Ozbargain becoming Lasoo - Is it okay for mods to remove negative feedback ?

• 

  Davo1111 on 04/11/2009 - 19:47

  To put the post in context, the issue has started from this thread. http://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/18429

  A veg vote was revoked from the comment "1.5 ml , totally not worth it , similar to the bio therm 1ml sample such a waste"

  I can see both points of view here.

  Positives
  - its free, and would usually cost money
  - Unlike previous deals, its not been posted out.

  negatives
  - 1.5ml is nothing
  - Cost to produce is alot and a waste of resources.

  I've had my votes removed before (actually a few). Mainly because of trolling, flaming and because its fluidtek. Usually its justified by the mods, cos im angry at the time (lol).

  So umm yeh, what do others think? I'm kinda indifferent now.

• 

  RandomNinja on 04/11/2009 - 20:40

  +2

  I reckon if it's not contributing anything constructive then by all means remove. If the arguments carry weight no matter how little, then let it ride.

  The community will self correct anyway, especially if the neg vote was seen to be unjustified… how many times have you seen ppl vote positive just to counter a neg?

• 

  inherentchoice on 04/11/2009 - 20:50

  I agree that there would certainly be situations where it is necessary to remove negative votes (e.g. if someone has created several accounts and is acting like a vandal), but to remove a negative vote over a difference of opinion does seem unjustified. I also think it's not quite right that when comments get a certain number of negative votes they just 'disappear'. Instead it should perhaps say "Comment unpublished. (4 negative votes)", but still have a button to view it - a bit like the below viewing threshold on Digg.

  I had a look at the thread you're referring to and I actually think you made a very valid point that needed to be made, so at least that comment didn't get deleted… and I'm sure there could be many situations where a freebie should be given a neg vote. Personally I stay away from freebies where you have to hand over your name and address (and thereby agree to them sending you promotional material), and besides that, there are usually plenty of free samples of this or that going around which can really cast doubt about the actual bargain value of something like that fragrance. It's a bit like those 'free tasting' places.

• 

  neil on 04/11/2009 - 22:31

  Us mods are just like you. We all started as users (well except Scotty) and we are not putting our personal beliefs into moderating. We are just moderating on the written rules we have and the unwritten rules that we interpret to be best for the community.

  We rarely revoke negative votes but in this case the moderator established that this wasn't worth a negative vote. In this case, a no vote was more appropriate. The reasons listed are not enough criteria for a negative vote. Negativing (if that's a word..guess it is my spell checkers likes it) without adequate criteria creates an Ozbargain environment where users (especially new) are afraid of posting deals.

  Let's not jump to conclusions and put a blanket, "mods are controlling the whole site" comment. That's very unfair. Honestly, this is the first or second time that a negative vote has come into contention. The moderators did discuss this specific incident last night.

  I think it's clear that we need to make formal voting and moderation rules as they are blank. It's been on the to do list for a while. ;)

  • 

    scotty on 04/11/2009 - 22:59

    I think it’s clear that we need to make formal voting and moderation rules as they are blank. It’s been on the to do list for a while. ;)

    Indeed :)

    Let me put this way. Personally I prefer to let the system run by itself, and with the power of crowd, hopefully the good deals will come through and the bad ones filtered. We try not to do excessive moderation — otherwise what's the point of voting?

    However,

    • Trolls. There are always trolls in communities who make that odd negative vote on a perfectly good deal. What should we do with them? Neg-vote their comments do not make their -1 vote go away. Personally I will just ignore them. Well. If my deal gets some odd negative votes out of many +1 votes — tough luck. It's just part of life.

    • However, we also get pressured from some O.P.'s who cannot stand being trolled, and demand to have those negative comments removed. Well maybe it's just me because they usually go straight to the contact form of this web site. Sometimes I refuse, but sometimes I gave in. Mods on the site are also facing the same pressure when others question why someone casted a negative vote. What do you do in this case? Some times we ignore it, and sometimes we gave in.

    But still, I apologise that the moderation policy is still not set in place after 3 years (yes OzBargain turns THREE this month). "Busy busy busy" was my excuse, but I'll try to get this resolved ASAP.

  • 

    inherentchoice on 04/11/2009 - 23:04

    When you start suggesting rules about 'when a moderator established that this wasn't worth a negative vote', then I think you're only confirming Mikinoz's concern about why have the ability to vote…

    • 

      neil on 04/11/2009 - 23:52

      Right, Mikinoz does have a right to be concerned with this deal but the flip side of that is a negative vote for any reason at all which is why we need a consensus on what a negative vote is.

      On the basic level as a mod I see the voting something like this (which may be how the other mods think and similar to the EBAY feedback system):

      ++ vote or a positive vote
      Good deal or useful

      no vote or a neutral vote
      OK deal or deal doesn't apply to me or not worth it to me or anything in between, maybe I don't like COTD or EBAY.

      — vote or a negative vote
      SPAM, Duplicate or any listing violation
      Cheaper elsewhere (other than EBAY)

      Now you wouldn't hit the negative button if you thought it was a good deal. I'd like to get my slurpee on Saturday but won't vote neg because it requires me to make a trip into the city. If I'm there then great, if I'm not no big deal.

      Hmmm…I'm going to paste this in the voting section of the rules…

      • 

        RandomNinja on 05/11/2009 - 09:31

        +1

        If you gave a neg on the deal based on a negative experience with the company or product, I would see that as a legit vote. I am certainly interested to hear other people's experience with a particular product/company and I feel it definitely helps to assess if the offer is a bargain or not.

        Price is not always the sole determinant of what constitutes a bargain… especially for offers that include a service component. Tradework, for example (in the upcoming months we will probably see some Summer offers around air conditioning/insulation), the cheapest guy in theory is the bargain, but what of the quality of the work? No jokes, if someone put an AGL deal up for hot water systems, I would neg that straight away because of my horrific experience with them.

        If someone had a bad enough experience with a company to give a neg, is that not legit? If the neg voter is trolling then the community will self correct anyway. To use the case of COTD, truly, have they anyone to blame but themselves? I haven't personally had a bad experience with COTD, but reading about other people's experiences means I know what I can expect in future. Furthermore, I dare say that public 'naming and shaming' has improved the customer service of a number of vendors. There will always be people who hold a grudge (heck I'm one of them… Macca's free since 99!), but they will be in the minority.

        I personally find feedback (good and bad) on products/vendors extremely useful in helping my decision making (esp curbing my impulse buying!). To use Ebay as an example, who here doesn't check a seller's negatives when deciding whether or not to buy?

        • 

          neil on 05/11/2009 - 11:08

          @RandomNinja: I respect your opinion but that's problematic. Comments on the deals are fine and actually may lead you to a solution by one of the reps. In the past we have had, EBAY deals that gives you $10 off but people negatived it because it was EBAY. Sportsbet Free credit, negatived because gambling. And…Free sausage sizzle by a Christian group, negatives because of people don't agree with church policies, priest incidents etc.

          You have to be able to apply the negative rule uniformly if possible. What if reps from Zazz voted down COTD deals because they felt the company was crap? Surely by the standards you set they would be in the clear.

          You have to see it as three choices POS, NEUT, and NEG. That said, we usually won't moderate any voting as Scotty said, automation is key. But if we do then, there should be clear rules to fall back on.

          • 

            RandomNinja on 05/11/2009 - 12:47

            @neil: I think if the reason for the neg vote stays on topic, ie: relates directly to the offer, there should not be any problems… just a lively debate I'm sure.

            Do you think a neg vote, where the reason can be considered off-topic (eg: personal views on broader issues such as gambling and religion) and evokes a strong response from the community, is a symptom of a larger issue? Like the banning of R18+ deals, does something similar need to be done for gambling and religious offers? Should it be an Ozbargain community decision?

            Reps are also consumers and if they have legitimately had a negative experience then I would welcome the feedback (provided they're not using their rep account of course!). I admit that repeatedly using the same story as justification for a neg vote can get tiresome, that probably needs a clearly defined rule. Having said that, if the company/product has improved since, I'm sure there will be people to defend them.

            Regarding auction sites, neg votes are usually given due to very limited quantities. That could be remedied by requiring in the posting guidelines that offers need to have a minimum available quantity of say… 100? The last eBay deal I remember was for the Pinnacle PC TV tuner and that went down quite well (maybe too well since the price has since been hiked up a lot!).

            • 

              Mikinoz on 05/11/2009 - 12:58

              @RandomNinja: Actually thats an interesting point the quantities always wondered what would be an appropriate quantity for a bargain ?

              • 

                neil on 05/11/2009 - 13:22

                @Mikinoz: Lots of points here.

                Do you think a neg vote, where the reason can be considered off-topic (eg: personal views on broader issues such as gambling and religion) and evokes a strong response from the community, is a symptom of a larger issue? Like the banning of R18+ deals, does something similar need to be done for gambling and religious offers? Should it be an Ozbargain community decision?

                18+ offers Adult products are not allowed although there seems to be leway with say lingerie. That decision was not a community decision.

                The banning of gambling and religous deals is entirely up to Scott. I wouldn't think religous deals would be banned as we'd have to ban things like Weet-Bix deals? But if it becomes a nightmare like the religous sausage sizzle thread where we have to do excessive moderation then maybe.

                Reps are also consumers and if they have legitimately had a negative experience then I would welcome the feedback (provided they’re not using their rep account of course!)

                True they are consumers but lets pretend they are not consumers and they just say we don't like COTD. Or a person works at a rival company (of which mods dont know this) and votes down every deal from the other. Or just this morning someone just wrote a comment not even listing a reason for the negative, just a random comment.

                I admit that repeatedly using the same story as justification for a neg vote can get tiresome, that probably needs a clearly defined rule.

                Yep, maybe if there was a way to negative the company instead of the deal so that is reflected

                The last eBay deal I remember was for the Pinnacle PC TV tuner and that went down quite well (maybe too well since the price has since been hiked up a lot!).

                Yep, I got one of those. Very happy with it, but if you look at deals from EBAY such as $10 bucks off or free listing between this time etc, then you will see some negs.

                Great discussion.

                • 

                  neil on 05/11/2009 - 13:25

                  @neil:

                  Actually thats an interesting point the quantities always wondered what would be an appropriate quantity for a bargain ?

                  Automatic removal if there is only 1 item. We've had a few people trying to sell their car on here lately. ;)

                  Not sure what number would be appropriate. I guess it would depend on the price of the item. If the seller was selling 5 x $1000 widgets as opposed to 5 x $5 widgets. Any mathematicians want to come up with an equation?

                • 

                  RandomNinja on 05/11/2009 - 16:54

                  @neil: Blech, 5 post limit/day =[

                  'I wouldn’t think religous deals would be banned as we’d have to ban things like Weet-Bix deals?'
                  XD lol You know what I mean!

                  'True they are consumers but lets pretend they are not consumers'
                  Well, like any other sockpuppet, their behaviour will be tracked and action taken if evidence shows they have breached the rules. And if a solution to 'multiple negs against a company off one bad experience' is found, that'll fix this too.

                  'Or just this morning someone just wrote a comment not even listing a reason for the negative, just a random comment.'
                  There will always be trolls out there, which is where the rest of the community comes in to lay the smack down!

• 

  Davo1111 on 05/11/2009 - 14:41

  I think has created some good discussion.

  So far

  Votes will be revoked because of
  - trolling
  - abusing, discrimination, flaming etc
  - insufficient explanation
  - Does not fall under the "reasons to vote neg" category (below)

  Reasons to vote neg
  - Poor quality product (past experience with brand or Distributor/Shop)
  - Insufficient Quantity for general australian market
  - Price (too expensive, including postage)
  - Misleading advertising.
  - spam, duplicates etc
  - sockpuppeting
  - Is not an Australian Deal
  - Availability*

  Reason you can be banned
  - trolling
  - sockpuppeting
  - abusing voting powers
  - harassing, threatening, violence etc

  this is a start…

  • 

    neil on 05/11/2009 - 14:56

    Yep, thats a pretty good list Davo. Some recent unpublished deals:
    Had a possible phishing site posted today,
    Stuff that's appropriate for forum such as gov grant, charity, etc.
    Competitions.

    The bans are a bit complicated. It usually involves sitting in the penalty box for X amount of time. Not a one size fits all at the moment.

  • 

    amkssg on 08/11/2009 - 04:44

    With regards to negative voting, would you consider poor or unavailable return policy as a reason to vote neg.

    Take for example Topbuy.com.au 's return policy. It's return policy clearly states that customers are responsible for the cost of return postage.
    So let's say someone buys a product that cost $25, and is faulty when received. Topbuy actually expects you to pay for return postage, which i assume would be above $5. If that's the case, i clearly would be able to buy the product from somewhere else for alot less.

    Would anyone consider it a valid reason to vote neg?
    (I can see how this is a one-in-a-million kind of problem, but if you were the unlucky one, you would be absolutely pissed)

    • 

      SomeGuyOnOzB on 10/01/2010 - 18:02

      +1

      It'd probably be nice for someone to post it as a comment … if someone else was offering the same thing, then a better return policy for about the same price sounds like a reason to vote neg. (ie better deal for same or about same price)

• 

  inherentchoice on 05/11/2009 - 23:31

  +1

  I would be very wary of creating a reasons to vote neg list. The votes will be revoked because of and the reason you can be banned lists, certainly are okay, but because voting is the underlying system that ozbargain relies on so much, I think you should take extreme care about issuing any voting rules. In my view voting should be kept as simple as possible, and just be down to merely an individuals belief about if it is a good bargain or not. As soon as you start to issue rules about what represents a valid reason for this vote or that, I think you're not only risking the integrity of the system, but also discouraging people from voting in the first place.

  If anything, I would strongly suggest that we could learn something from other successful sites with voting systems such as Digg. Intricate rules and criteria only help to convolute things and perhaps spark sandbox fights, which I don't think is helpful to the site.

  I also think that if the original poster is demanding to have neg votes removed but the neg vote is not trolling and carries weight no matter how little (to borrow from RandomNinja), there should be a consistent and clear response that includes points along the lines of:

  • OzBargain is a bargain sharing community website that relies on an honest voting system. Each member has the ability to make both positive or negative votes, or to not vote. Often a negative vote will be balanced by many positive votes, or vice-versa. Each member also has the ability to revoke their own votes.
  • While we recognise that sometimes a moderator needs to revoke a vote because of trolling, abuse or flaming… in this instance, this does not appear to be the case.
  • the votes can be revoked because of list [if any] sets out the agreed situations when a moderator may choose to revoke a vote
  • As always, you are free to discuss your views in the comments, and the OzBargain forums provide an avenue for discussion and feedback about the website.

  …I know it seems formal but that's sort of the underlying message I think, and the concepts could alternatively be incorporated in a wiki or the moderation guidelines.

  Another option we may have overlooked is - what about talking to the voter directly about withdrawing their vote? Such informal resolution is often used in the real world, and if someone has given an insufficient explanation for their neg vote then I think clarification should be sought before revoking it by force.

  • 

    Mikinoz on 06/11/2009 - 09:24

    Great suggestion i made this point in the original thread if a vote is to be retracted at least give the user a chance to retract it themselves.

    You make some very good points there

    • 

      neil on 06/11/2009 - 10:24

      That suggestion is good in theory but would increase the workload of mods, which we are trying to do the opposite but I would put the onus on the commenter to talk to the mod who retracted the vote/unpublished the deal/comment, like what Whirlpool's system is.

      I'd be interested to see how other popular sites, that shows the negative votes, run. Anyone have some examples? Digg is a good system but they only have the total number (Pos-Neg). Out of sight, out of mind…

      • 

        inherentchoice on 06/11/2009 - 19:24

        It shouldn't be about mods actively policing negative votes or having to chase negative voters, but instead it could work by requiring that a user can only ask a mod to revoke a vote after first attempting to resolve the disagreement themselves. In this way I would think it will actually help to reduce the workload of mods, not to mention the potential to avoid complaints about mods doing this or that.

• 

  [Deactivated] on 17/11/2009 - 09:15

  We all have the option of NOT voting, that in itself is a reflection of the value of a deal., no votes and the deal goes no where. A negative vote offsets positive votes so it is a far more powerful weapon that needs to be used wisely, it is in effect censoring other members opinions just like what you are concerned that mods are doing.

  Bear in mind that we have no way to prove a negative comment - I got bad service from X. Yeah ACA is littered with fake claims about injustice, but its not always one sided and fair. Aldi got hit with so much abuse of the 12 month no questions return policy its now 2 months. And who really is the Ozbargainer who posts just after you did? Who am I , who are you?

  Used wisely negatives indicate that they are some aspects of a deal that others here should look at before taking up a deal.

  That said the power of a negative vote may be out of all context with the issue, and some just use the negative vote to raise attention to their posts - one member uses the negative vote symbol as their avatar.

  All the above discussion has validity, but must be taken in context, one which maybe personal as well. I hate missing out on a deal because someone(s) have voted it down based on personal interaction with the poster previously. Yes maybe justified but its nothing to do with this deal.

  I take Rivers as an example, which is now sometime back, so its not too emotional, where one particular person didn't like Rivers and voted negative on all deals, no matter who posted it.

  So it comes back to what does a negative vote do. It has more power especially in the beginning to kill a deal. It drops off the radar very quickly.

  This was because the intent with the negative was for users to quickly identify spam and scam and get it off the site. Now its used to get back at retailers or others for past sins etc. Some as in the example of Fluidtek - have openly said this is what they are doing - no matter how good the deal is. (and yes the rep is abrasive!!)

  So moderators need to watch this as we do, and every now and again we delete the negative vote, this is so a deal can remain alive, for others to see.

  So how do we try to make the system fairer, when in reality there is no fair way that this system is uniformly applied. 5c off a bottle of teeth rotting cola, gets massive votes and we get one of these "deals" every week, where as 50% off a piece of designer wear gets only a handful of votes.

  No its not a judgment, its a case of different peoples values. Likewise mods have to make that everyday. We often discuss amongst ourselves we may sometimes get it wrong, we read your comments here and we are sensitive to the power we have, but it's a balancing act.

  One alternative is to make the negative vote a bit more valuable. In that no one can vote negative on more than two posts (or whatever we decide)a week. That way rational members here get to understand that a negative vote is a powerful tool, that needs to be used wisely. If their negative vote is deleted, then they get one back.

  • 

    Mikinoz on 17/11/2009 - 09:24

    I would agree with the last paragraph i think it would be a good idea to limit the neg votes, thereby makin them mean something more than they do.

    Although have to say the negative voters usually have a good point that is being washed away by defensive users

    • 

      [Deactivated] on 17/11/2009 - 09:33

      Then we'll talk to Scotty to see if it can be coded in.

      As for you second para - I agree and that is why deleting a negative vote is used very rarely. So while an error might have been made in the case you cited, its not that common an occurrence, given the total number of votes here every day

• 

  patientvalue on 17/12/2009 - 13:58

  i personally weigh the negative votes more than positive votes because i assume that a person needs to be more motivated to bother-i have so far never voted negative although was very tempted once. mostly i just ignore voting at all.

  However this is starting to change because i am finding more and more instances of silly comments associated with negative votes (maybe it is an end of year 'everyone has a short tempter' thing). For me this devalues the impact of a negative vote and in fact the whole voting concept. More and more i find i just look at the offer and (try to) ignore the voting. I will read peoples comments though if i am interested in the offer. this is a shame because there should be and can be real value in the signal we get from seeing how (and how many) others are voting.

  I guess the challenge with anything involving 'the general public' is you get some chafe along with the wheat.

  A suggestion that comes to mind would be a pop up window as people vote positive and/or negative setting out 2 or 3 relevant principles eg if the deal does not appeal to you refrain from voting, only vote if you believe others will benefit from your input. And/or people tick a pop up radio box to say that their vote is considered and a non-vote would not be as useful to others in helping them to decide on the value of this offer.

  i know this makes it a little bit harder (not much) and the goal of this wonderful website is to make it easy for people to vote and comment - and you do which is great! I dont think 'raising the bar' is such a bad thing - quality (of vote and comments) and quantity (of votes and comments) are both important.

  I care about this website and value what it has to offer and has given me. I want to protect it but not smother it. I also appreciate how much more popular this website is becoming and the natural growing pains being experienced are to be seen as a positive challenge to manage.

  • 

    [Deactivated] on 17/12/2009 - 22:07

    I think you raise some good points - negative voting really needs to be used wisely and while we cant stop this when it's not we can at least make people aware of the other options

• 

  SomeGuyOnOzB on 10/01/2010 - 18:05

  +1

  I only skimmed this. One other reason that I revoke votes is for invalid reasons.

  eg "I'm voting negative on this product X14 because it doesn't have this feature" when the title of the product is say, X18 … which does have the particular feature mentioned.

  Though I did notice that because the user who voted negative had been running around voting negative on heaps of deals (often without any explanation)