Positive, Neutral & Negative - New Rating System??

Natt on 23/02/2010 - 10:33

Hi all

I am just throwing this out there.

A lot of people don't necessarily like a deal, and will neg it on that basis.

They probably shouldn't but they do ;P

I am thinking the whole positive and negative only captures a small section of the community

so how might an ability to vote neutral go do you think?

That way more data is captured to get an idea just how good a bargain might be.

And people can have their say - which they love - as often a comment on the page does not go far enough from their point of view

bad idea?? ;P

Site Discussion

Comments

  • Mikinoz on 23/02/2010 - 10:45

    I think this is a good idea, as it stands it is not a voting system as the vote can be altered.

    Why would anyone vote when it is not a representation of the true feeling of the deal ie including history etc and you are discouraged to vote against something and use the report button

    Personally i see nothing wrong with a negative vote , its an opinion. As i see nothing wrong with a postive

  • Iggsy81 on 23/02/2010 - 10:47
    +6

    There is a vote neutral already .. it's called dont vote positive or negative.

    • Mikinoz on 23/02/2010 - 11:18

      lol

    • scotty on 23/02/2010 - 21:28

      +1 for that. If you feel neutral about a deal, i.e. meh, just don't click on the vote buttons.

    • inherentchoice on 05/03/2010 - 22:54

      The voting system should be as simple as possible, otherwise it throws its integrity out and compromises the principle behind the site.

  • Kranbone on 23/02/2010 - 23:47

    I understand the concept and idea behind it which isn't bad. If a deal has a lot of comments I generally pop in to see what the fuss is all about. Generally a lot of the neutrals will post information that will often help, whether it be experiences with the store, the product, or whether the feel the bargain is relevant or value for money.

    Not a bad idea though :)

  • stumo on 05/03/2010 - 22:09
    -1

    I think the SPAM to bargain ratio is getting out of hand.

    I know one mans SPAM is another mans bargain and all that, but there must be an easier way to filter out some of the real SPAM.

    eg. I know there is an inherent "meh" vote, but what about the meh vote that isn't even cast? ie. the bargain post doesn't get many clicks relative to others around it, that would indicate a level of SPAM no?

    I also think the vote buttons should be removed from the main page list view, so you actually have to click on the post before you can vote either way.

    That would give a genuine 4 vote system with SPAM detection…
    +ve, -ve, meh, all as they are, but then also the all important "no-click" vote - indicating SPAM like properties relative to other deals, which could then be automatically hidden.

    Either way if something doesn't change soon I'm outta here, it is becoming a bit like OzJunkMail.com lately. And 75% of the bargains I do go for end in tears anyway.

    • SydGuy on 06/03/2010 - 12:56
      -1

      oh well cya

  • [Deactivated] on 06/03/2010 - 13:00

    If its spam - use the report button, then the mods can delete spam. the negative button doesn't get our attention the same, as there are so many deals we don't always get chance to find each one. Whereas we always check the report function as its there in our face when we log on.

    As well you can change your own preferences to better suit yourself. Click on your name, go to edit, then select preferences tab.

    If you have any ideas about additional filtering you could raise that here, That way you can set things to suit yourself.

    Another way to determine is a deal is "good" is to compare the click throughs with the votes - High click throughs with low votes probably indicates the Neutral vote people are discussing here, as those checking this deal out didn't vote either way.

    • stumo on 07/03/2010 - 13:27

      I mean SPAM as in "noise", ie. things that are not bargains relative to the others around it, which I think are becoming a big problem, aka an online junk mail catalog.

      There are so many different reasons for a non-bargain that I think a higher level of filter based on the (non)vote-to-click ratio or something would be best. At least to hide the post off the main page, it could still stay in its category pages for people that are specifically looking.

  • Evil-Elmo on 10/03/2010 - 12:28

    I haven't really caught up with this thread fully, but increasingly I'm seeing negative votes with little or no justification. For example, today: http://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/23018

    I can’t comment on the validity of the comment but the neg vote without anything showing why it's a bad deal annoys me. If they personally think it's a bad deal, why don't they just not vote. If the deal is actually a bad deal for everyone, or is flawed in some way, then they should explain why. For example, if the price is too high, provide an example of somewhere with a better price.

    If there is nowhere with a better price, then good on the retailer for trying to bring 'street' prices down. It still might not be a great deal, but then just don't vote (if no-one votes, the deal won't hang around long anyway). In my opinion, voting negative really should only be used for inherently bad deals.

    The more I think about it, I think the negative vote button for deals has lost its purpose. Positive, no vote, and report would be simpler. There are enough people who vote positive these days that deals which get minimal votes get buried pretty quickly. Are there many recent cases where negative votes have proved useful?

    A crude type of filter could be like Scotty mentioned in another thread: to allow members to see new deals first. Perhaps don't show the new deals to the 'public' until a certain (presumably low) threshold has been reached. A threshold as low as 2-4 votes would probably suffice. This also encourages people to become members as they get a very slight 'edge' on new deals.

    • jan_aust on 04/04/2010 - 00:23

      I absolutely agree. I see people suddenly neg. my comments for no reason believing that I am spamming. That's so not fair.

      People want to be high up on the feedback would neg. other people so that they can climb up. New users, like me, are getting victimised.

      I think I have lost trust with the feedback system right from day 1 (signed up 2 days ago) when I did my first post….so not fair.

  • Cripto on 29/05/2010 - 02:05

    done alot of reading, i agree with the mods/admins so much, and it must be hard to find a efficient solution.

    you mods do a great job, although we can't let these guys with (0 bargains, 700+ comments each) sit around and kick around the new people who try to post bargains

    eg. it's a bargain to OP and quite a few others, but not to these guys who sit around negging everything they think is not a bargain to them

    obviously that example has been said many times, along with many other examples i agree with, so surely you know what's going on… but you can't turn a blind eye on these guys that sit around doing nothing and expecting the best deals to come in for them, the notorious neggers need some discipline; its what's best for oB's future and to encourage new people to post bargains and share.

    • Davo1111 on 29/05/2010 - 02:17

      the notorious neggers need some discipline; its what’s best for oB’s future
      It's interesting you say that, we seem to go in waves of people too scared to vote neg, and then other waves of trigger happy neg voters.

      We've updated the voting guidelines to cover neg votes more precisely, but im not sure everyone has read them

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join