Downvotes usually signify “you posted something rude, objectively incorrect, off-topic, or instance/community rule-breaking” and people who think they did not do anything wrong might understandably be frustrated when they are getting the signal they did something like that, but they can’t figure out what bad behavior they’re getting downvoted for at all. They might want to know what the downvoter thinks they are doing that is inappropriate so they can stop it, or if it is just a troll trying to make people unhappy and thus ignorable. And given the “lol why do you even care, are you that sensitive over internet points” kind of view, it makes it even more annoying because asking what they did wrong might just get them a response like that and no further clue to what offensive behavior they’ve committed. I know some people use downvote for a mere disagreement as well as for actual objectionable behavior, and trolls exist so downvotes are often safe to ignore, but I’d imagine a reasonable person who does not care about internet points might start getting a little “oh god what did I do wrong” if it’s more half-up half-down or mostly downvoted, especially since I usually see rude/spammy/incorrect things downvoted more heavily than things politely pushing against the grain of popular opinion.
Also somewhat relevant: I subscribe to some really small magazines/communities. Some of them are full of posts that might appear bad or controversial by vote count (think 3 upvotes vs 3 downvotes, 4 upvotes vs 3 downvotes), but the posts are entirely on topic and are not particularly biased or incorrect. I feel bad for them because it makes that post look low-quality or like they are about a controversial topic when it is really just a tiny community that probably attracted a couple trolls but not enough legit users to outvote them. I can see that getting the community creator a little upset, having their regular content look to onlookers as if it’s trash when it’s normal content, and lowering their hopes of attracting people to the community. Although hopefully people can recognize that at that small a number of people it might just be trolls and not low-quality content.
Reddit promoted “downvote to disagree” and this is a consequence of the userbase having migrated from there.
You can say whatever you want about how it should work, but the bottom line is that most people using vote-based systems are voting up and down based on if they agree with what’s posted. It hasn’t been “downvote for off-topic” for over a decade.
This guy wants to bring more redditors to the site, the people actively perpetuating downvote to disagree.
There are three people here who are telling you that they don’t see “downvoters for disagreement” as normalized practice. I presume all three of us were also on Reddit, and we can all help shape a different culture to here. You talk of “bringing Redditors” like Reddit users are complete different species than you.
I want to bring people. Lots of them. The majority of them will not be interesting to you or me. That’s okay. What made Reddit so great was that it attracted so many people that it had a really long tail of niches.
The Fediverse needs people. And I am not saying that because I am seeking “power” or “influence”. I am saying it because if we keep this reactionary “it’s fine like this, keep the barbarians away” mentality, the whole thing will stagnate and die. And I don’t want to lose our best shot at bringing back an open web for everyone.
My friend, I don’t know why you decided to necro this thread, but:
I am not using this data point to make a case that I’m holding some majority opinion. I know it’s not, but at the same time it’s not just because it’s the minority opinion that it is somehow invalid.
The point is that “downvotes as disagreement” is not some type of “unwritten law” that is universally accepted.
Three people out of the whole group that got involved in the discussion is relevant.
Downvotes usually signify “you posted something rude, objectively incorrect, off-topic, or instance/community rule-breaking” and people who think they did not do anything wrong might understandably be frustrated when they are getting the signal they did something like that, but they can’t figure out what bad behavior they’re getting downvoted for at all. They might want to know what the downvoter thinks they are doing that is inappropriate so they can stop it, or if it is just a troll trying to make people unhappy and thus ignorable.
In the general case, to get some feedback about the project. What is so bad about it that people feel like it a negative contribution to the community?
In this specific case, because I don’t want to get into a “he said/she said” argument about the serial downvoters. So by asking to explain it, the public can gauge by themselves who is being reasonable.
I disagree with bringing in more redditors to this site. I think the community ambassador system is a quick way of creating a bunch of powermoderators on a system that’s supposed to be designed to resist that kind of behavior and centralization.
If you hate being downvoted because of disagreement, why would you want to bring more users who default to that behavior?
I also do not believe you should have any more power or capacity in the fediverse. It’s clear to me by your behavior in this thread that even basic things like being downvoted can set you off and make you decide to try to start a witch hunt.
I think you are making some false assumptions here. Me calling out someone does not mean I “hate” anything. It just means that I am trying to understand why someone is so bothered by what I am doing to the point of chasing me around.
The rest of the argument, I really don’t know what to make of it. Seems like you already made up your mind about me and my intentions, so there is nothing that I can say or do that can change that. All I can say is that the project is open source and if someone else wants to work on it and make their own database, more power to them.
You calling somebody out publicly is entirely to illicit a reaction from the crowd. Surely, a direct message would have been more appropriate for a disagreement over a series of downvotes?
By doing this publicly you’ve definitely made the situation way, way worse than it had to be.
Can you please explain why it matters?
Downvotes usually signify “you posted something rude, objectively incorrect, off-topic, or instance/community rule-breaking” and people who think they did not do anything wrong might understandably be frustrated when they are getting the signal they did something like that, but they can’t figure out what bad behavior they’re getting downvoted for at all. They might want to know what the downvoter thinks they are doing that is inappropriate so they can stop it, or if it is just a troll trying to make people unhappy and thus ignorable. And given the “lol why do you even care, are you that sensitive over internet points” kind of view, it makes it even more annoying because asking what they did wrong might just get them a response like that and no further clue to what offensive behavior they’ve committed. I know some people use downvote for a mere disagreement as well as for actual objectionable behavior, and trolls exist so downvotes are often safe to ignore, but I’d imagine a reasonable person who does not care about internet points might start getting a little “oh god what did I do wrong” if it’s more half-up half-down or mostly downvoted, especially since I usually see rude/spammy/incorrect things downvoted more heavily than things politely pushing against the grain of popular opinion.
Also somewhat relevant: I subscribe to some really small magazines/communities. Some of them are full of posts that might appear bad or controversial by vote count (think 3 upvotes vs 3 downvotes, 4 upvotes vs 3 downvotes), but the posts are entirely on topic and are not particularly biased or incorrect. I feel bad for them because it makes that post look low-quality or like they are about a controversial topic when it is really just a tiny community that probably attracted a couple trolls but not enough legit users to outvote them. I can see that getting the community creator a little upset, having their regular content look to onlookers as if it’s trash when it’s normal content, and lowering their hopes of attracting people to the community. Although hopefully people can recognize that at that small a number of people it might just be trolls and not low-quality content.
Reddit promoted “downvote to disagree” and this is a consequence of the userbase having migrated from there.
You can say whatever you want about how it should work, but the bottom line is that most people using vote-based systems are voting up and down based on if they agree with what’s posted. It hasn’t been “downvote for off-topic” for over a decade.
This guy wants to bring more redditors to the site, the people actively perpetuating downvote to disagree.
There are three people here who are telling you that they don’t see “downvoters for disagreement” as normalized practice. I presume all three of us were also on Reddit, and we can all help shape a different culture to here. You talk of “bringing Redditors” like Reddit users are complete different species than you.
I want to bring people. Lots of them. The majority of them will not be interesting to you or me. That’s okay. What made Reddit so great was that it attracted so many people that it had a really long tail of niches.
The Fediverse needs people. And I am not saying that because I am seeking “power” or “influence”. I am saying it because if we keep this reactionary “it’s fine like this, keep the barbarians away” mentality, the whole thing will stagnate and die. And I don’t want to lose our best shot at bringing back an open web for everyone.
Person here who was from Reddit, and see downvotes as disagreement as a common usage.
Anecdotes amirite
Yeah, anecdotes.
And your point is… ?
Saying something like “3 people here don’t think downvotes do xyz” is not a good argument. 3 is not significant, and is even still anecdotal
My friend, I don’t know why you decided to necro this thread, but:
Agreed
In the general case, to get some feedback about the project. What is so bad about it that people feel like it a negative contribution to the community?
In this specific case, because I don’t want to get into a “he said/she said” argument about the serial downvoters. So by asking to explain it, the public can gauge by themselves who is being reasonable.
I disagree with bringing in more redditors to this site. I think the community ambassador system is a quick way of creating a bunch of powermoderators on a system that’s supposed to be designed to resist that kind of behavior and centralization.
If you hate being downvoted because of disagreement, why would you want to bring more users who default to that behavior?
I also do not believe you should have any more power or capacity in the fediverse. It’s clear to me by your behavior in this thread that even basic things like being downvoted can set you off and make you decide to try to start a witch hunt.
I think you are making some false assumptions here. Me calling out someone does not mean I “hate” anything. It just means that I am trying to understand why someone is so bothered by what I am doing to the point of chasing me around.
The rest of the argument, I really don’t know what to make of it. Seems like you already made up your mind about me and my intentions, so there is nothing that I can say or do that can change that. All I can say is that the project is open source and if someone else wants to work on it and make their own database, more power to them.
You calling somebody out publicly is entirely to illicit a reaction from the crowd. Surely, a direct message would have been more appropriate for a disagreement over a series of downvotes?
By doing this publicly you’ve definitely made the situation way, way worse than it had to be.
I already sent a DM, 4 months ago. No answer.