Negative MOBs and the purpose of the negative vote

[Deactivated] on 16/01/2011 - 20:44

I wrote a massively long post, as seen below. In the end it just comes down to these questions, mostly directed at Scotty and the mods but of course member input is great.

  • What's the intended purpose of a negative vote option? Why does it exist?
  • If multiple negative votes are considered a bad thing, why isn't there a negative vote cap?
  • If it's a bad thing to scare off new posters by showing to them why their deal isn't good and how they can research whether it is in future, why isn't negative voting disabled on 1 and P marked users?

My full original post should be the first reply.

Mod: Moved to Announcement/Feedback forum

Site Discussion

Comments

  • [Deactivated] on 16/01/2011 - 20:51

    I apologise for the wordiness of this post. I'm inefficient with words, and use too many.

    As my comment that was a clearly labelled response to moderator posts was removed for being off topic and it was recommended I start up a thread here, here we are. At the time I was skimming over the names and assumed there were two mods commenting, but it turns out I was having a bit of a brain fart and it was just one. Because of this I posted a non-reply post directed "@Mods: ", which may have been confusing. So fair enough.

    This is prompted by this thread.

    Summary (from my perspective): The original poster made a tongue in cheek joke about it being his first post, then I made a tongue in cheek comment about his tongue in cheek comment (for the record, I voted positive because a 500GB 2.5" USB3.0 drive for $69 is great value). After that ozpete made it fairly clear he thought this was a slap in the face of people who didn't vote negatively and that he did not like multiple negative votes and that the report function should be used most of the time instead.

    First up, I'd like to say I realise ozpete isn't Scotty. While his opinion is no doubt respected and taken on board by Mr Scott, ozpete is a normal person who's gone to great lengths to help out Scotty and every single ozbargain member and every non-member browser. To the best of my knowledge he gets no recompense for this. I personally appreciate everything he's done over the last 3ish years as a mod. And let's make this clear: I respect him the hell out of him and hope he continues doing so, regardless of whether I agree with the way the rules and website are governed.

    I also assume ozpete doesn't like either me or my contributions much, 'cause instead of saying he didn't like the people who neg vote for no good reason, he used the example of people voting negative because it was "not a bargain" - which I use to end virtually all my obligatory posts explaining why I'm voting negative. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't consider what I do a contribution, even if I only vote negative for less than one in four posts and always research said votes and provide or ditto a better deal when I vote. Although that could just be a coincidence or an unconscious association.

    Personal stuff aside, which in the end is irrelevant, what seems to have incensed pete was the original tongue in cheek comment, I think. My comment probably kicked it up a notch. The comments were:

    topstuff - First post, so don’t be kind, i can take it ;)
    tantryl - Positive for being a first poster without the emotional fragility of a three year old girl.
    ozpete's reaction - Stop insulting us not all of us play this MOB game. You are inferring that we are ALL unkind. Do you always walk into a new group and say - hey be nasty to me I’m new here I can take it. Sheesh.

    Now pete didn't see the humour in it. Fair enough, I have a similar reaction when I feel I'm being personally insulted and an even stronger one when I feel I'm being misrepresented.

    topstuff was just making a light hearted joke and demonstrating they're a regular even though it's their first post.

    Mine was sharper and harsher, absolutely, and undoubtedly influenced by posts that suggest a negative isn't warranted when a deal isn't a good one. I vote based on the deal itself because my understanding of the neg vote is to make people aware of the fact there are better options out there, and when I do that and explain my position it's not uncommon for the poster to take it as a personal affront, become upset, and threaten to never try again… even when I explain that the negative vote has nothing to do with them personally and purely reflects the fact that the deal wasn't a bargain.

    So… after a lot of waffling…

    • What's the intended purpose of a negative vote option? Why does it exist?
    • If multiple negative votes are considered a bad thing, why isn't there a negative vote cap?
    • If it's a bad thing to scare off new posters by showing to them why their deal isn't good and how they can research whether it is in future, why isn't negative voting disabled on 1 and P marked users?

    I want to make it clear, again, that I'm FINE if these sorts of things are implemented.

    The reason I vote negative when a deal is bad is because the deal is bad, and people can get a better one. I vote negative to inform users of this website that they can do better, and specifically say where and how. I consider it constructive to educate people on better deals than those posted.

    The reason I post deals so uncommonly myself is because I know how to research things I consider good value, and invariably things I do consider bargains get posted before I get a chance.

  • issh on 16/01/2011 - 21:03

    What’s the intended purpose of a negative vote option? Why does it exist?
    The intended purpose of the - vote option is based on your own opinions of what is considered a bargain and what isn't.
    If multiple negative votes are considered a bad thing, why isn’t there a negative vote cap?
    There is a negative vote cap, once it reaches an 'x' amount of negative votes it automatically gets deletes
    If it’s a bad thing to scare off new posters by showing to them why their deal isn’t good and how they can research whether it is in future, why isn’t negative voting disabled on 1 and P marked users?
    …SPAM caused by non-genuine new users?
    .
    .
    I'm going for ozpete in this discussion [http://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/37887], ozbargain is a community, we don't want new posters to think that we will like automatically neg their vote just because it is their first post, as a community we don't neg due to being new, we neg because it is our opinion of what is considered a bargain and what isn't
    Scotty and the other mods, want ozbargain(http://www.ozbargain.com.au/about) to be a community where we help each other to find bargains, we have learnt that new posters could set records(http://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/32316)(http://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/25589), we don't want new posters to assume that we are a raging mob that will neg a post just because it was posted by a new poster, the reason why many new posters are usually negged because its mainly due to other competition that gives a cheaper price.
    -issh

    • Crownie on 16/01/2011 - 21:23
      +1

      New users used to be negged because the deals they posted lacked the basic information.
      Most would forget to include prices, links to the items, and other vital information that "regulars" included.

      The deal would get buried until the new poster fixed the mistakes.
      If the problems got fixed, the negs were revoked and all was good- except for this mentality of attacking a new user when mistakes were made in a posted deal.

      Now its degenerated to a bad (and frustrating) joke even though new users genuinely type an "icebreaker" like you would if you were doing anything else for the 1st time.

    • [Deactivated] on 17/01/2011 - 10:20
      +3

      Yes issh your comments are fair - in my frustration with these stupid comments I overstepped the mark and accept the criticism of me on that point. Rather stupid as it weakens my case overall.

      And that said rather than delete my stupid comment I left it stand with, my apology, otherwise the comments made fairly about it wouldn't have made sense.

      On one point - which maybe hard to get across, does everyone all have to remind the new poster that they made a mistake, hence the pack/mob attack over the same error. Commonsense says that if one has already negatively voted on the deal, that is it necessary for 4 or 5 more to do the same.

      And in the case of a poster modifying the deal, the negative voter should have some concern, if that was their original intent, to go back and check and remove their vote. That creates a far better sense of community. Instead too often the pack mauls the new poster and moves on with no sense of the damage they have done. Overstepping the mark doesnt help much at all (as I found out LOL)

  • llama on 16/01/2011 - 21:05

    I am pretty new here, but have a long history of internet forums (I run 3 or 4 of them) and also am very active on the eBay forums too. This place is so SO tame compared to most venues!

    So I can't understand why new posters say "first post, be kind". When I first came here, I actually thought it was some kind of in-joke.

    I actually think that most of the time the regulars are being trolled. It takes nothing to create a new ID… and that "special" comment generates a heap of emotion! Seems to be a perfect troll of you regular guys - I could demonstrate, if you like :-P

    So, what's the problem? It's either a deal or it isn't a deal. Nobody slams good deals. Heaps of people slam poor deals and slam any spamand sockpuppetry. In 6 months or so I really haven't noticed any particular targetting of newbies, do you think that perhaps the regulars and mods are getting a little bit TOOOOOooo precious about this?

    Either that, or there is a long running undercurrent that I can't pick up on. But look at it this way, if an experienced person like me cannot notice it, I doubt any newbie would.

    And that's my 2c

  • Davo1111 on 16/01/2011 - 21:15

    Ok, i'll try put an explanation on things.

    There has been alot of discussion about the "ozbargain mob" which plays both a good and bad role on ozb
    - The mob is very good at "team negging" a bad deal/spammers, and as a result gets them off the site quickly
    - The mob is also very good at abusing reps. An example of this is here where the rep made an accidental title mistake, someone negged, and "the mob" kept voting up the comment because it was funny.
    - The mob also caused COTD rep to give up and stop posting.

    Ozpete gets "annoyed" because people neg for the same reason (or make up a lame reason just to vote neg). Apart from blatant spam, is it really necessary for EVERY user to vote neg for the same reason? Is one neg vote enough warning to a user that there are issues? If they are that strongly opposed to the deal, surely they can think about putting in a few more words. The point is they have to think a little before just voting negative - a kind of anti sheep factor.

    ok, now to answer the other questions

    What’s the intended purpose of a negative vote option? Why does it exist?

    Negative vote function is to warn other users about a bad deal. Theres a bit of an explanation here however basically.

    • cheaper elsewhere
    • something wrong with the product (possible safety issues?)
    • concerns with the legitimacy of the seller

    The report function should be used for spam, however, at this stage - it hasnt been programmed for automated removal. This is on the todo list.

    If multiple negative votes are considered a bad thing, why isn’t there a negative vote cap?

    AFAIK once the deal hits… -4 (?) its removed from the new deals page. I'd have to double check that with the mods.

    If it’s a bad thing to scare off new posters by showing to them why their deal isn’t good and how they can research whether it is in future, why isn’t negative voting disabled on 1 and P marked users?

    I'm not 100% sure what you mean by this? (perhaps could you rephrase?) negs are important (and useful for first timers).

    There are occasional users who "accuse" 1st timers of being reps (and neg). 70% of the time they're right, but for the other 30% it gives the poster a pretty dim view of ozb.

    I suspect there will be some more discussion, so i'll leave it at that. :)

  • [Deactivated] on 16/01/2011 - 22:07

    Tantryl - just a couple of things from my perspective and to explain.

    1. This is the appropriate place to bring up things - and thank you for doing so.
    2. I was afraid that you might see my deletion of your post as me trying to censor you. Please accept that it was not an attempt to do that.
    3. Again it's up to you to accept this statement but I do not have a thing about you. I have a thing about people also adding "its not a bargain" after two or three already have said that.
    4. Again you have to accept my truth here. I have checked your past two comments and yes I now see this is your end phrase. But really you have had the courtesy to preface that with some very good comments, so if you read my comments in the context that I meant - it was for those who used those words on their own.
    5. I can be outspoken on this issue. As I explained in the post. Mass putting down of a deal doesn't encourage new blood and new posts and can frighten off people from posting. So we just end up getting deals that appeals to the most vocal here.

    But I can be wrong, I might just be too protective of new people. Your point about not being able to neg a new person has some merit, but that also removes the possibility of members killing spam and scams, as most of this comes from one time drop ins. Also they could just keep opening new accounts to take advantage of the loop hole.

    To me a simple way to help new people posting who are genuinely trying to join the community, is to tell them where they have gone wrong, and help them understand what is a bargain and what is genuine information.

    An example of this was the Solar panel deal where we politely told the rep it wasnt a deal at 10% off, they then upped it to 20%. Not a popular product with most here, but now a better percentage deal.

    So by discussing the issue, appealing to people to try and encourage new posters we will find some good deals. Some of late have come from new posters.

    Thank you again for bring this up in a thread as asked. It needs to be discussed, and it is my opinion I am expressing. If the community disagrees with me, I can live with that, I just thought encouragement would help us more than discouragement. So lets hope more get involved.

    Also finally as I dont recall every discussion or disagreement I have with members, so please accept that I am not against you, and accept my apology for the inadvertent quoting of your sign off.

  • [Deactivated] on 16/01/2011 - 22:15

    Llama

    Yes you have some interesting points on the Trolling, a funny point about all this is I was the one to say I would neg vote them for the comment and was resoundingly advised by many that this was inappropriate -15 I think until my apology probably slowed this down

    • llama on 17/01/2011 - 07:52

      Here's another one… http://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/37930

      Can you tell me that it's not trolling? They even use the EXACT SAME text every time… isn't that a bit suss?

      Has that IP (not ID) ever posted before? What about the others?

      • [Deactivated] on 17/01/2011 - 10:42

        No it doesn't look like that - same ip, but unfortunately trolls are often cleverer than that. Then again maybe they just use this term out of habit. But thanks for the suggestions

  • [Deactivated] on 16/01/2011 - 22:25
    +2

    Since posting this I've downed a bottle of port.

    Tomorrow is the time for sensible responses :P'

    EDIT Although I should say I've read the first part your response, ozpete, and I'm relieved it wasn't a conscious reference to me :)

  • llama on 18/01/2011 - 07:16

    I am very glad that the "first post, be kind" comments will now be removed. That is an excellent first step to solving this alleged "attack" on newbies.

  • leiiv on 27/01/2011 - 01:59

    This is another example of over-use negative votes:
    http://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/38491

    • stumo on 27/01/2011 - 21:07
      +2

      Yeah I must admit, that seems pretty unfair on hte surface, and I remember thinking the same thing when I posted my comment there. Although, when you take the price into consideration, it was a terrible deal and deserved to go under.

      I think this has been brought up before… Maybe there needs to be a checkpoint system for when you neg.

      So you still post a comment, then when you click the big red button, it brings up a page when you have to choose from one of a small number of bullet points for the general reason for the neg. If someone else has already negged it for that reason, your neg vote doesn't stand, but your comment does.

      That would stop the mob dead in its tracks.

      • Blah Blah on 01/02/2011 - 20:37

        The same should be made to apply to positive voting also in regards to " If someone else has already negged it for that reason, your neg vote doesn’t stand, but your comment does." So if one person has voted psotive say on price then thats it, no more postive voting but of cause that would never happen as OzBargain is ALL ABOUT THE POSTIVE VOTE and not much else.

        • Mikinoz on 02/02/2011 - 11:51

          Have to agree i made a similar point about 1 year ago, although its because we are using a so called voting system…. i dont know of a voting system where the votes can be changed altered restricted etc oh wait there is Ozbargain!

  • leiiv on 01/02/2011 - 15:15

    To many people give neg votes based on their ideals not closely related to the deal itself.
    Here is another example:
    http://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/38677
    Some people gave neg votes because they think the price reduction is part of a "grand scheme" for woolies/coles domination. And it's just a milk..

    Should that kind of reason be allowed? What's wrong with just writing down all our thoughts, opinions, ideas, etc. without actually clicking the [-] button?

    • Blah Blah on 01/02/2011 - 20:35

      Well people should be made to justify their positive voting but they don't have to, at least negative voters on "Deals" do have to.

    • Blah Blah on 01/02/2011 - 20:39

      3 negative votes in your example above and your complaining. People voting positive don't have to leave any comment. Personally its NOT a bargain as its a new permanent lower price (true it may not be that price in 5 years though). I shall vote negative on that deal now as its not a bargain just a new price. Lets see what the Mods do.

      • leiiv on 01/02/2011 - 23:18

        I am not complaining, since all of those are not my post anyway. I am just concerned about the future of ozbargain. As has been mentioned in the guidelines in wiki: "Please use negative votes sparingly"
        http://www.ozbargain.com.au/wiki/help:voting_guidelines
        I will wait for the response from mods before giving further comments.

        • andy19363 on 01/02/2011 - 23:47

          I am just concerned about the future of ozbargain.

          I agree….. since the policy of community intervention on negative votes, there have been atrocious negs…some one word, some not even that. These negs have been left in place, which clearly gives the impression that they are acceptable…(which they may be in this 'new' process). One user in the milk thread had 11 neg votes for one comment, however, was outweighed by a number of people…no doubt supporting his sentiments, but not necessarily the neg.
          I am by no means a prolific bargain poster, however, I am currently not comfortable posting any bargains at the risk of ridicule and potential barring for 5 days…. some may say it's a triviality, but I'd rather not bother going through the process.

      • neil on 01/02/2011 - 23:45

        @blah blah, leiiv
        Was there a question for the mods?

        • leiiv on 01/02/2011 - 23:51

          Hi neil, no specific question, but according to our guidelines, are those negative votes in the milk deal justified? Even though the deal received 52 positive votes, but by having 4 negs, will it be taken off the front page and the OP banned for 5 days?

        • neil on 02/02/2011 - 00:14

          I think the 4 votes I see are justified as they list a reason with some providing a long argument. You may disagree with their reason but a reason is listed. I haven't neg voted any of those because their points are interesting. The fuel conspiracy which comprised of 2 of the neg votes made the paper. I think it's important to not take negative votes as a blight to anyones self worth. It's nothing against the OP but against the deal. It sometime serves to point out flaws in seemingly great deals. I still remember posting a freebie which garnered numerous positive votes and one of the other mods here neg voted it. I was miffed at first but then realized that his negative vote highlighted an important point.

          To the other question, yes 4 neg votes have taken it off the new deals page but it is NOT knocked off the front page. There is current discussion in changing the knocking of new deals off to exclude deals that received a good amount of positive votes.

          As for the deal submission ban due to negative votes, I'm not entirely sure if it plays out if there are positive votes. Maybe one of the other mods knows?

        • neil on 02/02/2011 - 00:23

          OK just looked it up, it's total votes for ban. So the negative votes won't have any effect on the OP's ability to post. In summary, plain negative votes knock it off the new deals page. Total votes unless negative don't remove things from the front page or ban the user from posting.

        • andy19363 on 02/02/2011 - 08:41

          Ahhh….that's good news.

        • leiiv on 02/02/2011 - 10:33

          Thanks neil for clarifying things up. Regarding to the neg votes on the milk deal, I somewhat agree with their arguments, but I rather disagree that a neg was given based on that. So I want to giving neg to the comment to remove the neg vote, but I don't want the comment to be hidden as well. What's wrong with just giving out comments without the [-] sign (so then I can vote up the comment).

        • neil on 02/02/2011 - 11:32

          Yeah, it's a bit of catch 22.

          The logic is the comment is not good thus the user is voting against it. Enough votes and the neg is removed. If the comment is good then there shouldn't be any reason to remove the vote without downvoting the comment.

          Now as you pointed out, it doesn't always work that way. Of course, you can just click show all hidden comments then none of the comments are hidden.

          Perhaps there could be some formula of not hiding a comment that has a negative next to it except after the threshold for removing the vote has reached.

        • andy19363 on 02/02/2011 - 11:44

          @Neil

          Of course, you can just click show all hidden comments then none of the comments are hidden.

          Does this apply to unlogged in users though? Of which there are many.

          (assuming they can view the original post of course…)

  • ahoyhoy on 02/02/2011 - 00:10

    it seems some people take a negative vote as offensive to the poster when its them voicing there opinion that they do not agree that the post is a good bargain or morally good or for any other reason. People need to accept the fact that not every one thinks the same way as they do and move on and accept it

    and leiiv i don't think the tightarse was banned as he made 2 posts today

  • andy19363 on 02/02/2011 - 09:35
    +1

    There seems to be 2 reasons for negs in that thread…

    The main one is the price is that way because they are charging more for something else…..(petrol was suggested by some). Which is a good point, (one I agree with), and one also made by many others in that discussion, (without negs). By adding a neg to that argument, it makes it less likely that the argument will be seen by anyone.

    As one of the neg poster's said….

    i’m not saying its not a bargain its a good deal

    If something is a great bargain….give it a pos….let's encourage people
    If something seems a great bargain…..but there are issues, (as in this case)…..give it a no-vote and post about the issues, then everyone will be able to come to their own, better informed, decisions.
    If a post is so poor, it should not really be here, (cheaper elsewhere, etc)…. then give it a neg by all means…. I would.

    It's frustrating to see good information and discussion disappear because people do not understand the neg system

    The other reason for negs was that the deal is about 'normal' pricing, (again…. a point made by others), this also has validity, (I also thought that it was close to a dupe of http://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/38467 ). However, this to me, is what the report button is for….. highlighting a potential problem with the posting, rather than the deal itself…… Again, the neg is helping remove what may be important information from users.

    It's quite funny…. Ahoyhoy's first comment has attracted a lot of votes, both positive and negative. Because he and others negged the post, it disappears from the new deals page, so many people are unlikely to see his comment.
    So now……the people voting positive on that comment are actually restricting his opinion from being heard. Those voting negative on his comment, in an attempt to remove the neg, are actually improving the chances of his comment being seen by more users.

    Paradox…..

  • andy19363 on 03/02/2011 - 14:05

    http://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/38875

    another great deal possibly destined to be booted from the new deals page…… 2 (inappropriate) negs so far..

    This one
    http://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/38875#comment-377081
    has currently got 25 neg votes on the comment,but 30 positives, (it's a great comment)….so it stands as a neg

    • neil on 03/02/2011 - 14:14

      Yep, that's my post and I'm in support of that comment but because of the negative vote people are voting against it. Not sure what the solution to that would be. 2 separate votes for the comment? or perhaps since it is a not too often occurrence, manual intervention. Don't know.

  • samfisher5986 on 03/02/2011 - 16:27

    What I don't understand, is why do people get angry because a customer has to do X to get a bargain?

    For example, a logical sane person would sign up a special facebook account to get bargains, but instead we just get the negative mob coming in and saying all kinds of things about how we shouldn't have to sign up to facebook etc..

    I'm quite critical of weather something is a bargain, but when we have people voting negative because lowering the price is hurting the farmers or something similar pulled from their own behind it just becomes silly.

    I don't see why we can't make negative voting more simple and have just a few simple reasons you can do it, and everything else requires the report function.

    For example, you can only negative vote if the product is cheaper elsewhere (url required) or the site is a scam.

    • andy19363 on 03/02/2011 - 17:29

      I agree…..once upon a time, you could look at a deal, and if it had one or two neg votes, you knew there was big problems……These days, even deals with many negs still turn out to be good deals because half the negs are things like "lol" "fail" "i agree" etc.

      Perhaps removing the 'power' from the neg vote…so that the deal becomes purely a 'like/dislike' process…..people can still comment if they do or don't like a deal, but the automatic removal/barring doesn't happen. Then make the report button the 'active' component in keeping or removing a deal…. It's more anonymous and therefore less satisfying for the troll/axe-grinding type neggers

      It's a difficult one

      • leiiv on 03/02/2011 - 18:07

        That is because some people vote neg for reasons not about the nature of a "bargain" (how much it's cost, how it compares with others, etc). Instead, they bring their own justice here and judge a deal based on moral, ethic, personal, and other reasons. And some other people obviously do not care about those things as long as they can save more money.

  • andy19363 on 06/02/2011 - 00:26
    +2

    more mobbing….

    http://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/39030

    3 utterly worthless negs

    http://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/39030#comment-379488

    everyone else is voting neg so…

    http://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/39030#comment-379517

    COTD = Business FAIL

    http://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/39030#comment-379542

    just vote neg cos its COTD :D

    • issh on 06/02/2011 - 00:32

      wow that really is just sad
      they based their negs on past experiences, not on that deal the the OP posted
      they could have of left nothing(neutral) instead of giving a -

      the neg button is virtually now worthless with the path it is heading now(users abusing it)
      the comments between
      http://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/39030#comment-379488 and http://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/39030#comment-379625
      is plain arrogance and cockiness
      i dislike this kind of attitude

      BigglezThePigglez 3 hours 15 min ago
      everyone else is voting neg so…

      BigglezThePigglez 12 min ago
      cheers for all the +ve’s guys!

      really?!

      • samfisher5986 on 06/02/2011 - 01:04

        Wow this really is getting bad.

        Especially when I don't see one link to a better price/product.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join