5 ms·

Simple alternative: show a downvote button, but make it so that the score must be >= 0.

adventured 7y ago
I use this approach on a service of mine that is built around a community. It works, I recommend it. When you hit 0 and someone tries to downvote further, it informs you that that action is impossible (no user supplied content can be voted into negative territory). I regard negative point voting to be an unnecessary form of community punishment. If something is spam, abusive, or otherwise breaks the rules, then it needs removed. If a user persists in posting that type of content, they get removed. In a decent community you don't get punched in the face for asking an ignorant or lazy question. Instead, you do not get any reward or positive feedback for it (upvotes, attention to the question). The default of decency is a neutral, respectful treatment to others; a floor of dignity. People can learn how to better contribute without being either subtly or overtly attacked or bullied. I also give downvotes an expense, they cost points (they subtract from your account score), and I increase the cost as it makes sense. So a user must earn the ability to downvote through contribution. If the system has too much downvoting, you can gently alter that behavior by ramping the cost overall and individually (if a given user is prone to downvoting heavily, you increase their cost beyond the base system cost).
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- reaperducer 7y ago
  When you hit 0 and someone tries to downvote further, it informs you that that action is impossible If the system knows the item is rated zero, then why even give the option of downvoting at all? Conditionally remove the control and you remove the need to display an error message.
- isodude 7y ago
  Good point and here is some nueance from a book I read right now regarding parenting and their main point is to neither punish or rate performance (good nor bad). What you should aim for albeit hard, is to relate to the childrens feelings instead. This translates well into adults. Rather than saying, "this report was super good, well done!" say "What a great feeling I get when I read the report" or "Feels good with the report being complete?" Thought experiment: You say that reaching below 0 is punishing and getting more than 0 shows that your question is good. You get feedback that you've done great work writing the question. How would it look like when the site relates to your feeling when writing and contributing to the site? Would it work even if you remove score all together? Giving rewards result in people seeking awards. Which may seem like a wise thing but aiming for self confidence is way better. Which is obvious but may be good to point out anyhow.
smacktoward 7y ago
Even simpler solution: present a downvote button, make it show a "downvoted" label on the item to the user who pressed it, don't have it change the actual score at all. In other words, give them a placebo button: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo_button https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo_button

I use this approach on a service of mine that is built around a community. It works, I recommend it. When you hit 0 and someone tries to downvote further, it informs you that that action is impossible (no user supplied content can be voted into negative territory). I regard negative point voting to be an unnecessary form of community punishment. If something is spam, abusive, or otherwise breaks the rules, then it needs removed. If a user persists in posting that type of content, they get removed. In a decent community you don't get punched in the face for asking an ignorant or lazy question. Instead, you do not get any reward or positive feedback for it (upvotes, attention to the question). The default of decency is a neutral, respectful treatment to others; a floor of dignity. People can learn how to better contribute without being either subtly or overtly attacked or bullied. I also give downvotes an expense, they cost points (they subtract from your account score), and I increase the cost as it makes sense. So a user must earn the ability to downvote through contribution. If the system has too much downvoting, you can gently alter that behavior by ramping the cost overall and individually (if a given user is prone to downvoting heavily, you increase their cost beyond the base system cost).

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
reaperducer 7y ago
When you hit 0 and someone tries to downvote further, it informs you that that action is impossible If the system knows the item is rated zero, then why even give the option of downvoting at all? Conditionally remove the control and you remove the need to display an error message.
isodude 7y ago
Good point and here is some nueance from a book I read right now regarding parenting and their main point is to neither punish or rate performance (good nor bad). What you should aim for albeit hard, is to relate to the childrens feelings instead. This translates well into adults. Rather than saying, "this report was super good, well done!" say "What a great feeling I get when I read the report" or "Feels good with the report being complete?" Thought experiment: You say that reaching below 0 is punishing and getting more than 0 shows that your question is good. You get feedback that you've done great work writing the question. How would it look like when the site relates to your feeling when writing and contributing to the site? Would it work even if you remove score all together? Giving rewards result in people seeking awards. Which may seem like a wise thing but aiming for self confidence is way better. Which is obvious but may be good to point out anyhow.

smacktoward 7y ago

Even simpler solution: present a downvote button, make it show a "downvoted" label on the item to the user who pressed it, don't have it change the actual score at all. In other words, give them a placebo button: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo_button https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo_button