Have Neg-Vote Rules Changed?

Utopian on 18/02/2015 - 20:36

Cage eggs seemed to test patience, opinions & neg rules…
https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/183333

Neg Vote guidelines:
https://www.ozbargain.com.au/wiki/help:voting_guidelines

Do they need evolving/updating. Are OzBargain deals the place to preach, protest & derail a deal??

There were some excellent posts for/against the product, but I'm gobsmacked the 17 negs remain.

I buy free range (which means almost anything) eggs. But cage eggs are a perfectly legal & standard product. Shelves are full of products made with sweatshop labour, or a ton of other questionable practices. Why is this different?

Site Discussion

Comments

  • RockyRaccoon on 18/02/2015 - 21:13
    +4

    It was reported to the mods a number of times by myself and others.

    They took no action. Why when it clearly goes against the guidelines they have put in place.

    For years those protesting Apple or Android have had posts deleted.

    Like you I don't buy caged eggs, I have a cage of chooks instead, so the girls mean I have no need for factory eggs, but like you I think it's everyones right to make their own choice.

    Post comments etc but voting down a deal that might be suitable for some is plain wrong.

    Maybe the mods would care to explain why these votes were left so we understand how the rules are to be played.

    If we take this to a similar level, what about KFC posts where Peta also says they are cruel to chickens (also animal liberation Victoria)

    http://www.kentuckyfriedcruelty.com
    http://www.alv.org.au/campaigns.php

    Ironic because a number of caged egg negative voters had voted up KFC deals

  • Moderatorneil on 18/02/2015 - 22:44

    Have Neg-Vote Rules Change?

    No.

    Here is my take on it. Obviously whatever the moderators say is bound to either piss off those who neg voted or are against cage eggs vs. those who feel the negative vote is inappropriate.

    I'd like to stress that these are guidelines and not the constitution of Australia. While we try our best, we can't make "legislation" for every situation because at the end of the day this is a bargain site.

    What votes get removed by moderators?

    Per our voting guidelines:

    Any negative vote that falls into any of these reasons will be revoked by a moderator.

    No explanation of the vote
    “Not a bargain.”
    “Agree”
    “SPAM”
    “I dont like the deal”
    “I dont think its a good deal”
    “Ditto”
    “lol”
    “no deal”
    “No Thanks”
    “Not much of a bargain, a mere promotion.”
    “This is marketing” or “Marketing”
    “Weird looking website” (Nothing to do with the deal)
    +1
    “What's good about this”
    “This is an awful deal”

Incorrect or missing information in title or description
    Requesting price in title.
    Requesting shipping cost.
    Mentioning RRP.
    SPAMMY sounding title.
    Misspelling or grammar issue.
    Incorrect URL.
    Listed as freebie.

An issue with the poster.
    Disliking their avatar.
    Disliking their comments or description.
    Disliking their username.

Out of Stock.
Should have been posted in forums.
Pointing out that the product is a grey import.
Requiring Facebook/Twitter/G+ to access deal

    While the above is not an exhaustive list, none of the negative votes in the thread mentioned those.

    So where these votes fit is probably a gray area. My interpretation is they fall between Major issues with retailer or Defective product. Unless I or the other moderators are absolutely sure about something then we prefer to tread lightly with moderation.

    I'm sure you won't like this answer and that's fine. If you have suggestions for the voting guidelines, we are happy to hear them.

    EDIT: I should mention that 3 votes in that thread were invalid and were revoked earlier today.

    • brazen00 on 18/02/2015 - 22:49

      Thanks for the clarification Neil. I for one am glad that the site is not over-moderated.

      • RockyRaccoon on 19/02/2015 - 02:14
        +1

        You forget that negative votes ARE moderation by users not the moderators. The negative vote wasn't ever meant as a popularity gauge. Popularity is based on positive votes received vs no votes.

        So this in effect starts the trend of over moderation you are so glad doesn't occur and by people who have no idea of the tool they are using.

        If the majority are purple eaters, who dislike gray products, they can moderate out gray deals, and the site will only get purple deals and purple eaters.

    • twocsies on 19/02/2015 - 00:20
      +1

      "Negative Vote

      Purpose:

      To let others know about issues with the deal, merchant or product."

      I'd go with product on this one. If someone had evidence that sweat shop labour or slave labour was used for a product, I would similarly hope they can neg the item.

      • Axelstrife on 19/02/2015 - 00:42
        +1

        http://www.phonearena.com/news/Hidden-camera-footage-shows-t…

        But we all don't neg all iphones deals purely cause of this.

        http://i.imgur.com/v0i4gli.png
        what i highlighted should be the only reasons to neg vote. they are simple and easy to remember, or simply don't vote.

        • CheapCoffee on 19/02/2015 - 00:54
          +2

          I guess by the logic of the egg deal, it would be an acceptable reason to neg vote.

          Oh man, we are going to see a lot more SJW/slacktivism behaviour on OzB now…

        • twocsies on 20/02/2015 - 15:21

          I'd say that Apple is making effort to prevent cruelty from occurring, both from a humanitarian angle as well as a legal standpoint. The article you have posted has a very Western viewpoint because of its focus on napping. Have you never seen students in Taiwan or China nap in the classroom? It would be extremely uncommon to find an adult who hadn't napped in the classroom daily as a child. That is standard behaviour in East Asia. They nap on the desk where they work because that is how they have napped since primary school through high school. It is not unusual to see university students nap like this.

          Obviously the illegal shift work is a problem. But Apple and the Chinese authorities are committed to stopping it. Apple's contractor Pegatron investigates the claims and says, ""Worker safety and well-being are our top priorities. We set very high standards, conduct rigorous training for managers and workers, and have external auditors regularly visiting our facilities to find areas for improvement."

          However, comparing it to cage eggs, the farmers are committed to continue the practices: the hen never walks or exercises, cannot perch, and suffer. Despite a usual lifespan of 10 years, battery hens will live a single year. Yet there will never be anyone to investigate the claims because it is the accepted practice. Hack off the beak, enclose the chicken in a tiny cage, and benefit from the eggs. There is not going to be any improvement to the lives of battery chickens.

    • CheapCoffee on 19/02/2015 - 00:41
      +1

      I think a lot of people in that thread contains a lot misinformation and the reasons behind many of the negative votes are questionable. However, I think Neil is right in saying that it does fall within "Major issues with retailer or Defective product". And it is totally acceptable for a consumer to question the retailed product and the companies and the industry behind it.

      The biggest gripe I have with that whole thread of emotive arguments is that I think the companies/industry behind caged-egg systems are far more transparent to their customers than the alternative systems, and they take it more seriously because it actually impacts their business and credibility. However, alternative systems can easily get away for being misleading about their product and significantly worse in terms of food safety, just because how they are perceived to be a better alternative system.

      This was evident especially recently as ACCC finally got involved to fine some companies using alternative systems due to misleading nature of their products.

      https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/accc-urges-egg-industr…
      https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/accc-takes-action-agai…
      EDIT: The search result on ACCC's media-release page includes penalisation of individual farms and their advice to the overall system (https://www.accc.gov.au/search/accc-funnelback/free%20range%…)

      To me, it is ridiculous that some people people on OzBargain who are supposed to be consumer advocates are trying to side with the industry (or some parts of the industry) that is trying to deceive their customers by using their good will towards to the overall farming system and their concern for animal welfare.

      Us as consumers shouldn't condoning this behaviour so easily and we should push for the free-range egg industry to improve their transparency and make them more accountable for their product.

  • RockyRaccoon on 19/02/2015 - 01:56
    +5

    Neil has now defined what is acceptable in voting down a deal. Anything not specifically covered in the list - which was originally used to indicate a type of negative vote.

    negative voting is community moderation on a deal to in effect say its not a deal. Vs it's not a product that some like to buy vs those who do.

    There is NOTHING wrong with caged eggs as an egg. There are issues with it on how it is produced. It is a legal product and is permitted to be sold.

    No one is saying the voters cant make comments. Which in itself is totally Ironic, as hiding deals with negative votes hides the issue that many are trying to make. IN EFFECT they are censoring their own opinions. They have no idea of what the negative vote was meant for.

    And the site acknowledges this vote isn't for popularity, as it limits the amount of deals you can negatively vote on vs positively vote on. Even negatively voting on a comment has limits.

    Effectively we can see negative voting is acceptable on products like KFC as I pointed out above, Clothing manufacturers, ALL manufacturers of electrical appliances Samsung, Apple LG who use Chinese manufacturing companies. Imported food products because they use cheap labour, dubious health practices.

    And what about multiple posts like Woolies specials where one of 30 products maybe at issue to some.

    And what about Cars, because they pollute the environment vs trains etc. Soft drinks that pollute the body with 16 or so teaspoons of sugar. Or high fat products of which eggs of all types are included.

    Caffeine the stimulant of choice for many is seen as highly addictive. The list goes on and on.

    So acceptable based on the lack of definition in our guidelines would be.

    iPhones - "no deal as they have used slave labor in making their products"
    iPhones - " because they are too expensive compared to products by Samsung"

    Defending the negative votes based on the limited quoted list which was originally used as examples is rather pointless, as "no deal" can be replaced with "not of value" and be ok

    The original simple understanding which was to deal with issues with the product, in that the product itself was faulty rather than the process by which it was made.

    • mmd on 22/02/2015 - 19:24

      So KFC or any food posts (burgers, mayonnaise) that contains caged eggs may be negged by pro free range eggs ppl?

      I'm all for free range eggs, but until there's a standard enforced, I will buy the cheapest eggs.

  • paulojr on 19/02/2015 - 07:33

    The site owner needs to adjust with the times, so if the approach to voting is not good enough it needs to be improved.

    Neg voting is getting more important particularly with dodgy retailers getting more visibility than they should, e.g. TGG and rubbish products also seem to be more frequently posted than others.

    Most people could not give a rats if a product is technically a deal e.g. a few cents less than another retailer is some of the nonsense I've seen recently, they want to know if its a decent deal, and because products will have niche audiences just counting on up votes is not going to indicate how much of a deal it is.

    • RockyRaccoon on 19/02/2015 - 07:50
      +1

      Some good points, but the problem being is that we have no idea who the voter is. There is no requirement for voters to clearly represent or be responsible for their position.

      What you are suggesting which has been discussed here many times over the past 10 years or so is that deals are popularised based on opinions. Plus or minus.

      That is fine but at the same time this requires fundamental changes to the way negative votes work and are issued.

      Currently negative votes hide deals after a certain number of negative votes are cast. Its not a percentage of the votes it's a defined number. Likewise negative votes on a comment can remove a negative vote so when the masses mobilise the negative vote is neutralised.

      Hence there are a limited number of negative votes you can make in a time period.

      All those effects need to be removed as well.

      It was designed as a moderation tool, in time when site moderation was limited. Eg 3am spam could be hidden when there were no moderators around.

      • Ughhh on 19/02/2015 - 10:25
        +1

        If you click on "votes" underneath the title of the deal, it'll show you in order who voted + & -. Negs for comments is hidden however.

      • paulojr on 19/02/2015 - 20:52

        right, yes the whole concept has been problematic for a while, but that's because this is all very new and an innovative way for buyers to collaborate so its not going to be easy to solve without some clever thinking and experimenting.

        The "like" mentality was brought about by companies wanting to promote themselves. You can see this with facebook, linkedin, twitter, there is no "I'd never follow you" button in twitter, or a dislike button on facebook, or a I won't do business with this guy button on linkedin. Coz it doesn't help business air their dirty laundry. As such those tools will never be useful for researching products or services, and many many review sites are the same as they are sponsored or even owned by companies that make / sell products.

        This site, ozbargain, is about buyers so it has to be different! Yes I know there are people that have their pet hates and will want to neg anything they don't like, but again that's why I am suggesting moving away from such a strict concept of vote up.. vote down.

        I have to think about this but I am sure there is better models here that could be applied.. this is a new world though as just about all other popular sites are biased to the business so I doubt you'll just find an "off the shelf" solution to this problem…

        Innovate!

  • andy19363 on 19/02/2015 - 07:54
    +3

    As I've said on many occasions….. The neg vote lost it's usefulness years ago… It currently serves little purpose…. 'watered down' as people neg for any reason they see fit… Few negs these days fit the original purpose of the vote.
    A good many members no longer post because of it…..

  • timmypete on 19/02/2015 - 11:27
    +2

    Leaving aside the ethics of caged eggs for a moment, I respectfully disagree with the suggestion the rules have been applied consistently here. I disagree with some of the "Cages are evil. I'm negging" comments, but guess there are line calls here and there, which are the mods' prerogative to judge.

    My primary objection is to the mods' ignoring reports to those negs that were not as clear cut:

    clarky's numerous contributions to the thread not once spoke directly on the product. Yes, one might infer from the discussions about the difficulty of being vegan, the merits of vegetarian, and their egg consumption; that they were opposed to caged eggs. Nonetheless this wasn't ever actually explained. See also megod, flyingace and vampyre too.

    The neg guidelines clearly state that "No explanation of the vote" is not a valid negging ground. I reported only those that didn't bother to explain the reasons for a vote, and they were bounced back as no action taken. I'm genuinely curious as to the logic adopted in taking no action, given the publicly available wording of the guidelines.

    • iridiumstem on 22/02/2015 - 19:43

      With all due respect, I think we have to accept that mods are humans too. I think I had seen mods going off the guideline before, during the deals with HP Steam 7.

      https://www.ozbargain.com.au/product/hp-stream-7

      If you look at the deal, tds's deal goes against the duplicate rule, it hasn't been 1 months since the deal was up. Also before tds posted the deal, I've reported saying that the deal has changed its price and therefore it needs to be updated. So what mods should've done was to update the information from EasternCulure's deal. At least that is how I recall it, it has been fairly long since that happened.

      What really bothers me is the lack of consistency. I've been in situations where rules don't really dictate what should be done, because rules don't cooperate every single situations. I understand that. The problem I see is, the mods had duplicate rule issues and some people were unhappy. Mods have said that they do not like inconsistencies (that they stick to the guidelines). One of the mods said that the changes in rules in be brought up to discussion, at least as far as I comprehend. I don't think the rules have been updated and therefore the older rules should be applied. The point is, I think it's obvious that there are inconsistencies in their actions (with the guideline) even though there shouldn't be one.

      So I think I am seeing a lot of discontinuity in their moderation. If mods want to stick to guideline and if that is the reason behind their actions (and their explanations on their actions), then I personally think it should be enforced.

      It's my 2c. I would assume that the mods have a hard time maintaining the community, I think I am being slightly harsh expecting the mods to follow the guidelines 100% of the times. With that said, I don't think I can deny that there are things like this that constantly remind me that there are discontinuities in following the guidelines by the mods.

      • Moderatorhamza23 on 22/02/2015 - 23:11

        If you look at the deal, tds's deal goes against the duplicate rule, it hasn't been 1 months since the deal was up.

        easternculture on 07/01/2015 - 20:06
        tds on 07/02/2015 - 20:34

        That is 1 month and 28 minutes apart by my calculations, and most would say that's irrelevant anyway as a US $20 or 26% price difference can count as a new deal, it's not a minor fluctuation.

        I've reported saying that the deal has changed its price

        Yes you did, we would have updated the existing deal with the new price, had your report been answered before tds posted that deal, but that was not the case, your resolved was seen ~50 minutes after tds posted.

        duplicate rule issues and some people were unhappy

        We removed a duplicate post, because it was, just that, a duplicate. The main issue in that thread was the newer deal was more popular, had a number of useful comments etc in it which were lost and it was in fact suggested we don't follow the guidelines if the newer deal is better. No one was arguing that it wasn't a duplicate (it was the exact same deal re-posted by someone). To combat this issue scotty created the ability to merge threads and spent a lot of time developing that, now if someone posts a duplicate post, we can merge comments from that new post into the new post, see announcement

        If mods want to stick to guideline and if that is the reason behind their actions (and their explanations on their actions), then I personally think it should be enforced.

        What really bothers me is the lack of consistency.

        I'm sorry but in both the examples you gave, we have followed the guidelines exactly. I am not saying mistakes never happen, but at the same time it feels a little harsh to be told we are being inconsistent and then given examples where we have followed the guidelines exactly. Correct me if I am wrong of course.

        There perhaps seems to be a misconception of the rules and because of that we are being told that we aren't applying the rules consistently when it isn't the case. We'll have a look at rewriting some sections to make it a little easier to understand, especially the negative voting section, it appears that it's not clear that when our [voting guidelines] say:

        "Any negative vote that falls into any of these reasons will be revoked by a moderator."

        Following that is a list of reasons that start with "not a bargain" "agree" "spam"

        It means that if the vote isn't in that list of reasons (or close to it) then a moderator won't revoke it and it's left to the community. As Neil has already stated "While the above is not an exhaustive list, none of the negative votes in the thread mentioned those."

        We've been pretty busy in the past few months alone, we've added/updated quite a few guidelines and site functions, most if not all have come from community feedback and discussions. Off the top of my head these include introducing Fuel Deal guidelines, introducing the merge function for duplicate posts, multiple Amazon store guidelines, overseas deals guidelines (set to be posted in the next couple of days that will cover guidelines for all aspects of overseas deals), updating eBay guidelines, Crowd funding deals ban etc.

        We are always open to suggestions and if you have ideas on how we can do it better we are all ears, also if you don't understand why certain decisions are made then we are happy to explain it and show where our guidelines state it is so. We do our best to apply rules consistently as per our guidelines developed by the community. I think there have been some misconceptions that we haven't applied the rules or haven't been consistent, when we in fact have, also that we haven't reacted to community feedback when issues are raised, when we have. Maybe it's more about having easier to understand guidelines which is something we can work on. We do our best guys and sometimes there are situations where some people will be unhappy whichever way things go, but we can just apply decisions to our guidelines as best we can. If the guidelines are a problem in any situation, make a suggestion and see what others think and if it's something that works then we'll change it, we are always discussing and updating guidelines as things change and as situations arise. We have a great community here and hope we can make things a bit clearer for everyone.

        Thanks!

        • iridiumstem on 22/02/2015 - 23:25

          I don't deny that you guys are doing your best, but I've simply shown my concerns about the rules and how sometimes it doesn't seem like you guys are following it. Of course, in this case, you guys clearly were, it just didn't seem that way to me because I didn't know when you guys have seen my report.

          If you guys haven't seen it during time between tds's post and the report I've handed in, then I think I may have been harsh on my words. I've wrongly assumed that the report would've been seen before tds's post.

          Thanks for the response, and I apologise for accusing you guys of being inconsistent. Also, thank you again for keeping OzBargain working.

        • Moderatorhamza23 on 22/02/2015 - 23:42

          @AznMitch:

          No need to apologise, like I said I think it's an issue of communication. I didn't resolve that report in the end myself, but I think had an explanation been given then you would have understood it and not been under the impression you were. Having said that, not every member wants to receive report resolutions (would rather report it and leave it to us to work out) and we do have some members specifically request to never receive report resolutions. Reports can also take a little time to be answered if it's a tricky situation and we need someone else to look at it or provide a second opinion (once again to make sure we are doing the right thin).

          I guess the underlying factor is with reports is that we'll resolve it as we see fit as per our guidelines and I can't guarantee a reply to every report from every moderator, but I can certainly suggest to mods that we increase our communication with reports like yours and also invite you to TWAM us if you made a report and didn't hear back and want to know the resolution and why, we will always reply to you and explain the best we can.

          Thanks!

  • nahi11 on 02/04/2015 - 15:48
    Merged from Another Negative Vote Discussion

    In regards to the Woolworths caged eggs post.

    I agree with people being able to neg the post. Value for money shouldn't be the sole factor in determining the votes.

    But by this standard, I should be allowed to neg Iphone deals (or any other mass manufactured phones) due the poor work conditions of the factory workers. I consider the health and well being humans important too.

    What about Sodastream posts? They are manufactured in illegal/invaded land. Is that not an important ethical issue?

    There are of course many more examples.

    So I'm just curious to this 'selective' style of moderation. If people are allowed to 'neg' this deal based on ethics alone, then they should be able to do for all others.

    • RockyRaccoon on 02/04/2015 - 15:54

      Yes you are entitled to do this, its been discussed before. So the only way you can change the current thinking is to do this, then maybe this madness will stop.

    • Kozhutki on 02/04/2015 - 15:55

      This is a very tough topic because it's hard to please both sides. I myself would prefer it if we left out our moral grounds for neg votes on deals such as caged eggs and leave neg posts for bad experiences with a retailer, etc.

    • Moderatorneil on 02/04/2015 - 16:00

      Voting Guidelines.

      If you feel like the product or the retailer has a major issue, then feel free to vote based on the guidelines. Nothing selective about it. The community may feel different as they have the power to remove your vote via negative voting the comment.

    • Mikinoz on 02/04/2015 - 16:01

      Wont someone think of the children!

    • ozhunter on 02/04/2015 - 16:02

      What about Sodastream posts? They are manufactured in illegal/invaded land.

      LOL

  • stemcell on 03/02/2018 - 16:43

    https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/358573?page=1#comment-5594… how is the one here not an invalid neg?

    • Moderatorneil on 04/02/2018 - 02:06

      From the voting guidelines:

      Any negative vote that falls into any of these reasons will be revoked by a moderator. Negative votes for any other reason will not be removed by a moderator.

      That comment/negative vote doesn't match any of those reasons.

  • [Deactivated] on 27/02/2018 - 00:28

    This is still an issue. My latest bargain was downvoted because people had issue with the pay to win system in the game or because they personally didn't enjoy the game. I get why they are salty. It's a shitty in game mechanic, but it has ZERO bearing on whether this is a deal or not.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join