Moving discussion about negative votes and moderation from here.
Another Revisit of Negative Voting and Moderation (Moved from The Win 7 Professional Thread)
neil on 21/09/2010 - 18:31
Last edited 23/09/2010 - 09:01 by 1 other user
Last edited 23/09/2010 - 09:01 by 1 other user
closed Comments
The moderators LOVE removing negative votes, even when there is valid reason for the negative votes.
The moderators it seems only want positive deals here so the business (and this site IS A BUSINESS) can get advertising by having people visit.
Deals get removed to hide the "dirty linen" that happens on Ozbargain, NOT to protect the people visiting but apparently to try to absolve the business of legal liability for the posted ("bad") deals and the implications of such.
I personally don't have faith in the moderators as they aren't even nor fair in deals or voting.
I've seen a moderator ABUSE people here and the only comeback, NOTHING as the moderator removes the comments of the person, puts them in the penalty box or bans them, hence no communication is possible. This is pathetic behaviour by any moderator to have occurred.
OK, wow that was a pain copying/pasting. Anyway…
People DO give negative votes but the moderators remove them
Very untrue. We hate doing this but 1) there are guidelines for negative votes and 2)It's technically a pain to edit your comment, write a response, then retract a vote. Quite time consuming and tedious.
and in my case last week even put me in the penalty box
According to another mod's notes, you were trolling different deals and forums and was put in the penalty box.
Example 1:
Example 2 from the Win 7 thread
Example 3This is a bargain site. Talk about the bargains, instead of the constant complaining about moderators. OR if you do want to compalin, use a thread in the feedback forum.
The site doesn’t look good (to the moderators, to presumably get people visiting to get advertising revenue)
That's just ridiculous.
I personally think the moderators are power hungry
No, just annoyed and sometime wonder why we bother to spend hours removing sockpuppeters and SPAM only to be insulted on Ozbargain and Whirlpool.
Even when people give valid reasons for voting negative the moderators will either reverse them, or reverse and put them in the penalty box, or even ban, the person.
The ban as explained before was for trolling. The reversal of negative vote was because you voted negative on a deal where a store was selling discount Melbourne Storm jumpers. You gave a neg because you didn't like the team.
Storm are cheaters, can’t be classified as a bargain - unless they are going to give me money underhand -then its a bargain, but they would still be scum-.
I’d imagine my negative will be removed; the moderators love removing negative votes.
OH yeah I don’t think the prices are cheap anyway, so no bargain on that front either.
Not to mention having another shot as us. And if it is cheaper elsewhere then link to it.
Personally, I find you very negative. The majority of comments you have posted on Ozbargain are negative. Seriously, lighten up, be happy, submit a deal. You have been a member for 5 months, submitted 0 deals, and haven't voted positive on anything. Be contructive to the community. If that means you want some rules looked at then, go to the guidelines and suggest writing additional ones.
Complaining about us is just not useful to anything.I WASN'T trolling, I believed what I typed in the "bad" deal (for over priced clothing from a discraged AFL team).
I also said the clothing was overpriced.
Sometimes certain views are allowed here sometimes not.Like I said before the moderators aren't even nor fair here in their moderating.
Surely claiming the clothing is overpriced is simply a subjective opinion, unless you can back it up with a better deal for the same item…?
As there is only ONE Storm team, I can’t compare it to other Storm clothing of the same type (there are other teams however), I believed (and still do) that the clothing was overpriced compared to non storm clothing (just because it was cheaper then their usual price, and this WAS end of season clothing, and as someone else pointed out, there will be new sponsors, so the clothing HAD TO BE SOLD (or chucked out or destroyed, given away etc) doesn’t make it a bargain.
@Blah Blah: If an item is cheaper than it's usual price, and cannot be bought anywhere else at a cheaper price, irrespective of the reasons for sale…… it would be a bargain
quoting 'similar' items being at a cheaper price is not really relevant….if I want a 'storm' t-shirt…..a plain green one at $5 cheaper is not going to be of interest. If my storm t-shirt is $10 cheaper than last week….I am happy.
Its more like a best of approach by the moderators, and so far for me its been more than fare and it works well mostly.
You have to remember the mods are people not a computer programme that we can just update or change and even if it was its best to see who the changes would effect.
If you read a few more forums posts here you would realise the neg voting issue has been a topic that has had a lot of input from everyone and has evolved in the small time i have been here.
Anyway dont panic about the rules, just take a chill pill and suggest some good ideas, be constructive and they will listen to you.
I HAVE seen "deals" but, for example half price items from Big W, but had no PROOF as it wasn't in a catalog but a special at that store (it may have been at others who knows, I wasn't at the other stores) and I never knew when it ended, but I certainly brought the items. Should I have posted. NO as people will say LINKY, or even demand a link.
With the false deals that I have seen, you can't blame someone for wanting proof, but that's not always available.
I've seen people say LINKY (even the moderators), as I have no PROOF of the bargain I am not posting it. I've also seen people say (including a moderator (which I found abusive)) why didn't you (the poster, not me personally) post the deal earlier (for example when someone posts a deal even though there is a few hours till it finishes). There are deals POSTED AFTER the deal has finished, so it was no deal at all (well not a usable deal to anyone else).
I've seen people say they wont post a deal ever again (seen one in the last week) due to the negative comments or feedback. Now maybe the moderators think they better remove the comments or voting, well that may make the original poster happy, but what about the rest?
There has been SOOOOOO many non bargains here it really does seem this site is OzBARGAIN but POST EVERYTHING THAT ONE FEELS LIKE (yes others have stated this in their comments also).
Your examples of me supposedly trolling just isn't true. Not everyone has the same views, so saying what I think doesn't make it trolling, just means you think its trolling when its not.
Mikinoz 6 min ago ¶
… be constructive and they will listen to you.No, the moderator(s) have already said I am trolling when I was expressing my own view, I wasn't trolling, so it doesn't matter what I say, the moderators will just go on their power hungry mission (to make (or to cover costs) who knows) money) by having this site also so squeaky clean when the underbelly is WAY DIFFERENT.
They havent banned your account so they must be listening, i only say this because wouldnt they ban you if you were being an actual troll?
I think they are letting me and other users listen(as it were) to your opinion, by creating this post.
some might say that keeping problems in plain sight is easier than having to deal with multiple sign-ups, use of proxies, etc, etc
not that this is the case here of course…
troll is a bit of an unfortunate label, as once applied, a poster is potentially discredited, and any future information given is not seen as credible.
Having said that, there are, in many communities, people who seem more 'attention-needing' than others.again, not commenting on any case in particular…. :)
Ah, I was put in the penalty box for a WEEK (not that I WAS TOLD THAT, I had to find that out for myself), so I couldn't be "heard" (ie listened to as above).
I wasn't trolling, I believed in my views and expressed them.
As for voting positive, as I have stated before (elsewhere), people just go around voting positive, even if a "deal" turns out to be fraudulent etc, so I believe in voting for a deal ONCE I HAVE RECEIVED THE PRODUCT OR SERVICE (as posted in the deal) not just by looking at the deals (some people seem to look at the titles and click, click click many deals positive). If people can't vote negative (say because a deal isn't available in their geographic area) then why be allowed to vote positive for the same reason (some people vote positive for deals only available in person for a few hours in their non homeland state (yes they could be in the other state, then the other geographically bound deals not available to them shouldn't be allowed to vote positive).
As for only getting five negative votes a day, when people sometimes vote scores (on deals and comments) just goes to show how restrictive negative voting is around here.I find the moderator instructions/comments saying one should not vote if its not applicable to a person (ie no vote) or if they just don't like it (so not a reason for a negative vote going by the moderators), that leaves people voting positive even though they may not be taking (or taken) advantage (if it turns out to be non fraudulent) of the deal. So up goes the positive votes (but if the person used the same reasoning to want to vote negative, WOOAHHHH, the moderators will remove the negative (and maybe put them in the penalty box or even ban them)). Yep this site is ONLY geared towards getting positive votes.
The whole site is geared towards positive voting (no matter if the deal isn't even a real honest available deal (in other words people vote for fraudulent (not that it maybe known at the time) deals)), but when a fraudulent deal is exposed, are the positive votes removed? NO!
i would agree that the mob mentality of some positive voting is somewhat annoying. However, the results of positive and neutral voting as opposed to negative voting is very different.
Irrespective of how many positive or neutral votes a post gets, there are no implications for the poster. If a post receives more than a couple of negs, the poster is effectively banned from posting deals for 5 days, which could discourage some people.
The neutral vote should be the default if you don't like the deal. Negs are for alerting people to either a cheaper price, or that there is something fundamentally wrong with the deal, be it dodgy merchant, whatever.I have no problem voting positives for deals I am not personally eligible for. I am from SA, thus no Aldi, however… I voted + for the kodak camera today, as I know the product, and know the price is a good price, and wish to assist others who might be trying to make a decision on whether to buy……
Blah Blah, you can express your view on moderation in the moderation thread such as here but to continue to complain about moderators and the site on non-relevant deals then that is trolling and off-topic. I have yet to see any actual solutions that you want, you continue to complain about many aspects of the site.
And if you think we are acting out of our own accords, you can simply look at the voting on your Melbourne storm comment from the thread. 6 negs and 1 pos. 86%
As for voting positive, as I have stated before (elsewhere), people just go around voting positive, even it a “deal” turns out to be fraudulent etc, so I believe in voting for a deal ONCE I HAVE RECEIVED THE PRODUCT OR SERVICE not just by looking at the deals (someone people seem to look at the titles and click, click click many deals positive).
I agree with you. I personally don't vote until I have the product or service in hand, or that I feel confident enough that I will receive it.
then why be allowed to vote positive for the same reason
Agreed again, but that would require a huge amount of manual intervention.
As for only getting five negative votes a day, when people sometimes vote scores (on deals and comments) just goes to show how restrictive negative voting is around here.
If you really need to vote negative more that 5 times a day then you are clearly not reading the voting guidelines. If you don't like the deal or you are in another area, then it's your right to vote neutral (aka no vote)
(and maybe put them in the penalty box or even ban them)).
Voting negative won't put you in the penalty box. Again, please provide links or proof.
Yep this site is ONLY geared towards getting positive votes.
Of course it is, people want to find the deals that are best voted up. You want a site where you want to vote for the worst deals.
Ah, I was put in the penalty box for a WEEK (not that I WAS TOLD THAT, I had to find that out for myself), so >I couldn’t be “heard” (ie listened to as above).
I wasn’t trolling, I believed in my views and expressed them.Untrue. 3 days and you were warned. Seriously, take a look at the comment by the mod, it's right underneath yours. Again 86% of people negged your comment, so it's not like it's just us.
OK, this thread is moving too fast. Hopefully, I hit all the points. The big picture point is that neg votes need to be given within guidelines otherwise people will vote negative on everything and then the whole system is crap. Imagine Zazz negging all of COTD deals or all the Group On sites negging each other. I don't like Apple products as I find them overpriced hardware, should I vote neg on all deals with them?
Anyway, rant over. This thread is moving fast, hopefully I answered everything.
"I don’t like Apple products as I find them overpriced hardware, should I vote neg on all deals with them?" YES.
Yes to the others too if that's how you feel.
I can't ever ever vote positive for anything from Fluidtek as the owner SMOKES IN THE SHOP (which IS ILLEGAL)(so I don't go there anymore (so maybe he doesn't now, who knows)). I haven't voted negative on a Fluiudtek deal, I should be able to as the owner conducts his business ILLEGALLY. Would my negative vote be reneged, of cause it would as that's what moderators do.
See the site is GEARED for POSITIVE voting even if there are reasons why a negative should be allowed (but the rules are made so people can't vote negative on many valid reasons).
Yes to the others too if that’s how you feel.
OK, well that's where we differ. Negatives should be used rarely. SPAM? Dodgy site? Sockpuppeting? Use the REPORT button.
How about for the Melbourne Storm deal? What if I vote neg because I'm a Broncos fan.
site is GEARED for POSITIVE voting
Yes and for neutral vote or not voting at all. You have to see the system as +1 +0 and -1. You can dislike the Storm and give a +0 vote to it.
Where do we draw the line?
People come on here to find bargains and vote positive. Not to look for bad deals and vote neg.
Again, you have not voted pos on anything in 5 months. Not having a go, I'm just trying to understand why you have such negativity.
"Yes to the others too if that’s how you feel." I didn't mean yes to representatives voting on each other (that shouldn't be allowed at all), but if someone wants to vote negative on say every single ZAZZ deal due to an unpleasant (yet not rectified) experience from that representative/merchant/site, then yes I believe a negative vote is valid and should be allowed (but again knowing how the moderators seem to work, the negative would be quickly removed).
I was typing the above whilst you had posted your last comment.
Yes, if you had a bad experience then Yes. And it has happened with COTD.
The infamous Wii deal, http://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/7373
got 79 pos and 87 negs.And the next few deals people voted neg because of their bad experience.
http://www.ozbargain.com.au/deals/catchoftheday.com.au?page=… and so on. Keep in mind, we didn't have mod controls at that point.Eventually people got over it and COTD is having fairly positive deals. Giving out free candy sure helps!
@neil: So I CAN now vote negatively on EVERY SINGLE COTD deal for example (as they didn't fix up an order (ther mistake) I made to them and breached their stated dispatch times) or for Fluidtek as he breaches (well at least used to (I don't know now, but as that was my last experience thats what I should go on when voting)) the law by smoking in the shop?
Surely breaking the law is a valid reason I can vote negative and not be revoked by a moderator?YAYYYYY, there something positive from me (about a negative). DON'T say I am NEVER POSITIVE (or happy as someone said above).
There many merchants here I could vote for EVERYTIME if what you said above is allowed.
NEGATIVE VOTING HERE I COME (I think unlimited negative voting should be allowed just as with positive voting otherwise peoples negative experiences can't be conveyed with all the deals that get posted (thats needed when it is that is)).
@Blah Blah: If you've had a bad experience with the company and that it outweighs the deal then fine. I don't think it's necessary for you to go around and neg everything. I mean what's the point? Surely you want to find bargains?
Really, if you are voting negative on every COTD deal that you see because you had a bad experience, then I'd think we'd have make a common sense judgement and say please get over it. We understand you don't like COTD, you've made your point, let it go.
@neil: Well if people can vote positive for everything from a certain company, but I've had bad experiences with them, then so why not? It's just as fair as the other person always voting positively.
So if someone has a good experience they can vote positive (or even if they've had NO EXPERIENCE) yet you think I should get over it?
Seems to me this site is all about POSITIVE VOTING no matter what.
I didn't ask was it NECESSARY, I asked what it ALLOWED.
Those double standards are being used here (by the moderators).
@neil: What about my experiences with Fluidtek, him smoking illegally, is that a valid reason why I can vote negative (if not why not, please be specific in pointing to guidelines, not just thoughts)?
Those double standards are being used here (by the moderators).
I just explained to you but can you see the problem with someone or multiple someone checking every positive vote. It's impossible especially as the site grows.
Seems to me this site is all about POSITIVE VOTING no matter what.
NO.
Positive +1
No Vote +0
Negative -1Previously, we only had positive and no vote (much simpler time back then).
I vote +0 on loads of things.
What about my experiences with Fluidtek, him smoking illegally, is that a valid reason why I can vote negative (if not why not, please be specific in pointing to guidelines, not just thoughts)?
Yes, sure if you feel it's necessary to then fine but I don't see what the point is. It seems like a waste of time to me? Wouldn't you rather click on deals you like rather than click on deals you dont like, comment, then vote neg. Seems like a big waste of time to me.
We are here to find bargains, not argue rules and law. I'm not a lawyer, we try and write guidelines with community feedback so that we can make this site as best as we can. Really, Ozbargain is my hobby, Whirlpool is my hobby, the mods have no incentive to remove negs. Trust me when I tell you it's a pain in the neck to.
You have to think of the big picture and not sweat over subjective reasons on negative votes.
I can read a deal and not vote all, which is what the moderators want from people who would otherwise vote negative.
See you can't tell that I "voted" 0, hence the positives are about the only thing allowed here.Are the deals worth voting positive for, not so far (remember a deal (and its associated positive voting) to me has to be earned by actually providing me with the deal if I take it up as "posted", if there is ANYTHING bad about it then I can't possibly give it a positive even when I have availed myself of it. Normally 30 days has gone so can't vote negative (and if I could I am sure it would be removed as seeming petty (the moderators might call it trolling when its a valid problem with a deal (but things that aren't in the moderators way of thinking is TROLLING and any negative or divergence here must stamped out by the moderators (it seems)), even though to me the problem I've had with ea deal ISN'T petty, it was different to what was posted, hence really is worthy of a negative)).
I am not a positive voting person of every single deal that gets posted like some people seem to do. Have the positive voters even READ the deal, will they avail themselves of it, have they thought about the deal? Many times it seems not, so yep, up goes the positive on a many questionable (even fraudulent) deals.
The above was in repsonse to Neil's post 15 minutes ago, it should have been replied to that and indented (but its not).
Thought has to go into a negative vote, with an explanation (which would probably be removed anyway), yet no explanation is required for a positive vote and people can (and do it seems) vote willy nilly positively, so to me the voting process here is flawed and NOT representative of if a "deal" is ACTUALLY a BARGAIN (what if it turns our to be fraudulent for example, the positive votes stay).
So, if I understand correct, you want us to require a comment to ensure positive voting. While that makes sense, it's technically unfeasable with the amount of votes. The long term goal is for as little moderation as possible but until improvements have made to the code, we still need to be around.
Actually i suggested that some time ago, the positive vote comment requirement, hehe but given the so called unfeasability i am not putting my hand up to do the extra work!
Well you REQUIRE it (as in mandatory) for negative votes, so yes. If not stop revoking thougthfully voted negative votes.
@Blah Blah: We want people to find good bargains and pos vote for it. We don't want people finding bad deals and voting neg. That perhaps could be another site, like a failblog of deals. Faildeals? hmmm, there ya go. Actually, am going to post up a $1 GoDaddy deal tonight, someone can register that.
@neil: "I don’t think it’s necessary for you to go around and neg everything. I mean what’s the point? Surely you want to find bargains" and "We want people to find good bargains and pos vote for it".
Well how about when a product is good (well lets say it is good) at a price lower then has been seen in say the last month. So far sounds like a bargain (it may not be, but lets pretend it is). But now if the merchant (this is for "mail order" sites) breaches their stipulated dispatch times (this is NOT the delivery time) or if they have charge someone more then once or many other "bad" things, then surely a negative vote should be allowed.
A bargain is not just about the price of a product, but also the whole deal, the company, the delivery, them following the laws in regards to repairs etc. If a negative vote ISN'T allowed then crappy/shoddy companies can get business by people voting positively with no chance of people being able to vote negatively, hence the companies can flog stuff at what first seems to be a bargain but not be in the overall scheme of things and Ozbargin has helped that company by not allowing negative votes on a companies poor non product related service and by PUSHING for ONLY POSITIVE votes.
That's why positive voting willy nilly shouldn't be allowed and negative voting actually ENCOURAGED. It helps people more then just a bunch of positive votes (who knows WHY they voted positive, it could have been a "fly by positive voting" situation (which happens)).
@Blah Blah: If you have issues with dispatch time, or anything you have listed in your example then I guess that is fine. You can do that, people have done that.
You can understand the difference between say the Melbourne Storm jerseys are made of cheap silk and they fall apart easier then I don't like the Storm, I'm a Broncos fan. Make sense right? We can't possibly come up with a rule for every scenario of every product and service. Common sense.
@neil: "If you have issues with dispatch time, or anything you have listed in your example then I guess that is fine. You can do that, people have done that." I AM SURE I've seen peoples negative votes removed for the exact same reasons I gave; and you wonder why I don't think moderators are fair or even!
@Blah Blah: Blah Blah, I can't respond to I AM SURE I've seen people…. You need to give me examples otherwise you may as well say anything.
@neil: Just like moderators can revoke a vote without putting their name or A VALID reason given in the guidelines. Some dodgy moderating going on this site, that's my opinion and I stand by it.
@Blah Blah: You can't say there is dodgy moderating and not back it up. Right? You are telling us there is something dodgy without showing us any evidence. I take offense at that.
When a mod revokes a vote and edits a comment, the system just doesn't allow for the mods name to be put in there unless put in there manually. But it shouldn't matter anyway as the mods are usually on the same page and we will link to the rule.
@neil: Yes you may find it offensive, I also find unfair moderating highly offensive (so much for a "light touch" in moderating (not saying its you)).
If your all "on the same page as to say" (so to say) then how come the apparent widely different revoking patterns?@neil: If you find a phone number in any of the patterns, don't call it or Alec Baldwin will have you killed! :p
@neil: Good you've said its fine.
I just voted negative on http://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/31565#comment-278529
"Blah Blah 1 sec ago ¶
I vote negative as I have bad experinces with COTD, missed stiupluated dispatch times, wrong items sent to me and their refusal to take them back."
If what you say is fair dinkum that WONT be revovked by the moderator later who loves to revoke negatives and if I keep doing this it is FINE going by what you replied to me.@Blah Blah: Good for you. Now perhaps you can vote positive on a deal. Surely, there is something you like. Free Cheezels is good, http://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/31413. Love free 7/11 food.
@neil: No 7/11 refused a VALID UNUSED coupon and SnackBrands Australia have not rectified the situation, so even though the deal is good, as I have said before, if there ONE bad thing occurs with a deal, then no positive vote from me.
Bad positive voting is BAD for this site.
@neil: Yes and I have complained to SnackBrands Australia. They ARE aware of multiple problems with 7/11 in relation to their Facebook campaign.
As the campaign only goes for 10 days they don't have much time to get the problems fixed and I have told them that the campaign has backfired already.@Blah Blah: That sucks, suprised no one else has had that problem. Haven't reedemed mine yet. Will try it sometime this week.
@Blah Blah: In fact POSITIVE voting can be bad, I remember someone (its also happened with other deals also ) where someone brought a product from pricesengine just because well, it was posted here, and the person never had time to think so brought it (as it may sell out). Now if "deal" wasn't even posted, or not voted up, that person may have SAVED some money.
I also remember someone rushing to post a deal as they thought it was a deal but it wasn't, it was a NAS listed at 9289.com.au (but it was their normal price!) but next to the actual deal (on that site), the person even admitted that later.
Same goes for the rush to see who can post certain sites at midday etc, no thought of it is ACTUALLY a good deal, no just post, sometimes with no prices or even what store is the seller.
The push for positive voting isn't good, it has it negatives.
@Blah Blah: Yep, agree with all of that. There are a lot of either young or careless users on here who buy first read the fine print later. Hell, people even post the fine details in the description field and people still don't read. But that's people…
So, as explained, it's not feasable to have moderators look at every positive vote. We need to have guidelines for negative votes. Do you have any suggestions or can you help us expand on our guidelines?
@neil: Yes I do, people SHOULD be able to vote negative due to a person's bad experience(s) with a merchant. You said above its allowed, but ITS NOT as the moderator who loves to revoke negatives (and sometimes even the comments themselves) and occasionally other moderators do this also (but there is ONE moderator who just LOVES revoking negatives it seems for ANY reason, its amazing there is even ONE negative vote on this site since that person has become a moderator (this is also the abusive moderator)).
@Blah Blah: You need to be specific with mod name and deals. How can I respond to some mod is revoking votes on some deal? No mod here loves to revoke votes. Its a pain as explained before.
@neil: Is there stats on this site about who revokes votes? If so it should be easy to work out (well unless I am wrong, as not ALL revokes are commented by moderator name, but the ones I am AWARE of and have taken notice of has been by ONE moderator).
@Blah Blah: If a vote is revoked, there will be a comment either in comment or replied below it. Keep in mind, don't make this thread as a individual mod beatup (unless it's me ;) ). A couple of our mods are on holiday at the moment so they will not be able to respond this.
@neil: If the moderator I am talking about ISN'T on holidays I am sure my negative vote will be revoked (unless the moderator is aware of this forum topic and has read it and hence actually moderating to what you have said is allowed (but even then I wouldn't be surprised if the moderator still revokes it)).
As I haven't mentioned the moderator by name, it can hardly be a mod beatup (unless you have already worked out who is from the stats, even then its not ME saying who it is).@Blah Blah: I'm just saying, that a couple of the mods are not here, so they won't be able to respond to specific complaints. I can't speak for them and was just making it known.
I only see 2 mods (I only quickly looked) that you interacted with on your commented threads. I believe they are away and won't have a chance to respond.
From the sounds of what you said,it seems like you saw moderation issue on another thread. Perhaps you can find the example.
@neil: Well lets see, if you as a moderator are correct or is the person who stated:
"johnnyt1780 29 min ago ¶
u can’t just give negative just because you have bad experences i’m sorry…"
Correct
http://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/31565#comment-278536@Blah Blah: It seems fine to me but generally people find negative votes rude which is probably why you got the response. A politer way may have been just to mention it, like say while this is a good deal blah blah, I've had issues in the past with COTD.
That's just me anyway.
@neil: One of my earlier replies never made it, here it is:
Just like moderators can revoke a vote without putting their name or A VALID reason given in the guidelines. Some dodgy moderating going on this site, that's my opinion and I stand by it.@neil: I've read thousands of comments over the time I've been visiting this site (remember a person can see this site (well not the voted down deals or comments) without being a memember) for a long time.
Maybe I should have kept a file on the revoke loving moderator, but I haven't. When I have time I'll see what I can find to give to you as my proof of my allegations.
@Blah Blah: Just before I head out, don't you think it's ironic that you are asking us to do positive vote reason checking when you can't provide even 1 link of "dodgy moderation".
And I'm out.
@neil: I have already, with a moderator calling me a troller when I wasn't trolling but expressing my true views, which got my negative revoked to me IS bad moderation.
@Blah Blah: Yeah me, I called you a troll. By Wikipedia's definition:
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community
You were posting off-topic messages regarding moderation where you clearly you knew that there was a forum to post these messages as you had posted in the previous negative vote thread.
@neil: Its not ironic to me, any body can vote positive for ANY reason (which mostly aren't known anyway), but someone who votes negative (with a reason given, as they need to make a comment before they can vote negative on a deal) is most likely to have their negative removed no matter what they person said in the comment. The moderator doesn't like it, the negative is revoked. Doesn't happen for positives (except for socket puppeting).
@neil: So flimsy/willy nilly positive voting is a problem then? Yes.
Well all the effort (by the moderators) is going to STOP and REVOKING negative votes whilst positive votes go unchecked (even when they cause a problem).
So AGAIN, I see this site as ONLY wanting POSITIVE VOTES. Use the report button to report to a moderator, but NO WAY should a NEGATIVE VOTE DARE BE VOTED for a deal (not talking about comments here, though 5 negative votes still isn't enough), that's the situation as I see it being DONE at present.@neil: Either be as "strict" with postive voting as it is with negative voting or be as "lax" with the negative voting as is allowed with positive voting.
@Blah Blah: Well, its technically unfeasable to be strict with positive voting.
What specificly do you think needs laxed?
Going out for a bit, be back in a hour for more fun filled discussion
@neil: Thats OK. I'll do other things myself now.
"it seems like you saw moderation issue on another thread. Perhaps you can find the example."
I wont be looking for evidence tonight.There is no hurry as this site has been positive voting centred for a while; yhough having fair moderation would be good, the sooner the better.
@Blah Blah: Positive voting tells me that a deal is considered as good by more people. It doesn't neccesarily mean that it is something that I will be interested in, but you sound like you are having a huge whinge about nothing in particular, simply because you feel victimised over incidents that most people would simply get over.
Maybe find a new hobby? It will give you something to be passionate about. I would suggest somehting like team sports, so you could learn some new skills; communucation, team work, etc. (Work off some rage!)
I hate the positve mob voting on ozbargain, doesnt make it real….
But I dont think i'll bother reading this thread lol
I'll sum up:
Blah Blah doesn't like our negative vote guidelines and thinks we need to lax them. Blah, if I may refer to you by first name, doesn't have anything specific to change, just wanted to note a complaint.
Blah also feels that he has been moderated unfairly but can not give an example of it. Guess we just take his word. Not sure how I'm supposed to help if I don't know what to look at.
Third, is that Blah wants every positive vote put with a reason, the same way we do with neg. Whilst that would bea good idea to vet positive votes, we would need 100 monkeys with 100 typewriters to do that. Just not technically feasable.
I'm not a negative person so I guess I just don't understand why someone wants to find the bad deals on here and vote negative on it, instead of finding good deals and voting them up. I'll all for people sharing their complaint about Ozbargain. It helps, it really does. We recently had a flood of Group Buy deals so we listened to the community and now we've stemmed the flow. Feedback is important. But complaining about dodgy moderating without giving us any examples to go by is just not helpful.
blahblah says:
neil says:
BarginHunter says:
Blah Blah
AMLagonda says:
Blah Blah