I hardly see any negative votes here and when you do you are told to piss off, the voting isn't very good at the moment as I see a lot of non performing deals that aren't the bargains they make out to be.
Mod — move to Announcement/Feedback forum
Are people scared to neg vote here?
AMLagonda on 25/01/2010 - 16:46
Comments
Should it? Why? What about diversity of opinion, discussion, debate…?
This "negs should be rare" rule sounds pretty totalitarian to me.
+1 to what neil said.
As per your comment about being told to "piss off". (The mods are discussing this atm.). We only revoke users votes if there are no explanation for the neg. For example, if you wrote "neg cos i've purchased from this store, they didnt deliver on time and customer service was poor" is very unlikely to be revoked. However if you said "it sux" then there is a higher chance it will get revoked. We don't like "censoring" peoples votes, hwoever we try and be as fair as possible to everyone.
At the end of the day, this site is driven by the community. Scotty said once that no [positive] votes can be just as bad as getting negatives.
I have noticed some negs being asked to be explained just because the Rep who posted it wasn't happy (and probably complained). A vote is an opinion. Positive = good deal. Negative = Not a bargain. no vote = ho hum, same as everywhere else.
I get the perception that mods think a neg is a reflection of a negative vibe on the site?
And I thought you weren't meant to vote neg for a bad experience, when you are meant to vote on the deal itself?
Have to agree with the subject , also there is major inconsistencies between votes having to be explained and being retracted , its like 50% that i see (clearly exagerated)
At least there are changes and it always seems to be under discussion which is a good thing, sure the lack of neg vote takes away the users power and kinda makes it a bit boring, but also trying to retain the amount of deals without getting shot down for one bad transaction , although there a many who have a lot of bad transactions
Good topic, long live Ozbargain :)
The reason some are left alone, is that we as mods dont always chase every negative vote. So contrary to belief we aren't out there watching over everything. Thats why the report function is a great tool for you and us.
Secondly sometimes there are a number of negative votes, all with no clear reason, and revoking all of these may just take away from the wishes of the community. In those cases I personally have let them be but given a verbal warning.
And negative votes are also a form of censorship as they can have a post go invisible, so again at least the person who is doing this should have the courtesy to give an explanation.
As for Antmans comment on voting negative for a bad experience not a valid negative vote, in my opinion, thats a valid vote. BUT again if you explain yourself, then people can decide what risk etc they take. eg Neg because they promised me a white thingy but I got black, vs they never returned my calls, and never fixed the warranty issues\, sure helps me make a decision.
Yep, Negative = not a bargain as long as you can back it up with a source, or at the least some explanation.
The voting issue is always going to be a tricky thing but the mods aren't all conspiring to locking down the community and having no fun. We are all long time users and volunteers who have the best interests of the site in hand. We want consistent voting and all we ask is some kind of explanation. But you should think of a no vote as an important part of driving the popularity of deals and use the neg vote rarely.
I think part of the problem is that some people neg stuff that isn't a bargain to them personally, when it could still be considered a bargain to someone else. I personally feel negs should only be used where the bargain isn't good for anyone.
I vote +ve if it's a bargain for me (even though I may not take it up), no vote if it's not a bargain for me (but could be for someone else), and negative if it's not a bargain for anyone, e.g. if it's flawed (although I don't really vote negative, just spam, double ups, or the like).
Evil-elmo, yes this is a pretty good summation of what the vote is there for, might be good to use this explanation on the guidelines wiki. With the report function as Scotty says the mods can get on top of spam etc much faster.
Negative votes have been used by a few just because they didn't like the product etc, so in effect they were censoring posts for personal reasons. Then there were "competitors" signing up and neging a deal to have it lost. (one reason why people have to be on board for 30 days before they are able to do this)
A no vote is effectively a neg vote as you say. Its not for you and its of no interest for you. Just because I don't like Johnslollywater, is not a reason to vote down every deal with Johnslollywater.
Frankly I hate seeing thousands of posts for another Xbox or WII game from some US or Chinese vendor, but I leave them alone. Now if I know that vendor has dubious products like pirated versions then sure I'll vote it down.
Personal wisdom vs personal preference
And again we have tended to negate only negative votes that don't follow the guidelines as can be found in neils post above. Interestingly, since this has been happening the reporting has gone up, and the posts are taken down faster than before if they are not kosher
But as Scotty says we as mods are looking at this and are trying to find a better solution
I think some people have got the wrong idea about what a negative vote stands for. My understanding is that negative vote meant that you think this deal should be taken off the site, that it is no good to anybody and everybody. Back when ozbargain had only a few hundred members, 2 or 3 negatives would make the deal disappear, so it was alarming when someone voted negative because chances were that the deal would never been seen again on ozbargain.
Once a deal gets on the front page, I don't think the actual number of votes is very important.
Sorry have to move this to the Announcement/Feedback forum as it's OzBargain site related.
We are still evaluating the negative voting process (yes there's much discussion amongst the moderators). The need for negative votes has reduced when we now have report function, so issues such as spam, duplicates, etc get mods' attention straight away.
The Indomie Mi Goreng 'deal' (http://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/21913) is a case in point. Some people are giving negatives on the basis that the product will cause you to gain weight (and other unsubstantiated health related reasons). If that path is taken, there are a lot of products that would get negatives on this site.
Other people have given negatives on the basis that they think that it isn't the best price. While I'm not sure that the criticism is deserved, it is probably a fair enough reason for disapproving of a deal.
On a related issue, it seems odd that a deal disappears quickly when there are just a few votes and there are more negatives than positives. It would perhaps be better if all deals (other than where the 'deal' runs counter to the ethos of the site) stayed up for a minimum time so that more than a few people could make a judgement. It is pity when one or two rock throwers can take down a deal that might suit a reasonable number of people…
Most of the negs I see are because the price is not a bargain!!!
As it should be!
Having "delayed bury" is high on priority of list of things that I need to work on. It has also been frequently requested by the store reps as currently you only need 1 single negative vote to hide them. For example 6-8 hours of grace period is more than sufficient. I will need to find time to put this in.
Scotty I'm sorry I disagree with this. The ads are ruining the site and is making it hard to quickly browse for a bargain and get in quickly. If the reps believe it is a fantastic bargain and worth everyone's time, maybe they should post it again.
Maybe there should be a seperate vote option called 'delete this item' and after a certain number of votes the post gets taken down.
If the reps believe it is a fantastic bargain and worth everyone’s time, maybe they should post it again.
They would be forbidden to post again as it would be marked as duplicate. They are probably temporarily banned anyway due to previously high number of negative votes.
Thanks for your opinions by the way. This site is foremost for the consumers. Although I do wish to help the merchants especially if they have good deals to offer, but I'll take the suggestions from the consumers/shoppers amongst us first.
@scotty: No problem Scotty, thank you very much for running a fantastic site. It's for that reason that I would hate it to be ruined by people using this site for free advertising.
ruined by people using this site for free advertising.
If OzBargain charges store reps for posting, then it will make us no different than other directory sites. If it is free and encourages everyone to post, then we'll be attracting free loaders who does not really have a bargain to post (or a "bargain" in their own mind, as in most cases).
If we don't let store owners to post, the honest ones might stop, but others will sneak in using other means. Sockpuppeting, ghost accounts, etc.
Not the easiest thing to solve.
@scotty: How about automatic delayed bury for rep deals unless some votes it up? Removing voting rights from store rep OPs so they can't neg vote on comments, removing automatic positive from posting and delayed bury for negative deals?
I realise it's a difficult thing to balance and I think the voting system works really well. Just a case of fine tuning and being a little bit tougher on reps. Ultimately I think it is up to us as a community to make it work by voting.
keep up the good work Scotty!
@fungi79: So now we see sockpuppeting, rep rings a mate or reps create a club, I vote you up, you vote me up. And again one mans bargain is anothers spam. See here eg iphone freebies http://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/22447
And personally why do we have another STEAM deal, I dont have a gaming console…. and so on.
On the neg voting thing everyone is missing the point. You can vote negative, just give an intelligible reason. The Trolls got here and just negged anything they didn't like and gave no reason. We know someone doesn't like something when they neg vote it. We just ask for a reason so at least others who look at it understand why, and they can evaluate it. Also the poster can understand why. So if its in their power they can make changes for future posts.
And see here, we get criticised for allowing neg votes by people who are on a bandwagon.
http://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/22425
Go to your user panel and set things the way you like it, so the system filters out what you dont want to see, request additional filters from Scotty if they don't do what you want.
And dont get us wrong, even though we may poo poo an idea, its only because we have been looking at it from many aspects. Keep them coming
I used to frequently neg vote when I could find cheaper prices elsewhere.
People didn't tell me to piss off, but they would often never check the competition for themselves before voting positive and tell me to pipe down because, presumably, they didn't want their positive vote to look silly.
I've stopped voting neg very often now, simply because I can do without the aggravation.
When it's spam/sockpuppetting/etc I do explain why in a comment, vote neg and if it doesn't immediately sink, report it. For example the ludicrous Zeitgeist post of today (which managed to get 6 positives).
I'm kind of disheartened that neg votes are sort of vaugley looked down on by the mods, no voting is encouraged and the use of filters is suggested instead. I always thought the point was to let people know what are good bargains - ignoring bad bargains so that other people get suckered into them is kind of like a malicious malase.
I think a negative with proof backing up why it is not a good deal for anyone is fine. The problem seems to at least partially stem from those who neg vote and just say "cheaper elsewhere" without saying where that elsewhere is, what stock they have, does it apply to all of Australia and the like.
Here is one question.
So the community is given collective power to revoke someone else's negative vote (for example, negative votes on the comment that is required for the person to cast a negative vote on the deal), would that resolve the problem?
I know it is going to complicate stuff a bit in terms of rules + implementations so I'll ask people's opinions here first.
hmmm, I'm not convinced by that approach……..often there is a kind of mob mentality happens over a particular retailer or deal (think of the initial positive flurry over assorted goods….amongst others). It would be a shame to see a couple of voices of potential reason/caution be drowned by a baying mob….positive or negative…..
Its a great idea.
The only thing you have to make sure is that someone can't make multiple accounts to get rid of the negative vote.
You could make it based on weight per user. So a user that is new has a weight of 1, and a user that has been here a long time has a weight of 10.
And lets say you need 40 to get the negative vote revoked.
That way it would take 40 new users to get rid of the comment. But only 4 experienced users.
Great idea. Agree with andy, mob mentality can be bad but a weighted system would be great for the site and less work/arguments/justification for the moderators. Maybe in addition to the membership time perhaps count the positive/negative vote count on user comments to determine the more helpful/balanced members.
It does sound like a lot of work for Scotty ;) Are there any sites out there that have this type of system implemented?
@neil: The issue of negative voting is passionate. Some think that a deal isnt a bargain if its 10% off, others if its not 20%, and so on. Others think any iphone deal is no good, others if its a blackberry.
As the site grows there are more positive votes and also more negative votes, so this weighting has more effect that originally
Really the negative vote isn't a problem its the effect it has on a deal that is. If 3 people vote down a deal in the beginning it's off the radar for most here. So then a deal that suits some people is never seen.
Maybe a very simple way is to automatically turn off, the disappearing effect of the negative vote, so that a member needs to set this up themselves.
Alternatively (or additionally) this only goes off the radar if the negative votes outweigh the positive after 24 hours, that way we get a better idea of what the majority thinks before being automatically shunted off. (lostincanberra raised this before and its an idea that has merit)
We do now have the report button for spam etc, and this seems to be used more often, and catches more of this than the negative vote.
Another thought (based on ideas raised above) is maybe we have a relationship between positive and negative votes and this needs some thought and discussion. A daily limit on how many negative votes one can have, and a relationship with length of time and percentage of negative votes given over time that a user has made. BUT this will need very careful consideration.
yep, the weighted idea is a good one, although clearly hard work deciding how to determine 'experienced'..
Have seen lots of forums which run a 'kudos' 'thanks' type system, where users comment on other users rather than individual postings, but the success of that depends on your user group I guess.
Doesn't complicate it at all. A good example is the isolated negative vote on my post here http://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/23241. You probably already know about it and it's annoying the rep an awful lot. Notice the number of negative votes on the comment of the -ve voter.
but is it an unjustified neg?…..I wouldn't know anything about the product in question….and are we seeing an example of the 'mob' in action in that thread? Would anyone else would be brave enough to post a neg in there?
so much interest in security systems!…..
@Livert: everybody thinking the same, does not necessarily make something the truth, or correct.
Lots of people thought Hitler was the bees knees…….
Silencing and eliminating critics is not how a civilised society should operate@andy19363: The way the site is set up neg votes dont need to be jsutified BUT they do need to have a clear explanation on why they are negative.
Acceptable
Dont like the colour
the poster sucks
The vendor never delivered to me last timealso acceptable - I agree with "fredies" reasons above
Unacceptable
Ditto (eg to which example above?)
Crap
Agree
sucksIn other words
We know why you voted negative, that way the community can make it's own judgement.
Mod's cant police or make judgment that "the wrong colour" isn't a good reason when for example it may be critical in one deal - eg tailight being orange not red.
It then becomes a nightmare to police.
The community is smart, they'll work it out if the reason is given, tahts why we kill neg votes without a reason.
@scotty - Considering what I've described that'd exacerbate the problem… wouldn't it?
Hmm. Possibly. This day and age when everyone is trying to be PC (& says no negative about others' post), negative vote/bury is indeed less useful. It's a useful tool for the wise to send warnings to fellow users, but destructive tool for the trolls too, unfortunately.
But what I am trying to avoid here is for the moderators to have a fine list of valid/invalid negative vote reasons — because whether a vote is valid/invalid really depends on the circumstances. The community should be able to work out whether someone's negative vote is trolling or not. If the implementation goes ahead, I will make sure the threshold is high enough so the community must be determined enough to revoke someone else's negative votes.
That also means mods can be more reluctant to remove negative votes via Report function.
@scotty: I don't expect the mods to swoop in and exact my personal brand of moral justice. That's asking too much, regardless of whose brand and the extent of the swooping.
But as my initial post said, I am disheartened by the mods efforts to help people ignore bad deals instead of voting against them. Angry at them? No. Blame them for problems? No. Just kind of saddened that they don't so much have the bottom line "good bargain" ideal in sight. I know that a community won't always follow what the mods say, and in fact will often backlash against it even when their position is perfectly rational. It's a hard spot to be in, especially for volunteers. The effort to provide rules but at the same time balance must be bloody hard to manage.
I just worry that the brand of ozbargain will become obsolete if it's flush with virtually-the-same-as-regular-price bargains. This website provides an invaluable service… but I honestly think it mostly does so to picky consumers. Consumers who don't know what price they can get things for normally simply using google, staticice, shopbot, getprice, dealextreme or the like and don't know how prices fluctuate when, for example, big ticket items are discontinued… they'll be fooled into thinking things are a bargain when they are, in fact, the same, worse or barely better than a normal price.
And no - I offer no quick fix. I appreciate it's impossible to always provide sterling bargains that apply to everyone. I know many negative voters do so simply because they're pety, inexperienced, or malicious.
It's a morass, and there's no getting around it. In a perfect world one person with infallible judgement would declare the bargains, and they would be right and true. Sadly, the best method is this democratic popularity contest where people can vote regardless of what they know of the topic.
Reality is a sumbitch sometimes.
Reality is a sumbitch sometimes.
Ha. Sounds like the kind of advice I give at work almost everyday, when the manager asks whether there is a quick fix and can be done cheaply :)
The community is still growing and there are still parameters to be tuned, new features to be implemented, etc. We'll see.
Sorry guys . but i would like to understand something here . The neg Vote Livert is referring to is so obvious that it is isolated . and based on no grounds . The mods should have the power to remove it . once it is brought to their attention if they think that a breach of guidline has been made , if it is warranted the decision will and shall be respected by all ozbargainers and reps alike . The Authority and decisions made by Site mods as i see on every site should be respected wether its positive or negative to the person reporting or complaining ,
In my case and nothing to hide , i have reported the same negative vote that LiverT has mentioned . and i would be satisfied for a mod to reply to the post in question , why it should be revoked , or why it should stay . Beleive it or not , i have no expectations , as i beleive from what ive seen rarely has mods made any decisions based on nothing ,
I beleive it should be removed. everyone on the post , massive majority , huge number of hits , and no one agrees with it . if the mods want to leave it . i tottally agree with their decision .
I just want a decision .
With respect
BC
REep For Logitechshop.com.auThe mods in discussion over it. If it was clear cut we would have made a decision. Either way, you have 200+ positive votes to 1 negative, so its a drop in the bucket.
It also increases moderating workload considerably to have to potentially publicly justify every decision :)
So give some power back to the mob and make it 15 -ve votes on the "-ve voter's" comment to revoke it. Simple.
@andy19363: Yeah agreed , lets use ozbargain to squash the minority is that what he was trying to say
Among the things i like about this place is the ability to have your say , and other people to reply or have their own comment.
It seems we are referring to removing the voice of opposition or opposing view.
if we dont have the opposing view then we are losing our ability to see all sides.
My point being BC deals are great for the price but for the quality of service you are better off going somewhere else ie if you have a problem or are doing anything except buying.
Also what is wrong with commenting on the quality of goods , or user experience with it , i really appreciate it when someone puts that sort of info the comments i have saved a lot of money due to low quality or poor service/support
@Mikinoz: A bit late to reply here due to the recent events (and the sensitivity of this issue). Maybe my choice of words was not the best. What I was trying to say was, if there is an overwhelming majority who do not feel the vote was justified, then it may not be. I'm not asking for the comment to be deleted when this happens (however spammy/troll-like it may be); just for the vote to be reversed.
As the site grows, the number of negative votes will go up. If this eventually gets implemented, the threshold needed to negate a negative vote will need to be continually increased accordingly.
As Scotty above has mentioned, this will offload some of the mods' responsibilities. If someone feels that they have been unfairly "mobbed" because of this, they can always make a report like you recently did successfully.
@Livert: Yeah sorry really dont agree with the mob mentality you are refering to in the vote to be reversed. Even though in your opinion it was spammy / troll like which it wasnt as it was backed by the mods.
Because there is a majority opinion still doesnt make it right!
Agreed there is changes that need to be made as they are, which is great that they are listening to people like you & me and everyone else.
BC - this was raised before in the mods only forum. The reporting function doesnt give us the capability to explain inaction. Action is obvious as you see it deleted etc.
If you see no action and think it should be I suggest the following
Raise it in the talk to a mod area. Your comments and the replies by the mods are seen only by you.
If you want everyone to get involved - community discussion raise it in this area.
Really these are better than doing it in your product thread. Maybe even invite the negative voter to come to this area to discuss.
But please dont use the thread to resolve the issue by the tactic you used about witholding a deal until the vote is reversed that is TOTALLY inappropriate.
The internet is sort of anonymous, its like raising your finger to someone who has cut you off. Not wise they may just be some looney with a gun who is looking for a fight. Guess who gets hurt??
It was a fun discussion , i dont think i need to censor comments . im sure we are all adults and can live with a good discussion , specially when everyone is having a great time , and a good bargains , etc .
Guys , im over it , Neg / Vote ,. Whatever makes you all happy .
We have achieved history , We have 5 deals (all 5 top deals) and the maximum number of voted since the history of ozbargain ,.I thank all ozbargainers , all mods for their effort , im sure its hard to make all happy , so thank you anyway .
a couple of people that have issues with a product here and their , or feel like an attention fix , i really dont care about , neither do all the + voters , Statistics speak for themselves .
Regards
BCtrue
Thanks anyhow ozpete . Your point is good .
Ok Guys ,
Lets make this simple for all , My 1 cents worth .
i worked my butt off for everyone in here on ozbargains , i listened to every request , we all stayed up nite after nite , we all got good bargains .
Why are we here, very simple .
People want to vote negative , so we say why neg , then it spirals .
Ok warranted to say to a person looking from outside and not a part of the conversation, you’d think its black mail , (ill post a good deal if you remove your vote )
Fine i tottally agree , and now that its noted that nothing should ever be worded in that format . and i appologise for all if i caused an issue , its not my intention , it was never my intention .
I do appologise , to all .
I am Sorry to all
Mikinoz no hard feelings .
Ozpete no hard feelings .
Scotty your website and hardwork is why we are here .so we should be thankful.
So Im sorry once again , do not take it on Logitechshop . or the store itself , im happy to releif myself from the rep position if scotty wants me to . but i see no point in going further with all this .
I hope my appology is accepted . if it is , lets move on , close this thread . and get some DAMMMMM good bargains .
To the Mods please PM me if you like me to resign from my duty as a store rep .
Best regards
BCBC thanks and we move on, but the thread stays open - not for comments on you but we do need to have more discussion on negative voting its still an issue that will come up from time to time.
Stay around we need someone to pick on - hate having to break in new reps LOL
For me, the only time I tend to have issues with neg votes is when, after a quick bit of a search (which I probably do the slow way :P) I find the person who neg voted is pretty much a hater of a certain product / store.
Personally, I feel not voting serves almost as well as a neg, with the report function available to us, but I'd also hate to see the neg disappear, as it's great when someone gives a good reason (ie, delivery took months, communication is horrible etc) - very useful when deciding if a bargain is worth going after.
I know it's probably more work for the mods (sorry) - but I feel they should be the only ones who can revoke a vote (neg or pos). The mod can listen to the community, and I'm sure that can have some bearing on the decision, but there has to be a person with a brain/logic working at it - us plebs need our Ceasars :D
I don't really think people are scared to neg a deal. If there's something wrong with the deal, there are always people that give a negative vote. In some cases, where they disagree as to whether the deal is a bargain or not, they don't bother giving a negative because they simply might not care enough about the deal to justify their negative with a comment; since you cannot leave a negative vote without comments.
Also, I think the voting system for comments should also have a reason for negatives just like the posts do.
I like the idea of justifying negative comment votes, but my worry is the implementation of such a system (especially when deals are seeing hundreds of standard comments).
However, this did get me thinking about peoples profiles detailing pos and neg votes for deals, as well as pos and neg votes for comments. By detailing, I mean just keeping a running tally - I would imagine this would help show if people have a generally positive, negative or neutral stance on deals. My reasoning is, if someone who has voted 100 times is 99 pos and 1 neg, the neg, from the communities point of view, would probably hold more bearing than someone who votes 99 neg and 1 pos (though the pos would have more weighting in this case :P).
I have a feeling this idea has essentially being put forward (maybe not in this exact format though) - plagiarism is a form of flattery though :D
I know this is slightly more complex than what's been put forth thus far, but what about a system analogous to the weighting of vBulletin's rep system? (for those who've used it)
Essentially, each positive vote you receive both on a submission (counts as 2x points) and comments (1x point) adds to your reputation on OzBargain. This should essentially create a hierarchy amongst the mob; the mob can then vote on negative votes and once it reaches the threshold (based on the cumulative rep points of those who neg'd the vote), the vote could be removed. It's essentially community moderation.
Negs should be rare, http://www.ozbargain.com.au/wiki/help:voting_guidelines
Most negatived stuff is reported to us (SPAM, sockpuppeting, etc) and we remove the deals.