[Suggestion] Modifications to the existing voting system

Forgot69 on 28/03/2012 - 23:44

Hi all,

Preface: The goal is constructive feedback and my own opinions (I realise they may not be shared by all).

I think this 'bargain' has yet again highlighted what I feel is one of the more major flaws in the current voting system. As per the rules, people are to vote on the deal only. Now while this is obviously the best choice for quickly voting on bargains, it doesn't encompass the other major aspects of a truly "good bargain".

Off the top of my head:

  • The deal itself - The reduction in cost from RRP or exclusivity
  • The product/service - The quality, reliability or usefulness perhaps by comparison
  • The supplier - Reliability, trustworthiness and shipping times

Using the bargain - 50% OFF Monster Studio Beats by Dr. Dre - Choose from BLACK or WHITE Just $249.00 Delivered! as an example, it seems clear that the deal and supplier weren't justified of any negative votes.

Just as another quick example, www.catchoftheday.com.au deals. It's could be technically possible to see a very good deal and product come from them but their terrible reputation recently as a supplier seems to set them back and gets their bargains slammed with technically (as per rules) incorrect negative votes.

So, to the topic. I'd love to see a more robust voting system on the bargains. Initial thoughts are of a 5 star for each aspect: deal, product & supplier.

Anyone with more thoughts, suggestions, maybe better implementation?

Site Discussion

Comments

  • andy19363 on 28/03/2012 - 23:51

    Said it before…. but happy to say it again….. :)

    Lose the neg vote completely….. the 'no vote' in effect becomes the negative vote.
    Great deal has many positives…. terrible deal has none (and perhaps lots of postings about why it's a poor deal).

    The report button will be used for the spammy, inappropriate deals, listing errors, etc etc

    My 2c

    • Forgot69 on 28/03/2012 - 23:58

      What are your thoughts on the bargain I used as an example? Personally I'd rather it highlighted that a product is inferior for its price comparatively, which from my understanding is where these negative votes came from.

      • andy19363 on 29/03/2012 - 00:16

        Your highlighting that particular is a good example…. the post has some 70 positive votes, indicating it's popularity. Yet the post could have been lost thanks to neg votes early in the piece. Therefore all of the posts discussing the pros and cons would also have gone…..
        For this particular product, it would seem that it is a good price…. whether it's worth that price is a matter of opinion, and up to individuals to research for themselves. However, they can't do that if the post gets lost.

      • hippocrit on 29/03/2012 - 00:33

        If you take a look at the votes, there are a number of people doing the right thing negging the comments of those who negged the deal. All you need to do is report it if it is unwarranted. If this continues on though, I'm sure the mods will be forced to step in.

        Shame there are so many negs to begin with, dealfox is a excellent example of reps who know how to use ozbargain.

        • andy19363 on 29/03/2012 - 00:45

          Report away…. unfortunately, the mods do not remove inappropriate negs these days.
          The other fortunate/unfortunate thing is that neg votes are capped per day…. that goes for negging comments too

  • Pledge on 29/03/2012 - 00:07

    Votes for each Categories: deal, product, supplier, delivery, customer service, shipping, returns, reputation…

    But it may complicate things, ie "most voted deals"

    • andy19363 on 29/03/2012 - 00:18

      The problem with that is that most of it is unknown until the product is delivered…

  • c64 on 29/03/2012 - 05:05

    sounds too complicated.

    maybe sellers could have a rating which appears on the store profile.

    but then cotd's store profile would be neg'd to oblivion :)

  • [Deactivated] on 29/03/2012 - 10:16

    Keep it as it is.

    Rules aside, if I see a hot deal on something and am tempted, I want to know if others think the product or supplier is junk.

    Need to see a balanced view.

    Don't be upset by negatives.

    • andy19363 on 29/03/2012 - 10:18

      if I see a hot deal on something and am tempted, I want to know if others think the product or supplier is junk.

      If the post gets negged too many times, it will disappear, meaning you won't get to see any warnings, or a balanced view……

  • Forgot69 on 29/03/2012 - 10:44

    So clearly in a "perfect world situation" the best deals, on the best product from the best suppliers will get highlighted. Right?

    Half the point of the OzBargain community is the fact it is a community of people with experience! This experience applies to everything:

    deal, product, supplier, delivery, customer service, shipping, returns, reputation

    Leveraging this experience in a better manner could only be beneficial, right?

    We're all aware of the parts of the current voting system, it's something I think has been done to death almost here. Instead, can we focus on suggestions and ideas about what a perfect voting system would look like?

    Personally I love reading the negs on deals, especially when they are justified with great explanations or details and the author has take a moment to explain what they are thinking.

    A rating system that could encompass all the facets of a great bargain and be simple at the same time…… what does that look like?

    • andy19363 on 29/03/2012 - 11:32
      +1

      Personally I love reading the negs on deals, especially when they are justified with great explanations or details and the author has take a moment to explain what they are thinking.

      Me too…. that's how the system should work, however…. a couple of 'me too' negs later, and the details and explanation has gone.

      It really annoys me when potentially good deals, or good information, or both, get removed by the neg votes. I'm still in favour of removing that particular aspect.
      I wonder if there could be a system where something similar to the report button could be used by people to highlight particular difficulties of a deal…. (a '!!' button, or similar).

      So… a good/popular deal will have many positives, (perhaps with a couple of '!!' reports if appropriate), a terrible deal will have none, possibly with a number of '!!' reports indicating why. The 'me too', '(insert retailer name) lol', 'not a bargain' type negs will have less impact.

      In the case of the monster beats thread…. it might look like…… 70 + votes, indicating a good deal, with perhaps 10 '!!' reports, in which people can give their information about alternatives.

  • neil on 29/03/2012 - 11:28

    For reference this discussion comes up every few months:
    2007
    2008
    2010
    2010
    2011
    2011
    2011
    2011
    etc.

    For the most part, moderators won't remove negative votes but the community can. A bit more reference here

    It's exhausting and a very grey line for the most part. That said, blatantly obvious comments like No! or Crapoftheday, will be removed as off-topic. Comments that get removed results in a loss in vote. Negative voting a deal with a pointless comment doesn't add anything to this community.

    Now with a deal like the Beats headphones, there are some incorrect votes on there but since it's currently at 76 and 7, removing negative votes/comments are going to make little technical impact so I believe the moderation team will just let it go. There are sockpuppeters, spammers, trolls and a whole bunch of other issues that should be taken priority.

    We've had rules on reasons you should and should not negative vote. Well, that's all and good but if people aren't going to be bothered following them, then it's an uphill battle when you continually have to educate people. My guess is that people think it's the Internet, I'll do what I want, freedom of speech, freedom of vote etc.

    So what's the solution? Not sure IMO.

    We trialled removing the negative vote and the majority didn't like that change. So it was reinstated.

    A more complex voting system. Interesting but it adds lots more buttons and complexity especially for mobile users.

    We are targeting trolls and temporarily banning them. We are trying to get to the CatchoftheDay/Scoopon/MWave posts when they first go up and remind people that they can click Hide from Listing so they will never see these deals as well as monitoring them closely for off-topic comments.

    Perhaps if we have more detailed category areas, then people can just unselect what categories they don't wish to see. E.G. People sick of seeing SSD drives or cheap bed sheets.

    People take the negative vote pretty hard. There is something very psychologically hurtful about getting that red negative sign. Sort of like a red F on an exam. As looplou said people need to not get upset about it.

    Anyway, some interesting ideas and thoughts here. Love to hear more ideas.

    TLDR; Rambings.

    EDIT: I should add, please user the report button for any issues you have in your travels around OzBargain.

  • samfisher5986 on 29/03/2012 - 12:36

    Negative votes need to be made clear, at the moment silly kids just vote negative for silly reasons and just enrage everyone.

    Voting negative should give you a form where there are very specific criteria for it, for example

    1. A past experience with the business has led you to believe that future customers will have a bad experience. (not honoring warranty etc)

    2. The product is fake

    3. The EXACT product is available elsewhere cheaper (form where you have to paste a link to it)

    4. The business has no customer history and looks suspicious (important for expensive items)

    Also neil, I don't understand why anyone would hide a COTD post when they are clearly enjoying voting negative on every single deal that gets posted.

    This gets worse when people enjoy negative voting any product they don't like even if its a good deal to certain people, they get enjoyment out of it.

    I honestly don't know why anyone who gets angry/annoyed at COTD would then decide to hide the post to make themselves feel better. What makes them feel better is to badmouth COTD, it makes no effect if they hide the post.

    I can understand the idea on why mods/admin think it would work, but this is the Internet and its simply impossible.

    • neil on 29/03/2012 - 12:57

      I believe when negative votes were first introduced there was a drop down box. I think there were just too many variables/needed more specification so it was switched to make a comment attached to the vote.

      • samfisher5986 on 29/03/2012 - 13:00
        +2

        You could still attach it to a comment though (for an in depth explanation etc), but just have the checkboxes to force people to negative vote for a reason approved by mods.

        The idea is to make people spend some more time when voting negative, its only going to scare away the people abusing the system. If someone has an actual problem then its not any extra work to tick a box and provide a reason, because we are already doing that.

        For example how will people vote negative on a deal because its cheaper elsewhere without providing a link when the system I suggested would force people to provide a link?

        The beats headphones should have 0 negative votes, because we don't give negative votes to Ralph Lauren because you can get $10 generic polo's elsewhere. If nobody wanted the headphones then nobody would have voted positive.

        This still allows people to comment on how X headphones are better value for money, but maybe people want the brand, just like people buy clothes for the brand.

  • Forgot69 on 30/03/2012 - 12:09

    I really like this idea 'samfisher5986'. The current "report" option functions very much in the way I think would be required of a new style neg button. It would restrict the options available to neg a bargain and guide users into standardising the information submitted with a neg vote.

    I however feel that the beats deal deserved some form of warning, not necessarily a neg vote. Personally, when hunting a bargain, I'm looking for the BEST bang for buck deal. In the case of the beats deal I genuinely appreciated reading some of the negs suggesting these were inferior for their price. I believe some people went as far as making suggestions on better, equivalent priced items. Is this not something to encourage? Not everyone is an expert in everything and even when researching I like tips and pointers.

    Other thoughts include adding a third "Attention" button in between the positive and negative vote buttons as suggested by 'andy19363'. I could really see a small button sitting between something similar to this. Again it would be good to have this responding in a similar manner as the current report function, simply using a drop down will direct/restrict the submitter into the right kind of information to be pre-filled. Eg. "I have a concern about the ******", insert product, supplier, delivery, customer service, shipping, returns, reputation. This would reserve the neg vote for more major issues eg. cheaper elsewhere, sockpuppeting etc.

    One last suggestion was to have all neg votes to be "validated" prior to becoming an active neg against the bargain. What I'm thinking is that before a neg could become active against the bargain it would require a set amount of positive votes on that neg comment, I'm thinking maybe in the region of 3 - 5 positive votes and then that neg goes valid against the deal. Put the power of moderation in the hands of the community a little! ;) We kind of have this in reverse already where a comment can be negged to oblivion and the accompanied neg vote will be removed automatically, why not put a positive spin on this?

    • samfisher5986 on 30/03/2012 - 12:36
      +1

      This is why sites like reddit are great at warnings.

      The most voted comment goes to the top and everyone reads it.

      In almost every case the warning gets a lot of votes and would go to the top.

      • Forgot69 on 30/03/2012 - 13:01

        Yeah that's pretty good too! This goes a little off topic but I was also frustrated with the inability to update OPs. Especially on deals like the Dick's current gaming sellout where it would be great to have new news updates pushed into the OP without having to rely on a Mod.
        I don't think you could use the current positive vote system for it though as despite most good new news comment get positive votes, it's also the funny as hell comments that get positive votes too and they don't necessarily belong in the OP. Hmmm…. how to solve that? :/

        • neil on 30/03/2012 - 14:16

          That's a good point and it has been mentioned to put an editble wiki below the deal. Take a look at the way Slickdeals.com does it.

          Also with slickdeals, thumbs up/thumbs down feels a lot less harsh then a redd negative.

    • andy19363 on 30/03/2012 - 13:58

      This would reserve the neg vote for more major issues eg. cheaper elsewhere, sockpuppeting etc.

      suspected sockpuppeting should really be the function of the 'report' function…. where it can be investigated more fully

  • andy19363 on 02/04/2012 - 17:17

    http://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/66808

    no better thread to highlight the redundancy of the negative vote……

    • [Deactivated] on 04/04/2012 - 03:41

      More mod ramblings ….

      Absolutely, it went from an informative piece on some obsolete clearance items, to one of consumer rights. Looks like Dick played the social media card and it blew up in their face.

      That said, it then became a game, which attracted more gamers, who love the high score concept, so instead of being the true warning that the negative vote was meant to be, the gamers made it into a game for their amusement.

      Unfortunately these are mostly those who wouldn't even read this thread, so lecturing on this wouldn't help.

      Overall the mods agree with the issues, however there isnt a consensus on what is the right strategy to take. Like in real life, we have Interventionists and Laissez fairists and in betweeners.

      We do come up against the petulant so and so's who react just as emotionally about removal of negative votes, as much as those who react about receiving them. Even to the extent of voting down comments we make on unrelated deals. (I am seen by some of these, as Adolfs long lost brother)

      And as the site grows, the issue grows as well.

      We have introduced a system for the serial neg voters, where if their negative vote removed by a mod OR the community, they can lose the ability to negatively vote for a time. We are evaluating how that works. With the DSE deal, removing votes there, en mass would probably trigger this threshold prematurely for many.

      So I guess the DSE deal at the moment is a one off aberration, but worth watching and hoping it remains that way.

      And then we also try different things. Of late if I see votes that are obviously wrong, I am staring to remove them. I dont even bother advising why, especially if I check their history and they have been here for a while.

      But the ramblings above shouldn't be taken as an indication not to discuss this here, good ideas can only come if we let the discussions continue. Thanks for starting this up again.

      • samfisher5986 on 04/04/2012 - 10:46

        ????

        After all the legit negative votes it didn't matter anymore.

        I'm curious as to what the difference between 200 negative votes and 400?

        Who does this effect and why?

        Are you also not aware that the 400+ people who positive voted could no longer negative vote?

        In my opinion whoever sat there moderating that topic was just wasting their time.

        • [Deactivated] on 04/04/2012 - 14:01

          agree about the issue of time, but wont go any further.

          BTW the positive voters can remove their vote. But agree most don't even come back

      • hm on 06/04/2012 - 22:07

        i hope im not one of those people as i actually agree that something has to be done about the negative vote system, im not saying im any saint in this issue but the most thing i find with the negative vote is that most have not taken any time to consider what they are negging or thoroughly consider a deal before negging

        maybe a system whereby that a negative vote can be removed if say Xnumber of members issue a report for what they would consider an unwarranted vote, not that these reports would have to go to the attention of a mod just that if a certain number make that report then the vote be removed

        i dont know what the answer is myself either but i do like to take an active role in a community i like instead of just sit back and neg everything for the sake of it

        • andy19363 on 06/04/2012 - 22:26

          maybe a system whereby that a negative vote can be removed if say Xnumber of members issue a report for what they would consider an unwarranted vote, not that these reports would have to go to the attention of a mod just that if a certain number make that report then the vote be removed

          um…. isn't that the system we have now?

          edit… forgot to add the word 'ineffective'

        • hm on 06/04/2012 - 22:39

          ive got no idea on this, i guess thats why im tryin to learn, at the moment in the report comment feature the parameters do not address a negative vote so maybe next to the "reply|votes|report" could be an added parameter of "disagree" that only shows on a negative voters post and guess i was trying to say that maybe that could be a way it can be addressed so it shows as

          "reply|votes|report|disagree"

          wot i was trying to get to so that it doesnt have to go through a mod as they prob have more pressing things to deal with, this way if enough members "disagree" it can be taken away without the nedd for mod interaction and then if the voter truly has a problem with it then they can then be compelled to chase it up with a mod, and seeing that to be the case i cant see to many people wanting to chase a mod about a negative vote, though this may be shortsighted on my behalf

        • neil on 06/04/2012 - 22:42
          +1

          That function is already in place. If you hit the negative button on the comment that has cast the negative vote for the deal it will remove vote if it receives enough of these from the community.

        • hm on 07/04/2012 - 00:03

          thanks for letting me know and on further looking into it this doesnt work because of the neg cap per day and also that the people who do seem to neg tend to back each others votes quickly which make it hard to try and counter vote against it

          id personaly take the whole negative vote off OB as all it does is create and promote a negative culture

        • neil on 07/04/2012 - 00:19
          +1

          Well, I don't have exact stats but it works well in highly positively voted deals. It also tends to work when the comment is over the top bad (and not funny).

          It definitely doesn't seem to work when the deal is voted averagely (e.g. a couple/few votes). Definitely not where the deal is negatively voted.

          Taking the negative votes off was trialed and that didn't work well either. The negative culture doesn't seem to affect any of the other bargain sites (or other sites) except for this one. Then again, we are one of the few that actually show and point out the negative vote and who voted for it.

          I do think there is a solution to this, but it's going to take some trial and error.

  • [Deactivated] on 12/04/2012 - 03:59

    It all comes down to how negative votes impact on the deal.

    Maybe its time OZB changed rather than trying to change the world.

    1. Allow negative votes to reflect the desire for someone to show displeasure, but these are just votes of opinion. They do nothing to the deal or it's position. A deals position again reflected like now on the number of positive votes it receives.

    2. The report button becomes the negative vote of old. So when someone thinks the deal is spam etc, then they report it. The mods then act on that report. If a deal gets more than some defined threshold, then like the "old" negative vote the deal gets hidden, until a mod clears the reports ie says the deal is ok or not.

    3. Reports on comments do not affect the deal, only reports on the deal itself.

    4. Members initially limited to a number of reports that they can make per day.

    5. Some sort of Karma system based on successful reporting, that increases a members ability to make more reports

    6. Negative votes, some sort of daily limit on this still to be applied so we cant get someone just running around voting wildly, just like we have an upper limit on positive votes

    7. At the same time, As mentioned above by Neil, kill the Negative vote and use ThumbsUp and ThumbsDown, and maybe even change Reports to Alert, so all the past concepts and usage patterns can change at the same time.

    Obviously this needs thought and discussion to flush out any issues this might bring.

    • andy19363 on 12/04/2012 - 09:10
      -1

      some good proposals….. and some thoughts :)

      1. Good…… I think in many cases there are people who make a comment simply to neg so they can 'kill' a deal, (perhaps thinking they are doing a 'good' thing).
      2. Again, good….. although I'm not sure how much extra work that might put on mods, if any….. I do think the anonymity of reporting will cut down on the axe grinding neggers that we have now, as they will not have as powerful a platform. Hopefully it will cut down my current reporting of inappropriate negative votes :)
      3. yup
      4. (and 5)sound good
      5. also good….

      I wonder if there would be a way of changing/expanding the view of the comments on each deal…. whereby an option existed to list comments by 'positives' on each comment…. so that perhaps important information about the product/retailer could be highlighted and quickly accessed by the community.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join