[Suggestion] Character minimum for negative votes?

ProspectiveDarkness on 26/12/2012 - 18:08

Title says it all really. I'm sure this isn't an original idea, but I think it would be beneficial to have a mandatory character minimum for people negative voting on deals. It would stop the unexplained, 'me too' votes that tend to occur frequently here. Reasonable comments accompanying neg votes are far more beneficial to discussion.

Negs that aren't conducive to discussion are often impossible to remove via comment negging, since it usually conforms with the general atmosphere of the thread (read: bandwagon). As a side note: I've never understood why people feel the need to continue negging a deal - aren't the first couple enough? Usually the first couple of negs will be accompanied by reasonable comments… then everything after this is mainly just 'Lol, neg' and 'Agree with the above, neg'. The whole thing may be predicated by the perception that more negs = lesser quality deal (which, thanks to the neg-sheep, is not necessarily true), and the need to assert one's opinion / feel 'popular' by conforming. shrug

Also: not only would it aid in improving discussion, but it would make moderating a bit easier; mods would no longer have to trawl through long threads to revoke undeserving negs (well, perhaps they still would, but less so).

Obviously there would be a couple of ways around this, but I'm really thinking out loud here… IMO anything of this variety would be better than nothing.

Site Discussion

Comments

  • Moderatorneil on 26/12/2012 - 19:49

    It's an interesting suggestion and I don't believe it's suggested before.

    Many of the invalid negative votes are 1 word votes.

    Off the top of my head, some possible issues.

    Firstly, say a member writes a comment and either waits a bit to negative vote or another user responds to the comment. The user can no longer can change their comment. So a user would be permanently restricted from negative voting.

    Second, my guess if the minimum character limit is 10, then say instead of crap, they could write crap crap crap.

    • ProspectiveDarkness on 26/12/2012 - 22:48

      Firstly, say a member writes a comment and either waits a bit to negative vote or another user responds to the comment. The user can no longer can change their comment. So a user would be permanently restricted from negative voting.

      I assume in this circumstance, the original member's post does not meet the minimum requirement, hence cannot neg? Could be an issue, I suppose. They could just comment again, elaborating on their original comment (though I would expect most comments that outline an actual train of thought (the reasonable negs) to already meet the requirement. Depends on the minimum number, though).

      Perhaps they might also be given the option to add to (not edit) their original comment only in this scenario? The implementation would be tricky, but IMO even the slightest problems would be worth it (though I'm not a moderator, so perhaps I'm not the best judge).

      Second, my guess if the minimum character limit is 10, then say instead of crap, they could write crap crap crap.

      That was my first thought when I was typing the OP. I'm fairly confident, though, that either community moderating, or yourselves, would be able to pick up on this, though. I think most people would see it as spam and neg it (hence revoking the vote) or report it, in which case one of you mods would come along and remove it (as you do now, with any unreasonable neg).

      I don't suppose there would be any means of auto-detecting repetitive words in a comment (similar to how titles are regulated when posting a deal, IIRC)? Though even then, I suppose the person could just make anything up to cover the requirement.

  • ozhunter on 26/12/2012 - 21:13
    +1

    But what something like this happens http://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/89032 and it only gets one neg for being a pricing error. Members like to jump on the neg bandwagon just as much as the pos bandwagon.

    Or what if a deal can be had by a workaround or able to get something that you're not entitled too. There would be only one neg for it not being morally right, which could easily be removed by negging the comment.

    • Moderatorneil on 26/12/2012 - 22:36

      All deals that are pricing errors (that don't get honoured) get moved to the forums. That has now been moved.

      Neg bandwagon and moral negatives are another kettle of fish that has been much discussed.

      A lot of times, comments attached to negative votes are a grey area. Different moderators or users will have a different opinion on whether a comment is valid or not. In order to be consistent, we don't revoke these votes. Comments that don't have a reason at all attached to a negative vote, (all moderators and users recognize it's an invalid vote) will be revoked.

      So any automation is helpful. Character limits could not only assist in keeping voting standards, reducing moderator workload but could also educate users in voting and making useful comments.

  • scotty on 26/12/2012 - 22:34
    +1

    Filling up the comment in order to cast negative vote would definitely be an issue here.

    Also with those "me too" neggers, I think most of them just don't bother to type out the whole reason again. Whether they are valid or not is probably more than how many characters they've typed, but also which "bandwagon" they've jumped onto.

    For example:

    • Parent: -1 — because the product lacks quality, store never provided solution to previous issues and the same thing can be had for $10 less in this store.
      • Reply: -1 — agree!

    is different from

    • Parent: -1 — because it's from Harvey Norman!
      • Reply: -1 — agree!
    • ProspectiveDarkness on 26/12/2012 - 23:08

      Whether they are valid or not is probably more than how many characters they've typed, but also which "bandwagon" they've jumped onto.

      I definitely get what you mean, but IMO both bandwagons deserve restricting (my opinion, of course). I think that, if there's no use saying the reasons again, then there's really no use negging again. I tried (ineloquently) to touch on it in the OP; after the first couple of votes (and their, hopefully, reasonable adjoining comments), is there really any reason for the negs to continue to pile up? The information is out there, in those first few comments, so everyone can see (thanks to the Neg Voters tab at the bottom) immediately what the reasons for negging were. IIRC, it doesn't take many negs for the deal to become less and less visible, so why do these people from your first example need to neg the deal at all? Can't they just state their agreement, without negging? I recognise this is all my opinion, but I really don't understand the fascination with "agreement negging", as you outlined in your first example.

      That said, I'm sure people would still like their right to neg, so it is a problem to overcome. The only solutions I can think of are unnecessarily complicated, and would require overhauls to the voting system at large.

      I remember someone suggesting a voting model similar to reddit (I can't quite remember the details), where each subsequent vote has less of an impact than the previous vote? Could it work in the fashion that the first few neg votes (legitimate ones, which achieve the minimum character requirement) have more of an impact, and then the following agreement neggers have less? (Or perhaps there could be varying degrees of character requirements, and each rank constitutes a greater impact towards a neg?) Though my idea is very much based on the assumption that comments with a high amount of characters also possess high quality… which is not necessarily true. Hmmm.

      • [Deactivated] on 27/12/2012 - 08:00

        Agreed, if we are to believe that negative voting isn't meant to be a popularity contest indicator, its to alert us to an issue with a deal.

        If that issue alert on that issue, has already been made, then why the next vote.

        And that's with people who even understand the negative vote.

        Initially thats why any comment had to be made before pressing a negative vote. Then it got modified to require a little extra thought by banning the "ditto" "exactly". This was hoping to avoid the act, then think later, responses.

        But again the real issue here is the individuals belief in what the negative vote symbolises, which is not uniform, and are we trying to modify a behaviour that is different to "normal" expectations?

      • scotty on 27/12/2012 - 20:43

        Yes, negative votes reduce the visibility, but every vote counts, i.e. those extra votes also count against a merchant/store rep on his/her ability to post. See Store Representative Posting Limit — it's OzBargain's method to throttle store-rep deals (when we first introduced it back in 2009 and then added vote-based throttling last year). However I doubt most people (except the merchants) care about these.

        With regard to Reddit — while it's a good suggestion, I am not sure how it solves your problem, which is neg comments that are less meaningful but produce the same amount of impact.

  • ProspectiveDarkness on 26/12/2012 - 23:16

    And while we're on the subject, I'm curious: does this need happen often / at all?

    Should a member find that through community or mod actions a number of their negative votes on deals, are removed over a rolling 90 day period, then they may lose their ability to negatively vote, until the number of removed votes fall below this date/vote threshold.

  • m0nkeycheese on 27/12/2012 - 01:58
    +3

    Less bitching about neggers and more posting deals. ProspectiveDarkness you have been here since 2010 and have a grand total of 3 deals.. GET ON IT!!

    • [Deactivated] on 27/12/2012 - 07:49

      WOW, which side of the bed did you get out of?

      • m0nkeycheese on 27/12/2012 - 10:11
        +1

        Lol the wrong side probably :s

    • ProspectiveDarkness on 27/12/2012 - 10:12
      -3

      Less bitching about neggers and more posting deals.

      This is, by no means, 'bitching' - if you can't distinguish between constructive feedback and incessant complaining, I suggest you take yourself elsewhere; the Site Discussion forum is obviously not for you.

      ProspectiveDarkness you have been here since 2010 and have a grand total of 3 deals.. GET ON IT!!

      If I ever do feel the need to 'GET ON IT!!', I promise you'll be the first to know.

  • Geewhizz on 27/12/2012 - 07:28

    As it stands, there is nothing stopping anyone from writing a complete paragraph, if need be, to fulfil a minimum post requirement, then simply editing to delete the contents of that post once they've voted.

    • Mitchh on 28/12/2012 - 15:09

      Why would the do that. Once you've made the post, you've done the work, and there is no point in deleting it.

    • ProspectiveDarkness on 28/12/2012 - 15:24

      A feature could be implemented whereby a member can't edit a post (the one they based their neg on) so that it not longer fulfills the requirement. Simple concept, but I'm not sure about the execution.

  • andy19363 on 27/12/2012 - 16:02

    All of the problems with negative voting could be solved overnight by simply removing the neg vote option. It's been a long time since the neg served any useful purpose…..

    • ProspectiveDarkness on 30/12/2012 - 04:49

      I agree somewhat… though it would undoubtedly create something of an uproar. As I said earlier, I'll never understand some users' fascination with negging.

  • aerona on 27/12/2012 - 20:41

    Is this the deal you are referring to?
    http://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/88974#comment-1170629

    The word "COTD" itself is already deemed worthy enough for a neg :P

    • scotty on 27/12/2012 - 20:55

      From our voting guidelines, you should only vote NEG quoting merchant as the reason if

      Major issues with retailer.

      I have mixed feeling about COTD but I doubt this merchant has major problem. An online retailer at this size bound to miss the beats here and there, but those are relatively small comparing to the size of their customers.

      However I believe some people might really have major personal issues with the retailer (this guy for example), however we do need them to spell those out to warrant a negative vote.

    • ProspectiveDarkness on 27/12/2012 - 22:07

      I did see that thread, but it wasn't specifically my inspiration for the post… the practice is rife in any 'unpopular' thread these days. It's one of a number of things that have been irking me for some time, but I've never bothered to think about a solution (however half-arsed it may be) until now.

  • andy19363 on 28/12/2012 - 15:31

    www.ozbargain.com.au/node/89313

    Not one useful neg in there………

  • [Deactivated] on 29/12/2012 - 04:57
    +2

    KISS.

    • scotty on 30/12/2012 - 01:02

      It's hard :)

      Software development's constant struggle — keeping the system simple / reducing complexity so less bugs / whole thing scales better / easier to maintain and understand, etc. At the same time, fencing off all kinds of user requests that only 2% of very vocal minority wants that adds tricky edge cases which might destabilise the system and at the same time anger another 2% also very vocal minority…

      I was expecting this kind of thing happens only in the corporate IT world. It can't be that bad developing a free-to-use community website, right?!

      • ProspectiveDarkness on 30/12/2012 - 04:43

        At the same time, fencing off all kinds of user requests that only 2% of very vocal minority wants that adds tricky edge cases which might destabilise the system and at the same time anger another 2% also very vocal minority…

        Nice to know that user suggestions are appreciated ;-)

    • ProspectiveDarkness on 30/12/2012 - 04:47

      Indeed… it seems a character requirement would have far more of an effect than I originally thought. It would only needlessly create new problems, whilst barely fixing the one it set out to solve. It seemed like a good idea, to begin with.

  • johnn on 30/12/2012 - 01:57
    +2

    No offense but you're kinda making a mountain out of a molehill here…

    Whilst yes, I do find the neg-bandwagoning annoying at times, I don't think it's something that occurs frequently enough (at least on a site of current scale) that it requires a significant overhaul of the current voting system or adding a quite intricate solution as you are suggesting.

    I think the current system involving moderators and the community manually overriding inappropriate negs is sufficient given there are not a significant amount of deals where there is more than 1 neg (I counted 15 deals with >1 neg over the past 3 days- perhaps Scotty can run a query over a larger sample period to determine the average number of deals per day with more than 1 neg). But just going by my very limited sample size, looking at an average of 5 deals per day with 'potential for neg-bandwagoners' would not be much manual work for moderators and power users (who themselves number more than 5 if I am correct).

    I mean, it's not as if we're looking at a life or safety critical system here- it's simply a website which allows us to source the cheapest price for the many trivial and useless purchases we make to supplement our lives. It's not perfect, but it more than does the job :)

    If anything, the bigger problem is educating users (new and older) about the purpose of the whole negging system.

    In my opinion though, I think one reason why people get so abrasive about 'negs' is the negative connotations of receiving one (no pun intended). Some people take things way too seriously, and when it comes to dealing out and receiving negs, it's inevitable for some to take offense.

    Maybe if the big red 'neg' symbol could be changed to a more neutral yellow 'caution' symbol or pink 'oopsie' symbol it could solve a lot of anger issues ;)

    • ProspectiveDarkness on 30/12/2012 - 04:41

      No offense but you're kinda making a mountain out of a molehill here…

      No offence taken, you're entitled to you opinion :-)

      Whilst yes, I do find the neg-bandwagoning annoying at times, I don't think it's something that occurs frequently enough (at least on a site of current scale) that it requires a significant overhaul of the current voting system or adding a quite intricate solution as you are suggesting.

      I agree that the overhauls I was talking about earlier aren't necessary (which I noted here: "The only solutions I can think of are unnecessarily complicated, and would require overhauls to the voting system at large."). They weren't exactly planned responses, I was merely spitballing some possible solutions to the issues brought about by the suggested character requirement - food for thought. The voting system (or more how people view it) is a part of the problem, but it's seemingly too ingrained in OzBargain's function to be altered considerably. Still, it's worth discussing. Unfortunately, it would seem the idea of a character requirement is killed by the numerous unwanted loopholes and side-effects it would have.

      As for the amount of 'unreasonable' negs… I'm not so sure it's such a small problem. It seems like every day I see at least one (some from the same users, which is frustrating (yes, you know who you are)), and there can be half a dozen to a dozen in a single thread alone, if it's 'unpopular' enough. And as scotty said above, the negs affect the OP's posting ability and reputation; unreasonable negs make the system less reliable by adding unreasonable / illegitimate input.

      You're right: it's not a matter of life and death… but if something could be done to make moderating more efficient, and prevent the same thing from happening, time after time, then why not consider it? OzBargain itself performs it's function just fine… it's (some of) the people using it that are the problem.

      If anything, the bigger problem is educating users (new and older) about the purpose of the whole negging system.

      I agree, but IME getting people to follow the guidelines is… difficult. I think some people just treat OzBargain as their own personal sandbox, and don't feel the need to conform to any rules, even if they are mostly common sense. Perhaps a heavier emphasis on the guidelines upon registration is necessary?

      Maybe if the big red 'neg' symbol could be changed to a more neutral yellow 'caution' symbol or pink 'oopsie' symbol it could solve a lot of anger issues ;)

      A worthwhile idea… however, I think that might be changing the face of things too much. If anything of OzBargain's could be considered 'iconic', it would be the positive and negative voting. It's one of the core functions, and I'm not sure it would be a good idea to mess with a good thing. It would also represent a slightly greater learning curve for new users, who may be deterred by the less obvious options (sounds silly, but simplicity does appeal to people).
      Also: who's to say people won't just attribute similar negative connotations to the new rankings, and we have the same problem all over again?

      Forgive any odd mistakes… it's long past time for sleep ;-)

  • ProspectiveDarkness on 30/12/2012 - 04:55
    +2

    Might I make one final suggestion: would it be possible to add a new 'reason' in the dropdown box in the report form for 'breaches voting guidelines' or something? At the very least, I would feel better than putting it down as 'other', and you (mods) would immediately know what the report concerns.

    • andy19363 on 30/12/2012 - 22:28

      excellent idea….

    • Moderatorscotty on 31/12/2012 - 10:03

      Just added "Invalid Neg Reason" above "Others".

  • ozhunter on 02/01/2013 - 14:40

    http://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/89698

    This deal here, everyone is just giving it a positive and it's very unlikely anyone else can get it. Doesn't look that good with 15 negs so far. If members weren't negging it, 30 pos and 1 neg would make it looks like a pretty good deal(that no one can get).

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join