Struggling with Conflicting Guideline

Letrico on 22/12/2018 - 18:00
Last edited 22/12/2018 - 18:17 by 1 other user

Hi fellow OzBargainers,

I have come across this situation a couple of times and I believe many have experienced the same.

When a deal is posted but someone neg vote it and says "it is not a deal until it reach xxx amount" or "it has been cheaper"

Now the guideline says that a valid neg vote for items that are cheaper elsewhere needs to be accompanied by url/store that is cheaper. Since no url/store is provided, it is not a valid neg vote.

However mods are not treating it as invalid neg.

I need your help fellow OzBargainers to understand whether if such a neg vote is valid or invalid or if it depends on situation.

Guideline url

Edit:
I have amend my post a little bit as I may have jumped the gun saying the mod claim that it is valid as they did not give me a clear cut answer.

Poll Options

  • 5
    Valid
  • 12
    Not valid
  • 13
    Depends
Site Discussion

Comments

  • Baysew on 22/12/2018 - 18:06

    Have you got some examples?

  • WatchNerd on 22/12/2018 - 18:10
    +2

    However mods are saying it is a valid neg vote.

    If you report a neg vote and the mods don't remove it, they respond with something like "We only remove neg votes that are listed word for word in the inappropriate uses, everything else is left up to the community to decide."

    So in other words just because the mods won't remove a neg vote doesn't automatically make it valid, otherwise the system wouldn't allow the community to remove them.

    • Letrico on 22/12/2018 - 18:19
      +1

      Yes you are right. I made a mistake saying the mod is saying it is valid as I was not given a clear answer.

      I have edited my post to reflect this.

    • payton on 22/12/2018 - 22:21
      +3

      The Moderators used to remove such invalid votes, but after too many people started negative voting because 'my feelingz' eg caged egg deals and gun threads they don't bother anymore and the guideline got altered .. too much work maybe?.

      Also, people on the other side of the debate reported for the votes to be revoked - eg a deal on caged eggs, people who don't mind caged eggs reported the invalid negs.
      The number of invalid negs can go 50, 80, 100 so not just here and there

      • Moderatorneil on 23/12/2018 - 12:27

        While it makes for an interesting narrative, this is false. See revisions to the voting guidelines to see it's something that was added many years ago and evolved over time. Nothing to do with eggs or guns or politics or religion or Santa.

        • payton on 23/12/2018 - 12:43
          +2

          nope
          guideline was changed so that only invalid negative worded in a very very specific way will be actioned for removal by Mods
          "any other invalid neg votes is up to the community to decide"
          yep, its that 'evolved' over time bit as more people think its cool to neg vote based on emotions

  • [Deactivated] on 22/12/2018 - 18:22

    who cares

    • WatchNerd on 22/12/2018 - 18:25
      +4

      Probably lots of contributers to this website who give up their own free time to help others save money. Sometimes I wonder why anyone bothers when you've got so many ungrateful members negging for stupid reasons.

      The voting guidelines are woeful and need updating.

      • [Deactivated] on 22/12/2018 - 18:29
        -5

        Well, if these big contributors are worried so much about negativity then rather than forcefully trying to get it removed why don't they take the negative advice on board and alter the way they contribute until there's naturally no more negatives?

        • WatchNerd on 22/12/2018 - 18:30
          +3

          Because most of the time the negative votes aren't constructive in any way.

          • [Deactivated] on 22/12/2018 - 18:55
            -1

            @WatchNerd: Have you got an example of negativity you received for a deal you've posted that wouldn't disappear naturally if you altered the way you posted a deal?

            • headphonejack on 22/12/2018 - 20:07
              +5

              @[Deactivated]: Here’s an example:

              Free Shipping @ David Jones
              56+ votes, 0- votes.
              Free Shipping @ David Jones
              18+ votes, 3- votes.

              Reasons for negging:

              1. Free shipping is not an offer:(
              2. Is free shipping really a deal?
              3. DJ thinks free shipping is a precious gift only give to customers occasionally, no shipster, $100+, also terrible c&c.

              How would altering the way the second deal was posted make the negs disappear?

              • Savas on 22/12/2018 - 23:52

                @headphonejack: What is the problem? Makes sense that the longer free shipping deal would have more upvotes.

                • WatchNerd on 23/12/2018 - 00:08
                  +3

                  @Savas: The example wasn't provided to discuss the upvotes.

                  • Savas on 23/12/2018 - 10:12

                    @WatchNerd: let me reword, makes sense that there would be more negativity towards the deal with a shorter expiry.

          • [Deactivated] on 22/12/2018 - 19:48

            @WatchNerd: https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/426959
            The deal poster him/herself is unsure as whether or not it is a deal when compared to other recent deals posted for that item stating it is "Definitely not the lowest price around" but went ahead and posted it anyway and coped some negativity for it.

            Now if they had of waited for definitely the lowest price around compared with other recent deals before posting then my bet would be that the negative votes would naturally be absent. So it's more of a timing issue that's the problem rather than negative votes that need to be deleted.

            • Peck on 22/12/2018 - 22:13
              +3

              @[Deactivated]: Jees! Don't you realise how much time and effort it takes to post a deal?? And you want them to do all of this extra work?

              • Savas on 22/12/2018 - 23:53

                @Peck: Is that a rhetorical question? It's too hard to tell anymore.

        • HardlyCharly on 24/12/2018 - 13:20

          Haha, you need to get outside more kid, you don't know people at all.

      • payton on 22/12/2018 - 22:22

        Maybe its because some people had missed out on a deal for the same item (at a very low price eg when the WH1000XM3 was available thru Good Guys Commercial) and when another deal came up where the price wasn't at the cheapest ever, they got annoyed and boom, neg vote

        An item is at super low price usually because of either: price error, abuse of unique code, or from places that are normally not open to all and sundry.
        I agree its unrealistic to set this sort of deal as the baseline for expectations.

  • Sage on 22/12/2018 - 18:42
    -1

    However mods are not treating it as invalid neg.

    Practically all neg votes are invalid. Look at my profile, I've been restricted from neg voting because all of mine have gotten revoked.
    The moderator explained the only thing needed is if people downvote your comment.

  • elgrande on 22/12/2018 - 19:49

    Do not challenge the machine

  • try2bhelpful on 22/12/2018 - 20:05
    +2

    Personally, I don't get het up about getting negative comments or votes. People are entitled to their opinion and if they don't like what I post they don't have to. Others can make up their own mind about deals. I used to be annoyed, but I learnt to let it go.

  • Savas on 22/12/2018 - 22:58
    +1

    Now the guideline says that a valid neg vote for items that are cheaper elsewhere needs to be accompanied by url/store that is cheaper. Since no url/store is provided, it is a not a valid neg vote.

    a guideline is a general rule and doesn't say anywhere it "needs" to be accompanied by url/store. That would be stupid.

    • WatchNerd on 23/12/2018 - 10:45
      +2

      On the other hand there are absolute rules within the guidelines. For example any negative vote that falls into any of these reasons will be revoked by a moderator - Inappropriate uses of negative vote. There are also absolute rules within the Deal Posting Guidelines.

      • Moderatorneil on 23/12/2018 - 12:34

        You're both right. It's a guideline written based on feedback from the community. This is how the negative vote should be used. These are the reasons a moderator will revoke vote. It is not a legal document and it does both highlight suggestions/recommendations and also rules that are enforced.

        The reason is there are too many grey areas where moderators don't want to be interpreting whether a vote is valid or not so we came up with a short list over several years which is applicable to all deals.

  • [Deactivated] on 23/12/2018 - 07:55
    +1

    I'd say generally not valid unless it is not controversial that it is cheaper elsewhere or the item is not considered goods nor a service.

    For example, if someone posted 4 pack Eneloops for $20, it's perfectly reasonable to have your door rammed and OP to get teargassed whilst their internet gets deleted.

    Or if people post things that are usually free or have no value. Ie brochures and seminars. If I want to go for a timeshare meeting or commit to tithing (both the same thing really), I can always attend a local "free" "information" session.

  • CheapskateQueen on 23/12/2018 - 22:00

    wow. -_-

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join