[Suggestion] Negging comments to require a reason

LJames101 on 26/01/2013 - 14:00
Last edited 29/01/2013 - 22:43

Negging content is good for self moderation. But I think it's abused by members when they neg generally inoffensive comments only because it goes against their own insulated opinions. Imagine a random passive aggressive giving you the stink-eye because you told the person next to you about your affection for Neil Diamond music. A simple "Reason" field published with the anonymous negative vote gives meaning and feedback. Also makes them reconsider if they should really be downvoting.

UPDATE

Thanks for everyone's response. I had realised that this idea was probably not going to work the way I first imagined because unfortunately with all legalities concerning published content, any comments appended onto negative's would need moderation. This wouldn't be a problem if downvoters could choose from a list of preselected reasons (instead of writing their own), and it might be possible to narrow the list down to a few options. Could even integrate an alert for moderation, e.g.

<code>
— Reason —
Rude or Offensive
Unhelpful
Other
Spam (Will alert moderator)
Abusive or Attacking (Will alert moderator)
Defamatory, Slanderous, Libellous (Will alert moderator)
</code>

Or another suggestion was to do away with the downvoting system for comments alltogther. Another suggestion was for us (and me) to move on because the topic is actually so insignificant. I'm agreeing with the latter.

Poll Options

  • 32
    Agree, I'm for a reason for downvoting comments
  • 84
    Disagree, I'm against a reason for downvoting comments
Site Discussion

Comments

  • _Bruce_ on 26/01/2013 - 14:07
    +1

    I am quite against voting on comments (asside from those which are deal votes, as this has a good reason). Having said that I don't see this as helping anything and just making things more complicated. What do you do if the reason doesn't make sense? How will the reason be displayed?

    I'm not voting because I do think there is a problem here, but I don't see this as a workable solution.

    • James101 on 26/01/2013 - 14:13
      -1

      The reason doesn't really have to make sense and not really suggesting it needs to be moderated. But when your confronted with a pop-up box asking for reason/comment it might stop a lot of unnecessary downvotes.

      • Commonwealth Pig on 26/01/2013 - 14:48

        I think people would just pick a random reason. If the vote is still anonymous (as you suggested) then why would selecting a reason worry the negative voter?

        • James101 on 26/01/2013 - 14:58
          -5

          If they had to manually type a reason/comment into a text field it would make them think at least a bit before submitting.

  • tikei on 26/01/2013 - 14:12

    I agree that comment negging has gotten out of hand, but needing to write a reason every time would make the thread unnecessarily long.

    Rather, I opt for non-anonymous comment voting in hopes to deter some non-serious voters.

    • James101 on 26/01/2013 - 14:14
      +2

      It would be hidden under the "votes" link with the drop down box.

  • retiredfeline on 26/01/2013 - 14:15
    +7

    It's annoying to be negged by a troll but I think the proposed cure is worse than the disease.

    • James101 on 26/01/2013 - 14:23
      -6

      How often does a non-troll neg a comment?

      I usually avoid negging in most cases even when I find a comment against me a bit offensive or attacking. I generally only downvote when others are being attacked or the comment is really ignorant.

      • _Bruce_ on 26/01/2013 - 14:28
        +2

        If your intent is for the forum to work as you describe, why not remove neg entirely and use report for attacks/trolling?

        • James101 on 26/01/2013 - 14:37
          +1

          Not just for the forum but also for comments in deals.

          What I was getting at is that unless your casting downvotes by the dozen, I don't see why it would be an inconvenience. My own threshold for downvoting would of course be different to others.

        • Commonwealth Pig on 26/01/2013 - 14:56
          +5

          It's already limited to 5 negative votes on comments per 24 hours so no one is doing it by the dozen.

          I see your point about it getting a bit over the top at times but I also think that some people are a little sensitive about it.

          Not everyone has to agree with a comment or maybe the information in the comment is incorrect and being downvoted is not the end of the world.

          As I said above I think a reason box would be easily bypassed by just selecting any old reason.

        • James101 on 26/01/2013 - 17:01
          -1

          Not everyone has to agree with a comment, but in some cases I think it's lazy and a bit juvenile when users don't bother to post a critical comment and instead just neg the OC. Fair enough if it's Broden that's just trolling and asking for it, otherwise I sometimes get the impression there's a herd mentality that takes over like in a schoolyard when you have a bunch of derps downvoting you so that your post disapears from the discussion (for guest users at least).

        • ozhunter on 26/01/2013 - 18:40
          +1

          so that your post disapears from the discussion (for guest users at least).

          If someone gets a few more negs than pos, they probably said something stupid. If nonmembers really want to see a comment they should become a member.

          As said, the limit is of 5 negs which already stops people going on a negging spree.

        • ProspectiveDarkness on 26/01/2013 - 23:13
          +1

          Negged.

          Reason: Apple fanboy.

          …So you really think this system will work? If anything, I see it as more of an opportunity for trolling and unnecessary comments. I mean, if you have to send a message to someone you disagree with, is it more likely to be constructive and positive, or derogatory and troll-ish?

        • James101 on 27/01/2013 - 00:24
          -1

          Will it work? Who knows. The more I think about it now the more doubtful I get. If down voting was abolished altogether it might promote a better discussion, but then you've lost the user moderation. I think it's important that online communities can self moderate.

        • MATTDAMON on 27/01/2013 - 01:09
          +1

          @ozhunter or you have people who will neg you purely out of spite (like the several members i have that follow me and neg everything i post)

        • ProspectiveDarkness on 27/01/2013 - 03:27
          +4

          herd mentality that takes over like in a schoolyard when you have a bunch of derps downvoting you so that your post disapears from the discussion (for guest users at least).

          I agree that this is something of a problem. The most obvious example that comes to mind is jv. Yes, he can be a bit of a dick sometimes, and yes, he can be unnecessarily 'difficult' - but the number of negs constantly piled on him (and anyone who happens to agree with him) in a single thread is absolutely ridiculous. It's as if hating on him is a sport - an example of the OzBargain neg bandwagon at it's finest.

          As I said below, I think reducing the number of neg votes per day would solve this. If a neg vote is viewed as something 'precious' (given that it's in scarce supply), IMO people would be less likely to 'squander' it on something as petty as a bandwagon. I could be wrong, though.

        • ozhunter on 27/01/2013 - 08:10
          +2

          @Copie if anonymity is taken away, everyone knows who negs them then they just neg them back.

          The most obvious example that comes to mind is jv. Yes, he can be a bit of a dick sometimes, and yes, he can be unnecessarily 'difficult'

          I'm almost positive jv makes silly comments/lame jokes so he does get negged. He also does make useful comments/ funny jokes which do get quite a number of positive votes.

        • parisienne on 27/01/2013 - 11:20
          -1

          Negged…for suggesting that something as life destroying,violent and sub human as gang rape can be used in this pointless,"who gives an eff,it's a piece of plastic" context.Gang rape is a crime unlike any other,and often ends in death (either at the hands of the perpetrators or the victim themselves later.)If you have a mother,wife,daughter,sister etc….think before you compare a bloody phone to the life of a woman.

        • James101 on 27/01/2013 - 13:09
          +2

          Sorry for being extreme I had a Bob Katter moment

        • omcb on 28/01/2013 - 15:22
          -1

          Exactly - I've reported the comment twice, but nothing's happened so far.

          James101's comment is degrading to women, victims of crime and simply does not belong on Ausbargain. People should not have to put up with this garbage while simply looking for bargains.

          Interesting that somebody who spews such filth onto an otherwise civil forum wants to censor other people's right to demonstrate their dissent against such garbage. Very telling.

        • ProspectiveDarkness on 28/01/2013 - 15:31
          +1

          think before you compare a bloody phone to the life of a woman.

          James101's comment is degrading to women

          You both know that women aren't the only ones who are raped, right? Just saying.

        • James101 on 28/01/2013 - 22:27
          -3

          omcb yours is the first and likely only comment I'll neg on this thread FOR BEING A DRAMA QUEEN. If it makes you happy I would allow a mod to edit and replace the linked words to read "gang-up on" or whatever euphemism makes you comfortable.

          And what does the suggestion have to do with censorship?

        • ProspectiveDarkness on 29/01/2013 - 00:06
          +1

          If it makes you happy I would allow a mod to edit and replace the linked words to read "gang-up on" or whatever euphemism makes you comfortable.

          Evidently the mods don't think it necessary, if omcb has reported it twice and it remains un-deleted (pretty sure you can't report things more than once, though, so…). You already apologised and recognised you were a bit extreme, so let's all move on.

  • scrimshaw on 26/01/2013 - 14:17
    +3

    Too cumbersome to implement….

    • James101 on 26/01/2013 - 14:26
      -3

      Not hard to implement. Heck there may even be a module already available with this functionality for the content framework in use.

      • karmageddon on 27/01/2013 - 18:09

        What content framework do you think ozbargain uses?

        I find "it's easy" is only ever said by those who know exactly what they're talking about, and those who have no idea what they're talking about.

        • James101 on 27/01/2013 - 19:07

          Drupal. And you misquote me, I never said "it's easy", just "not hard". The version might be hacked and outdated, nevertheless I doubt it's highly challenging. We're talking in relative terms here, and when your customising modules I could hardly call this hard, then again not easy against changing a few options through the UI. It's an extra table or two, abit of php and js, your only customising one module "vote" or "flag" or whatever it's called.

        • James101 on 27/01/2013 - 20:40

          sorry column not table

    • James101 on 27/01/2013 - 13:42

      Could ProspectiveDarkness, spazmodik and scrimshaw explain why it'd be too cumbersome (I assume you mean technically) to implement? Otherwise cumbersome in what way?

  • blitz on 26/01/2013 - 17:23
    +1

    because it goes against their own insulated opinions

    This is your opinion.

    • James101 on 26/01/2013 - 17:29
      -1

      Sure everything is an opinion but what are the reasons we have to back it up thats what matters

      • altomic on 27/01/2013 - 18:28
        +1

        that's your opinion.

        • James101 on 27/01/2013 - 19:35

          Sure everything is an opinion but what are the reasons we have to back it up thats what matters

        • dw121212 on 27/01/2013 - 21:18
          +2

          that's your opinion.

  • MMM on 26/01/2013 - 20:45

    I think you should be able to neg your own comments as sometimes I want to disagree with myself.

    I don’t have a problem with the negging. A neg just means you disagree. I find it a pity to see some of the more personal schoolyard bully comment attacks on some who are making what they consider to be a legitimate comment, question or post.

  • andy19363 on 26/01/2013 - 21:03
    +2

    The negging system has not had any useful function for a number of years now……

  • [Deactivated] on 26/01/2013 - 22:51
    +5

    I'd like to see all nets public. Anonymity breeds idiocy. If you can't put your name to it, best not to do it in the first place.

    • ProspectiveDarkness on 26/01/2013 - 23:06
      +1

      Seconded. Either this, or outright removal, IMO. I really don't think a 'reason' box would be all that helpful.

      Perhaps people should just stop being so precious about negs…

    • tikei on 27/01/2013 - 01:47
      +3

      Lol there's a negging troll running loose on this thread. I wrote earlier that I opt for abolishing anonymity, pretty much the same as what you said and got a neg :P. The early posts by the op are all negged and not the later ones - I assume it's because the troll exhausted the daily 5 limit :)

      If so many members are truly sensitive about being negged, then I agree we should just remove it altogether. If person B disagrees with person A, B can just type a reply stating what he feels, and other members who also disagree with A can just give a positive to B or write their own comment. No one could get a neg, only positives.

      • tasty-falafel on 30/01/2013 - 18:47
        -2

        Or these sensitive members can just get over it. Seriously, who cares if someone negs your comment / deal? I don't see why the website should have to be changed for these people.

        • andy19363 on 30/01/2013 - 19:20
          +1

          Seriously, who cares if someone negs your comment / deal?

          Nobody cares if someone negs your comment…..

          However, if a deal gets enough negs, it disappears for most users… Good deals can get negged because it doesn't apply to them, they don't understand it, they just don't like the shop/product, etc etc.
          Good deals can disappear because of it…..

        • ozhunter on 30/01/2013 - 21:28
          +1

          Nobody cares if someone negs your comment…..

          This whole thread is about comment negging.

        • johnno07 on 30/01/2013 - 21:49
          +1

          Sicmate - it's pretty clear that you don't care about getting neg votes on your comments (looking through your short comment history) but it's also clear that you don't have the first clue on how to vote properly on deals. You have incorrectly negged deals a number of times because you either didn't like the deal or couldnt make use of it. I don't care if a comment I make gets negged, but if someone like you was incorrectly negging my deal - then I would care.

    • ozhunter on 27/01/2013 - 08:08

      It wasn't always anonymous. There has been a thread about this before and it was decided that negs being anonymous was for the best.

  • m0nkeycheese on 27/01/2013 - 00:11
    +4

    I wish I had more than 5 a day :D

  • leiiv on 27/01/2013 - 02:37

    I can only think of 3 reasonable reasons of giving neg to a comment:
    1. Disagreement to the reason of a negative vote given to a deal.
    2. Foul languages such as swearing and calling names.
    3. Spams or unfathomable out of topic comments

    • andy19363 on 27/01/2013 - 12:16
      1. Foul languages such as swearing and calling names.
      2. Spams or unfathomable out of topic comments

      Both of these should be dealt with by the 'report' button

    • mls82 on 28/01/2013 - 03:08

      In my case I would only consider negging for the following reasons

      1. Information given in the comment is incorrect
      2. Information given is speculative or quotes an unreliable source
      3. Information given is an extreme opinion that I strongly disagree with

      If anything negging a spammer appears to encourage them more.

      edited: misread part of comment.

  • fchis on 27/01/2013 - 02:59

    I have this in mind for months. I support your idea because some negs are unjustified which may result in discouraging some people to make new comments. Alternatively, no voting on comments or simply get rid of - neg sign (optional : and replace + with like button) is good enough for me. Any offensive or personal attact comment can be reported via a report link.

    • ProspectiveDarkness on 27/01/2013 - 03:16
      +2

      (optional : and replace + with like button)

      I find The Verge's system to be a good model. In lieu of comment voting, strictly speaking, they have 'Recommend' - as in "By clicking this button, I advocate that this post is read-worthy, and a valid contribution to the thread". It doesn't have the same inherent connotations as positive and negative voting, but still serves to highlight good contributions.

      As others above have said, however, this option lacks community moderating for less-than-desirable comments - which, given the focus of this site, is quite important. It is also of note that altering this function would mess with the simplicity of OzBargain, and would break the uniformity in deal / comment voting.

      I think removing anonymity and reducing the number of negative votes even further (2 per day) would be the best course of action - one that doesn't mess with OzBargain's dynamic or core functions.

      • fchis on 27/01/2013 - 11:36

        Why don't we give it a try and see how it goes? I don't see any harm would do to this site by removing the neg - in comments and replace + with like or recommended button. If someone disagree with a comment, he or she will speak up by replying the comment other than lazily hit the neg without giving any good reason. Personally, I would walk away from the site if I constantly see negs for a valid comment without any explaination. It's like someone slap in your face without telling you why and the bad feeing will build up eventually.

        • johnno07 on 30/01/2013 - 21:52
          +2

          Though, there are some insanely stupid comments that don't quite warrant reporting and certainly don't deserve an explanation for casting a negative vote against them.

  • Tal_Shiar on 27/01/2013 - 03:00
    +3

    just like with repetitive neg votes, the last thing you want is more people effectively spamming threads with the same comments if someone posts a really poorly chosen comment and you end up with

    agreed

    agreed

    agreed

    etc

  • ozhunter on 27/01/2013 - 08:18
    +6

    I think the system is fine the way it is, it can't be perfect. It's the internet, people need to stop being so sensitive.

    Unlimited positives and 5 negs/day is very fair imo.

  • [Deactivated] on 27/01/2013 - 08:59
    +1

    Simple solution. + or - votes only on the deal by OP. Further comments have a "report" button to appease the politically correct crowd.

    • andy19363 on 27/01/2013 - 10:35
      +5

      even simpler solution…. + votes only on deals and comments. All start equal, Deals and comments with more +'s get highlighted…. Report button gets more user friendly to enable the mods to deal with whatever the issue is.

      In the good old days…. someone would post a deal…. if there was a better deal, someone would post, along the lines of "sorry mate, have seen it cheaper at Target, Thanks anyway". These days, it would be negged heavily amid screams of "fail!, crap post," etc etc (often by leechers who have never posted a deal). It really doesn't encourage people to post.
      Now….. we know the internet is a big nasty place…. people enjoy anonymously insulting, flaming and trolling others…. tis how we are. Negs simply provide a vehicle, some might say an encouragement, for that to happen. This site used to be collaborative. Now it seems to be all combative.

      Should this worry us?…. Maybe, maybe not…..
      I do know that a growing number of people simply do not post deals anymore…. have we missed any great deals…. who knows?
      I also know that many deals have been canned, simply because they achieved a certain number of neg votes, many of which were invalid, (eg - "negging this Ferrari deal because a Hyundai is cheaper", "price in title!!" etc).
      Also, how many deals have been missed because retailers stay away from posting? It only takes a couple of poor deals (not necessarily posted by a rep), to be heavily negged. This impacts on the retailers reputation, and often subsequently used as a reason to neg any new deals.

      Negging of comments serves only a couple of purposes…
      1. To attempt to remove invalid negs - Very hit and miss…. many do not know/care enough to be bothered, and mob mentality will often take over and invalid negs get voted up
      2. To anonymously inform the community that you disagree with a comment
      3. To anonymously 'smack' a member or a comment you don't like.

      (At the risk of sounding like a broken record…..) In my view it's an unnecessary and ineffective system.

      • Tal_Shiar on 27/01/2013 - 11:19
        +1

        That doesn't read like a simple solution:p

        • andy19363 on 27/01/2013 - 11:49
          +1

          true…. it seemed much smaller in the reply box :-)

  • Kelstorm on 27/01/2013 - 16:07
    +2

    I think the problem with the system is that a comment that has a negative score is hidden, implying it's bad or unjustified. If a comment needs to be hidden (because it is offensive, misleading etc.) it should be reported, not negged. The whole positive/negative thing is exactly the same as like/dislike or upvote/downvote - it is exactly an expression of the voter's opinion vs the commentor's opinion and nothing more. A community consensus of "we don't like this comment" is not a reason to hide that comment from view, or declare it as 'wrong'.

    It's sad that someone can be completely reasonable in expressing themselves and yet have their point of view hidden because more people disagree with them than agree. As a case in point the OP of this thread is trying (fairly and politely) to promote discussion about this problem and yet most of his replies to people who disagree are greyed out implying he is somehow objectively wrong - and all because just one or two people disagree with him!

    I think if negative scored comments did not get faded/hidden (if they just displayed the score they had) that would be fine. Then you could see what the community is thinking, rather than have the community deciding what you do and don't get to see.

    And it's important to remember that there is a report function for truly offensive or hateful comments, so they can still be removed regardless of score.

  • Moderatorneil on 27/01/2013 - 21:13

    Lots of interesting ideas. We've constantly discussed this but as we can see above, there is no silver bullet.

    • Showing negative comment voters. This used to be enabled and resulted in a huge amount of fights, reports, and off-topic conversation. Showing the user who voted negative didn't seem to deter negative comment voters.

    • I can imagine asking for a comment or reason for every comment vote is going to increase moderation queues to extremely high levels. Invalid negative reasons for deal voting already adds a good amount of moderation.

    Too cumbersome to implement….

    From a technical standpoint, issues like these aren't a problem if it improves the community. The question is would adding this feature improve the community?

    In the good old days…. someone would post a deal…. if there was a better deal, someone would post, along the lines of "sorry mate, have seen it cheaper at Target, Thanks anyway".

    I do remember those days, probably 5 years ago. At that point of time, the site was a lot smaller where we had a small group of bargainers with a passion. Like any community whether offline or online, as the population of users increases, the more diverse userbase you get (bad and good).

    I do know that a growing number of people simply do not post deals anymore…. have we missed any great deals…. who knows?

    I understand why you think that but it's statistically not true. The number of deals has increased 20% from last year to 19,032, front page deals up 5.6% to 3886. You would think companies would not want their deals posted here if they receive negative comments but as bad as some deals are, it equates into increased sales. We get loads of emails from customers thinking that they ordered their item from OzBargain. Um what? We don't sell anything.

    I don't have an answer personally but I do think the plus and a big red minus has a psychological effect on people as opposed to thumbs up/thumbs down (or whatever). Hotukdeals has hot/cold, Slickdeals: thumbs up/down. Could it help? Maybe. The issue with every other bargain site is that you can't see who voted on deals. There is a lack of transparency which may prevent issues like what we have.

    Another thing discussed was possibly a point/karma system. Posting a negative vote, having a vote revoked, penalty boxing would take away from your points balance. A positive vote received on a comment or a deal, a report that is acted on would add to your account. Could get complex.

    Off-topic:

    Techcrunch recently wrote an article about it's commenting. It used to have some very heated discussion and a huge amount of trolls. They went to a Facebook commenting system where everyone had to use their real name which rid the site of trolls and downright rude users. Unfortunately, they lost most of the commenters. They've now reverted to a non-Facebook system.

    Sorry for the incoherence, watching tennis (again)

    • Tal_Shiar on 27/01/2013 - 21:47
      -2

      Remove your mod icon so I can up-vote your comment please Neil :p

    • andy19363 on 27/01/2013 - 22:49

      The number of deals has increased 20% from last year to 19,032, front page deals up 5.6% to 3886.

      One would expect deals to go up as membership increases…… Is there a way of determining the number of members who post, opposed to members who don't?

      but I do think the plus and a big red minus has a psychological effect on people as opposed to thumbs up/thumbs down (or whatever).

      I agree….. I also think the notion of 'killing' deals is attractive to some, particularly from certain retailers ….

      • Moderatorneil on 27/01/2013 - 23:09

        Is there a way of determining the number of members who post, opposed to members who don't?

        Posts as in deals? or forum posts, comments etc? It would be hard to prove by stats if users are posting less because of negative comments/votes. There are too many reasons why one would not post deals to accurately conclude your point. For the overall userbase, there are more deals and more frontpage deals, so I can probably conclude that people are not missing out on deals. I haven't seen a popular deal on the other Australian bargain sites that we didn't have.

        As for users, there are also loads of spammy accounts created then disabled. There are 92,515 registered user accounts of which 69,698 are enabled.

        I also think the notion of 'killing' deals is attractive to some, particularly from certain retailers ….

        Competitors are not permitted to vote on each others deals.

        • andy19363 on 28/01/2013 - 00:17
          -1

          Competitors are not permitted to vote on each others deals.

          no… I meant the mobs who neg a particular retailer for being that particular retailer… COTD, HN, etc etc

    • dirtybird on 29/01/2013 - 00:05

      Hotukdeals doesnt have hot/cold for comments though which is what the OP is talking about.
      imo the only thing getting +/- should be the deal itself, like hotukdeals.
      Your report function is more than capable of handling any complaints.

      • Moderatorneil on 29/01/2013 - 00:23

        The report function is capable of handling deal listing violations or commenting guidelines. The voting is independent of reports and should be used for comments users like/dislike. People shouldn't be reporting comments they disagree with or deals they don't like. Nor should they be negative voting for a listing and commenting violations. Yet every day this happens.

        So yes Hotukdeals is flat commenting like Whirlpool. A better example of comment voting working on a large scale is Reddit. For their popular posts, it highlights the absolutely great or funny comments on the page. I can't say I've ever visited a popular Reddit post and not laughed out loud (LOLed in real life).

        I love Whirlpool but at times the threads go into 10, 50, or 100 pages long. I want to read the interesting comments and not the ones that don't contribute to the usefulness of the conversation. Much of the time I end up only reading the OP's posts.

        • dirtybird on 29/01/2013 - 08:34

          Whirlpool is a discussion forum tho, not a bargains site like here or others.
          You're not talking about reddit/r/bargains which is usually void of comments.

          If people are using the report function incorrectly for comments then there is probably a problem with the people using it or they don't understand it.
          Maybe they are the same people who send you emails about purchases not arriving.

          Change the mouse over on the "comment" report to match the "deal" report function, it might discourage a few useless reports.

          And as you say if voting in comments is intended to be a popularity contest (like/dislike) aka reddit.com in general, then perhaps people need to know this in the guidelines or elsewhere.
          The reddit site is all about off topic comments.

          In the end you do whats easiest for the mods/power users etc.
          I only wish less work upon you in the end.

    • sama on 30/01/2013 - 02:58
      +2

      I DO neg comments when I don't think they add to the discussion and when I see what I think is a troll post. I also positive comments, sometimes which are faded from negs, when I think they ARE contributing and just to be encouraging in general. This is what I've always liked about Ozbargain, which is the ability for the community to self moderate. This might have to change in the future, if the vibe of the community is changing- but for now the limited negs and unlimited positives seem to create a good balance. This means for me, I positive far more than I neg. Also possibly due to Australian culture or maybe the average user age on Ozbargain, the amount of trolling is pretty small for such a big site.

      If negging was listed, I'd be more reluctant to do it. I could see people who take commenting way too seriously making multiple accounts for 'revenge', starting arguments, and even taking warranted negs personally. This would mean A LOT of extra work for the mods. A Karma system, where the total of negs received vs positives on the user profile received might be interesting, though.

      • johnno07 on 30/01/2013 - 22:02
        +1

        I would love to have a overall pos/neg balance score in user profiles. Having an overal positive score shows that you are likely a constructive member of the community while a negative score means that you are likely not. I think that having this number clearly shown on your profile would have a positive effect on the way people comment .

        • ozhunter on 30/01/2013 - 22:26
          +1

          Or some members might see who can get the most negs.

        • sama on 31/01/2013 - 21:13
          +1

          I think both possibilities of what you said would probably happen, johnno07 and ozhunter.

          The main flaw of an overall pos/neg score to me is people might take offence to pos or negs EVEN MORE seriously than they do now. But hopefully the benefits would outweigh the risks.

  • donga100 on 28/01/2013 - 00:47
    +1

    Sometimes you need to neg a comment because it is stupid or wrong but you don't want to get into an argument with the person or have to explain to them why they are wrong.

    • leiiv on 28/01/2013 - 03:28
      -1

      A comment that you think is stupid or wrong. I think to be a better society we need to prefer arguments and reasoning instead of censorship, and let the readers decide or thing for themselves. And yes, a neg is kind of censorship because it makes a comment hidden to some readers.

  • stemcell on 28/01/2013 - 10:57
    +2

    I just used up my daily quota on this thread alone :)

    click click click

    But on a serious note….you often see people who stand up themselves getting bullied by gaining silly negs I presume from the self appointed ozbargain massive.

    • parisienne on 30/01/2013 - 09:55
      +2

      True that stemcell.There are a LOT of those here who like to dish it out…but aren't so "tough" when someone comes back with a bite.AND THEY TELL OTHERS TO "HARDEN UP"???????

  • RainbowHands on 28/01/2013 - 22:09
    -1

    make the voting system invisible

    when a comment gets a total of "X" amount of downvotes,
    it should automatically get deleted

    problem solved

    • blopd on 29/01/2013 - 00:31

      No because then we'll have people asking what they said.

  • c64 on 28/01/2013 - 23:05

    how come we can't neg forum OPs??? :)

    • sama on 30/01/2013 - 03:02

      Probably so people can speak more freely, so we all have a chance to suggest things and better the site.

  • [Deactivated] on 29/01/2013 - 00:44
    +6

    Really? You care THIS much about a little red minus sign next to your name? I hope you're not this sensitive in real life. Neg away…

    • m0nkeycheese on 29/01/2013 - 08:24
      +2

      Exactly.. Some people need to harden up. This generation has been brought up with encouragement awards and 'everybody wins' attitude. In reality life doesn't happen like that and when things go wrong they can't handle defeat. Im not suggesting the OP is young but its just my general observations when using Internet forums.

      • _Bruce_ on 29/01/2013 - 08:45

        I don't agree with this at all. If anything I would suggest that 'this generation' has been brought up to think that everything is a popularity contest. Mob mentality is not for the greater good. See also: tragedy of the commons.

        • m0nkeycheese on 29/01/2013 - 18:51
          -1

          I think everyone is taking these 'negs' too seriously. It's not a mob mentality if anything it's trolling. People do it just to get a rise out of someone, much like when you were younger you tease your sibling, only now thanks to the Internet you can do it to a stranger. None of this 'tragedy of the commons' rubbish its not that deep, it's just people (generally younger) having a laugh.

          Kick me sign anyone?

        • _Bruce_ on 30/01/2013 - 07:38

          OK I'll word it in internet terms: This is why we can't have nice things.

        • retiredfeline on 30/01/2013 - 09:19

          Would trolls troll without anonymity through? If not it's just cowardice. Your sibling knew who you were and had to live with you afterwards. However I think flame wars are worse than anonymity so that should stay.

  • MMM on 29/01/2013 - 20:13

    We are talking here about just getting a bargain or not. Neg or no neg it’s not that big a deal, I think it works just fine… Now excuse me while I get back to some trivial matters such as trying to solve world peace and eradicating starvation in third world countries.

    • ProspectiveDarkness on 29/01/2013 - 22:37
      +1

      Now excuse me while I get back to some trivial matters such as trying to solve world peace and eradicating starvation in third world countries.

      Ha, get off your soapbox, mate.

  • Mikinoz on 30/01/2013 - 10:00

    Nice to see how split the voting is

  • stickyfingers on 30/01/2013 - 21:02

    The internet is open (almost), let's keep it that way

  • MATTDAMON on 30/01/2013 - 21:25
    +2

    Why not just remove neg's and only leave positive?

  • NigelTufnel on 31/01/2013 - 09:54

    I'd like to hear jv's opinion on the matter.

  • Cheeper on 31/01/2013 - 11:35

    I don't agree with not being able to neg vote a listing just because someone else negged it for the same reason.

    What would happen if you applied the same theory to positive votes??

    If a post is a bad product, not a bargain or the trader has a proven bad record as a supplier for example, only one neg vote is allowed???? Surely everyone who views the offer can post their vote based on their opinion.

    Being able to vote may as well be removed if it is overly censored.

    • dirtybird on 31/01/2013 - 11:38
      +1

      The OP is referring to comments, not the actual bargain being posted.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join