to see (e.g. NSFW deals).

      I don't know what happened to the "hot deals" section on the front page

      The front page is the hot deals. By default all deals scoring over 20+ votes hit the front page unless you've changed your settings (New Deals-Settings)

      4th place ribbon

      http://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/103326

      • SKiZO on 07/06/2013 - 14:46

        Oh that's much better! Seems that to me that should be the front page? That would make more sense. Thanks! I'd plus you but I can't anymore???

        Another picky thing for me has always been when you search, you always have to set sort:created manually, otherwise it sorts on some random order that i can't work out. Cheers Neil.

        • Moderatorneil on 07/06/2013 - 14:50

          Seems that to me that should be the front page?

          The front page is just http://www.ozbargain.com.au/. Which page are you referring to?

          I'd plus you but I can't anymore???

          As I've marked this as a moderator post, it can not be voted on.

          Another picky thing for me has always been when you search, you always have to set sort:created manually, otherwise it sorts on some random order that i can't work out.

          It's sorted by relevance. A new search is on the to do list.

  • deal88 on 07/06/2013 - 11:57
    +5

    Another idea. Possibly anyone with less than 10 (or 20?) posts do not get the chance to neg. We all know there are many people who never post but are happy to attack.

    My thought was people who post are the ones who give back and are the ones who are brave enough to post a deal that may get negged. They know how the system should work.

    Also rewards people who post with an extra responsibility.
    Then negging is an earned privilege not a right.

    • huntress_love on 08/06/2013 - 21:43
      +2

      i think thats a good idea. if you've never posted a deal then dont complain!!!

      • StewBalls on 08/06/2013 - 22:09
        +1

        I think it's a dumb idea.

        What you're essentially saying is that those folks who do not have the wherewithal to perpetually scour the web for discounts, but might have valuable innate knowledge (read: first hand experience) to contribute (via the incumbent voting/commenting system), may not use the most visible means (a blatant red neg) to alert other members of the community to potentially poor/risky deals…sounds pretty dumb now, right! ;)

        • deal88 on 09/06/2013 - 00:21

          That gets back to the whole problem - people are using the voting system incorrectly. People are supposedly negging deals they shouldn't. So apparently lately people have been going neg crazy and this is putting off posters and reps.

          I have noticed quite a few people negging with little to no explanation why.

          Possibly we need a report button for inappropriate neggers where little or useless explanation is given. Not saying each neg needs to be reviewed but if someone is always getting reported, or gets a lot of reports for one comment then they get sin binned. (Or get sent the negging rules as a reminder)

          I guess this post is about trying to come up with a solution.

        • andy19363 on 09/06/2013 - 00:30

          but might have valuable innate knowledge (read: first hand experience) to contribute (via the incumbent voting/commenting system), may not use the most visible means (a blatant red neg) to alert other members of the community to potentially poor/risky deals…

          But…. as you know…. a relatively small number of those red negs means the post disappears, along with all that valuable innate knowledge, to most users…

        • andy19363 on 09/06/2013 - 00:41

          Possibly we need a report button for inappropriate neggers where little or useless explanation is given.

          This already exists….

        • deal88 on 09/06/2013 - 01:33

          I am not sure if it is really getting used for this purpose. May be for inappropriate comments, but not for poor neg explanations.

        • andy19363 on 09/06/2013 - 08:05

          The drop down box uses the words "invalid neg reason"

        • deal88 on 09/06/2013 - 08:24

          But are people using "invalid neg reason"? I think Scotty may need to tell us if people are using this.

          I see "personal attack" and "inappropriate comment" mentioned at times.

          It is not made clear if negs are ever removed after reporting.

        • andy19363 on 09/06/2013 - 08:39
          +1

          I use it all the time… ;-)

          Often I get a automessage telling me what action was taken, and often the neg is removed. I think a lot depends on who gets the report, and it can be very inconsistent

        • StewBalls on 09/06/2013 - 09:42

          But…. as you know…. a relatively small number of those red negs means the post disappears…

          Yep, I thought that was actually the point of the exercise…

          IME, a worthy deal will have a commensurate number of positive votes keeping it visible. OTOH, as you rightly say, crap deals naturally go the way of the dodo, so folks no longer need to be forewarned as it's no longer being highlighted. Once a deal has been negged to oblivion, and must be searched for, then it's caveat emptor IMHO! ;)

          I can't think of an example where the converse has happened? For the most part, IME abuse or misuse of the voting system on deals is the exception rather than the rule, and the community usually balances it out fairly well.

          Anyway, my point is that counting stats on a user's bargain posts should not be the benchmark for allowing them full community participation. I happen to think that the existing system works reasonably well; could it do with some minor tweaking, perhaps; but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here.

        • Moderatorneil on 09/06/2013 - 12:00

          Yep, invalid negative vote reports are received all the time. The way we handle the report is consistent between moderators but can seem inconsistent as there are loads of gray areas. We tread lightly and try to only step in when it's clearly not a reason to negative vote (e.g. "LOL").

          Most of the reports are from Andy. ;)

          Maybe we'll list some negative votes with links here so everyone can see what reports we are getting.

  • lonewolf on 07/06/2013 - 12:03
    +2

    Guys to play Devils Advocate lets not forget there are extremes on both ends. There are people who may be too quick to be negative (albeit lets admit there are circumstances where its fair and appropriate to post a negative vote)…BUT On the other end i have also been abused by people who are "fanbois" who cant accept anyone posting questions or stating issues or problems.. I have been abused on both ends so lets not forget that too. There should be and is a happy medium ground definitely but lets not just say everyone who votes negative are wrong / mob mentality and forget about the fact that by stating all this in a way we may be creating our own mob mentality of being "too positive" / fanbois…

    You cant have one without the other. In order for a positive vote to be useful and have a definite meaning and statement..you need to have the negative votes available for use and vice versa. As it stands there is already a lot more biased / push for positive votes and thats fair i suppose as we want to promote happy and positive behaviour and posts. I think it is already very tricky and hard to post negative. I am terrified of voting Negative and dont think i ever do anymore..I dont think i have for years as i know the minute i do even if i think it fits under the stringent rules and guidelines and i have a genuine reason for the vote…I still would get abused and vilified and hence i never do. I either vote positive or i stay neutral. I may comment or make remarks on some experiences i had or my viewpoints but never touch the negative vote button for fear of attack.

    • andy19363 on 07/06/2013 - 12:16

      In order for a positive vote to be useful and have a definite meaning and statement..you need to have the negative votes available for use and vice versa.

      There is a big discrepancy between the effects of each of these votes……
      Positive votes generally mean a post will get popular.
      As said before, neg votes can lead to banning of the poster from posting for a while, removal of the post from most users view, and banning of a particular retailer with the drop in reputation/business that this will bring.

      They are not the same thing….

  • No on 07/06/2013 - 14:13

    I completely agree with everything said in the OP.

    My suggestion is to take a more reddit approach to comments and votes.

    Remove the 5 neg vote daily limitation
    Remove the list of who voted postive on comments
    Sort the comments by which ones have the highest votes
    Hide comments with a certain number of downvotes (but make it expandable)
    Provide a karma count for each user so people have incentive not to be a jerk

    I think this is similar to what hotukdeals does.

    • Davo1111 on 07/06/2013 - 14:39

      Sort the comments by which ones have the highest votes

      http://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/3664?page=3#comment-1419550

    • tomclancy on 07/06/2013 - 21:19

      Provide a karma count for each user so people have incentive not to be a jerk

      I think everyone would agree with the karma count… except jv

    • KBZ on 08/06/2013 - 09:47
      +1

      No hell no.
      If ozbargain starts thus karma crap then it really has gone to the pits. People will only attempt to be funny and have the last laugh to get more karma and the sorting of most voted on will always be people vying to be funny etc.
      This isn't reddit.

  • Moderatorneil on 07/06/2013 - 14:26

    Remove the 5 neg vote daily limitation
    Remove the list of who voted postive on comments

    I dont' see how that helps the situation. Wont that promote more angry mobs?

    Sort the comments by which ones have the highest votes

    Good suggestion although the comments tend to be time based whereis reddit is not.

    Hide comments with a certain number of downvotes (but make it expandable)

    This is already implimented. Unclick the show Hidden checkbox on this page.

    Provide a karma count for each user so people have incentive not to be a jerk

    This feeds into a user reputation system which could assist in mobs and also promote good users.

  • mooboy on 07/06/2013 - 15:29
    +4

    When you read the voting guidelines, it appears neg votes aren't the opposite of positive votes. Positive votes are used to show how popular a deal is, whereas negatives are supposed to just reveal warnings, cheaper prices, etc.

    If someone doesn't read the voting guidelines, you could excuse them for not thinking it's simply the opposite of a positive vote, and, when get disappointed, they rush to the neg button.

    So, how about renaming it? Instead of calling it a negative vote (talking about deals here, not comments) call it something like Warning. And, at the time, ask the uer to make sure they're adding a new point of information as to why they think this is a bad deal and just not repeating or echoing someone else?

  • Davo1111 on 07/06/2013 - 21:48
    +2

    Just thinking, when you press the neg button, it has a drop down menu with a range of options (just like the "report" button). Have maybe 5 or so reasons (1-2 words headings of each "negative vote" reason)

    • spam/sockpuppeting
    • insufficient quantity
    • cheaper elsewhere

    etc etc

    • ModeratorCommonwealth Pig on 07/06/2013 - 22:06

      Interesting idea. Although the reason for the negative vote should be in the mandatory comment anyway.

      The issue that I can see is that it may effectively duplicate the process Eg: If the "Cheaper Elsewhere" option was just a button then the user would still be expected to say where, which requires a comment anyway.

      • mycosys on 07/06/2013 - 23:53

        although it would allow you to also put common reasons for misuse of a neg in there - giving an opprtunity to explain that?

        • Moderatorneil on 08/06/2013 - 00:08

          This was similar to how negative votes were originally implemented (circa '07?) on OzBargain. There was a list of reasons…and then there were too many reasons to list, so the negative vote attached to the comment was put in.

          People will just click whatever reason to register the negative vote. Then the negative reason would be reported, then a mod would revoke (or not). Maybe we can freeze their browser and have a message box pop up in 48pt comic sans. ;)

          I do think there is a connotation of the red negative sign. If it simply were a thumbs down or a traffic light or pink my little pony, it may lessen the effect.

        • deal88 on 08/06/2013 - 07:41

          Or a combination of warning and My Little Pony.
          http://www.animalhi.com/Mammals/ponies/signs_warning_my_litt…

        • mycosys on 08/06/2013 - 19:05
          -2

          i think ur onto something neil!
          but maybe two buttons , blue and purple or something equally nonthreateneing, mayble stars or star and circle or something, one for better deal out there and another for I have an issue with this deal?

          And a popup message box that repeated revocation of these votes can lead to removal of voting privileges, press I understand to continue (or whatever) also sounds like a good idea

        • Ultraman on 08/06/2013 - 22:55
          +3

          I think the linking of the negative vote to one of possibly many comments already made is too detached. Which comment is the negative vote comment? Superfluous comments may get negs themselves just because others think that was the neg vote comment, which then revokes the legal neg vote?!

          I think it would be better to have say:

          1. Click on neg vote box
          2. Comment box pops up requesting reason for the negative vote, with reminder text listing proper and improper use of neg votes, and a warning of the consequences for improper use of neg votes
          3. Submit button then becames available to be clicked (greyed out until text is entered)

          The red neg vote icon is attached to this comment. Prior comments & subsequent comments do not have this icon. I would hope that this then place more visibility & accountability on people to use the neg vote in accordance with Ozbargain rules.

  • Natt on 08/06/2013 - 08:20

    Actually the negfest in the SD card deal was a little more complicated than availability, as there were incorrect billing issues as well.

    It's very easy for me to be too critical, especially as I can't really offer a solution. However sometimes I think that perhaps letting the community have "what it wants" may not always be the best thing for it.

    I see ozbargain a little like a toddler :)

    What the community wants atm for example is to neg deals they don't like, eg Astrology and dr beat headphones. I don't know anything about headphones but personally I think astrology is rubbish (yes that strong a word).But my opinion is just that and I should not be able to derail a post about it.

    I quite liked how this post progressed http://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/105442 people were pretty grown up about what could have turned into a mess. Although personally i get a bit bemused by some of the opinions expressed in the thread, comments were balanced and considerate.

    I think keeping negs is important unless they are being removed for a reason other than poor community behaviour. Then its just another erosion of the site. sigh.

    I have had negs removed, which were applied for better reasons than just wanting to be with the neg horde. I did not agree with it, but understand that moderators can run their site their way. It's their site!

    I will never get the continual bending to the "community wants", but then I don't have stewardship of an amazingly successful site.

  • stemcell on 08/06/2013 - 11:59
    +4

    The bargain forum attracts greedy people and typically they are mean, unpleasant & selfish especially where money is involved, its no surprise their characteristic's spill out onto the forum.

    • robbyjones on 08/06/2013 - 19:29

      That's a little harsh and over stated, don't you think? What is your purpose for being a member if not to get a good bargain?

      • [Deactivated] on 10/06/2013 - 00:14

        Nope, I agree with stemcell. OZB had fallen from a community of bargain hunters to a bloodthirsty mob.

        Too many times does this community turn vicious, whining about entitlement when things like simple pricing errors aren't fulfilled (once being "Ozbargained"), sales that aren't a "sale" enough.

        Minor discrepancies spotted online, everyday mistakes or inconveniences that somehow become almighty injustices to the OZB consumer…

        More times than not I leave this site in utter disgust. A lot of members act like children here and it's a real show of how much OZB has changed.

  • wayacos on 09/06/2013 - 09:07
    +6

    If these negative people actually work for a living I wonder how they would feel about their employer if they were always looking for a way to devalue their remuneration for their work.
    Everything has a worth and yes bargains are good,but not everything can be sold on the cheap or the business does not survive and then no one is employed to advance the country.
    We cannot sustain growth and buy everything on the cheap.
    The other comment I would like to make is I am amazed at the large number of Ozbargainers who discuss refunds.The bulk of the comments do not seem to be associated with the goods being unsuitable,faulty etc,but that the purchaser had changed their mind.
    Retailers love time wasters(not)
    We need more people who want to work to be able to work.
    We no longer manufacture a lot of goods in Australia and online retailing is contributing to that,so please consider this when making a purchase,if no one has a job they will not have enough money to buy anything but essentials, as handouts(dole,pensions etc) are meant to assist people through unfortunate times or at the end of a working life,not a God given right.
    And we need people to be full time employed to pay for this assistance for the less fortunate.
    Again I am not trying to upset anyone but everything has a cost and a worth.It cannot all be cheap.
    The shopfront retailers put sales on to entice us into the store where we may decide to purchase other goods and keep people employed.You can't have it all for free.
    Regards
    Ray

    • stemcell on 09/06/2013 - 09:41

      Well said.

    • StewBalls on 09/06/2013 - 10:48

      Regards
      Gerry

      Fixed! :p

  • [Deactivated] on 09/06/2013 - 10:15
    +7

    I think you will notice that the people are more aggressive and more selfish than before.

    For me and all about me is the only thing they could think of. never minds or care about others.

    You can see it in shopping centres ( example : some narrow minds people never retured the shopping trolley back to trolley bay and just leave it wherever they like (laziness and carelessness), at work and everywhere not just in Ozbargain community.

    What a sad, sad world it is.

    • StewBalls on 09/06/2013 - 10:45
      +5

      Spot on!!!

      It's not so much a comment on OzBargainers, it's a sad indictment on modern society. People in general really are just becoming increasingly egocentric, ignorant & lazy.

      I fear for our future generations unless we have a few hard lessons, sooner rather than later, to help wean them off this idiotic learned entitlement.

  • sleepyowl on 09/06/2013 - 10:25
    +3

    Perhaps if we had a tick box option when submitting that says "Clearance" clearly in the title, it would help people realize the situation before they post hate.

  • tonyjzx on 09/06/2013 - 13:08
    -4

    here's a the main problem as i see it… their site is a pile of shit

    you allocated the item, checked out, went to paypal and then it went back into their site and said its 'out of stock'

    people did this again and again and it didnt give an indication if it actually charged you for an out of stock item

    if their site actually said 'out of stock' at the start and didnt proceed to paypal, this would be fine

    if you waste people's time like this, reap the whirlwind

  • Rick Sanchez on 09/06/2013 - 15:24
    +1

    This forum post should be stickied to the front of the website. Threatening small businesses for pricing errors they could never match, abusing rebates and buying bulk for small profits is real petty and selfish

  • attfiecz2 on 10/06/2013 - 07:48

    how about a ratio watch kind of concept (if possible) positive comments to negative. like ratio watch, if you get too negative, you go on negativity watch. to flip side of course is that people will use false positives to bail them out of negative territory but at least it is a form of self policing that might wake some people up to themselves.

    and publish a weekly list of the users with the highest ratio of downvotes. name and shame.

  • berger on 10/06/2013 - 12:02

    If a user applies a neg vote, for a stupid reason, and it gets reported & revoked, ban that users vote ability for a month.

    We all have the stars in our profiles, I fail to see what it does.. Those stars could apply to positive voteS/good contribution?

    • Moderatorneil on 10/06/2013 - 14:11

      If a user applies a neg vote, for a stupid reason, and it gets reported & revoked, ban that users vote ability for a month.

      If negative votes are revoked, the system implements a ban on that user further negative voting other deals. I guess the question should be, does the user know this is unacceptable (e.g. against guidelines) and made the vote? or did the user simply see the button and click it? I guess we have to be realistic and know that most people don't read voting guidelines. Many people can't read past the title of a deal sometimes! I guess the point is we don't want to punish people for making mistakes.

      We all have the stars in our profiles, I fail to see what it does.. Those stars could apply to positive voteS/good contribution?

      This was implemented a while ago. I think it was to trial rating other users. Will need to check on that.

      • retiredfeline on 10/06/2013 - 14:40

        How about requiring neg votes on both deals and comments to be earned? Say you have to give 10 pos votes to have the right to make one neg vote (in each category).

        • Moderatorneil on 10/06/2013 - 15:05

          That's a good idea. I guess that's sort of simpler version of a more complex user reputation system. The idea is that votes a user receives for posting a deal, received votes on comments, and other metrics add up to points. Things like negative voting a deal will need a certain amount of points, revoked will result in points loss. There are some issues with systems like these especially those who want to game the system.

        • retiredfeline on 10/06/2013 - 15:56

          It's worth remembering why the neg vote exists: to sink rotten deals. As the number of users increases, the chance of something slipping through decreases. So the system should be stingy with neg entitlements. Keep the algorithm simple.

  • KingstonTheNotSoWise on 10/06/2013 - 13:56

    They may need to start considering a 'reason' drop down box when you click the neg button. Similar to when you report someone on other sites or even here, it can have options like 'spam, scam, offensive, non-genuine etc…' that way people can't just post a comment to neg a bargain and if they are reported for false negs than at least it can be categorised and verified by the moderators easier. I know it may not stop 100%, people will probably just pick a false reason and neg but at least the mods can work through a list if need be.

    • Moderatorneil on 10/06/2013 - 14:05

      See my comment above. Too many options for dropdown. Verifying every negative vote through an approval process will add way to much human work for moderators and isn't scalable as the site grows.

      If you believe there is an invalid negative vote, use the report link and a moderator will look at it.

  • Aneurism on 10/06/2013 - 16:56

    Where there is anonymity there will always be trouble makers and over the top anger over trivial matters.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join