3 ms·

> This is exactly what reddit told its users to do I'm not on reddit much these days but when I opened it just now I was able to downvote without choosing a re

> This is exactly what reddit told its users to do I'm not on reddit much these days but when I opened it just now I was able to downvote without choosing a reason? So I do not think it is using the system I described. The ability of each user to chose what downvote categories they want to respect would be an important part of making the system harder to "game" (to the degree that one is "gaming" a voting system by voting).

romwell 5y ago
Reddit says to only downvote if a comment does not contribute to the discussion, not if you disagree. So downvoting is an implicit choice of only "good" reasons. Putting a drop-down list with "good" reasons is as good as displaying a pop-up: "Are you sure you are downvoting for <good reasons>?" - which will be promptly ignored. Users will just be frustrated for a bit until they train themselves to pick the category that maximizes the effect of their downvote. The only thing you can do with categories is display the distribution / most prevailing category alongside the score (like Slashdot has been doing for decades). In all of this, you seem to want to control why people downvote. Instead, examine why people downvote. Because categories won't change that. It would be like the emoji committee not including an emoji for penis. That worked well, didn't it? Unless you add categories like "I think the author of this comment is a moron and I hate them", people will shoehorn your categories for this use case. And if you do that, I'm not convinced the result will be necessarily positive.
- aeturnum 5y ago
  > Users will just be frustrated for a bit until they train themselves to pick the category that maximizes the effect of their downvote. If each other user can choose what downvote categories they want reflected on their site, this dynamic doesn't work the way you are describing. > examine why people downvote. Because categories won't change that. It seems to me like forcing people to label why they are downvoting would be very helpful to examining why people downvote. > It would be like the emoji committee not including an emoji for penis. That worked well, didn't it? I think it worked really well? Like, I wouldn't mind a penis emoji, but it turns out we've got an informal penis emoji and it works great? What do you feel did not work well about it? It seems like you are thinking that I am thinking that this system would...prevent bad downvotes or make people think twice or...I dunno, be better? I was not thinking that. The idea is more about forcing people to contextualize their downvotes in a way that can be observed and reacted to by the community at large. It would be a way of talking about why people downvote without making a particular person defend themselves. It would, hopefully, add another layer to the communal sense of why people are engaging in the way they are.

romwell 5y ago

Reddit says to only downvote if a comment does not contribute to the discussion, not if you disagree. So downvoting is an implicit choice of only "good" reasons. Putting a drop-down list with "good" reasons is as good as displaying a pop-up: "Are you sure you are downvoting for <good reasons>?" - which will be promptly ignored. Users will just be frustrated for a bit until they train themselves to pick the category that maximizes the effect of their downvote. The only thing you can do with categories is display the distribution / most prevailing category alongside the score (like Slashdot has been doing for decades). In all of this, you seem to want to control why people downvote. Instead, examine why people downvote. Because categories won't change that. It would be like the emoji committee not including an emoji for penis. That worked well, didn't it? Unless you add categories like "I think the author of this comment is a moron and I hate them", people will shoehorn your categories for this use case. And if you do that, I'm not convinced the result will be necessarily positive.

aeturnum 5y ago
> Users will just be frustrated for a bit until they train themselves to pick the category that maximizes the effect of their downvote. If each other user can choose what downvote categories they want reflected on their site, this dynamic doesn't work the way you are describing. > examine why people downvote. Because categories won't change that. It seems to me like forcing people to label why they are downvoting would be very helpful to examining why people downvote. > It would be like the emoji committee not including an emoji for penis. That worked well, didn't it? I think it worked really well? Like, I wouldn't mind a penis emoji, but it turns out we've got an informal penis emoji and it works great? What do you feel did not work well about it? It seems like you are thinking that I am thinking that this system would...prevent bad downvotes or make people think twice or...I dunno, be better? I was not thinking that. The idea is more about forcing people to contextualize their downvotes in a way that can be observed and reacted to by the community at large. It would be a way of talking about why people downvote without making a particular person defend themselves. It would, hopefully, add another layer to the communal sense of why people are engaging in the way they are.