Agreed, Reddit used to show up/down counts but got rid of it and I thought that was a stupid choice on their part. Reddit also did other weird manipulations to the upvote count on posts which I’m glad we don’t have here.
People tend to upvote and believe anything that already has a lot of upvotes. Seeing downvotes is a good red flag to warn users to not blindly believe everything they see with positive karma.
I think the current system is harder to manipulate than reddit
I think it’s overall a good feature, but it’s also a bit unfortunate that you can’t vote based on the score that you think something should have, without that vote carrying an additional (unintended) meaning.
Like if someone gives a poorly thought out but otherwise good faith opinion. Maybe it has a score of -50 but it only deserves -10. Now my upvote might be seen as proof that at least one other discussion participant supports that opinion, when that’s not actually the case.
It is weird that we vote like that. I find myself bringing a lot of good faith comments back up from 0 not because I agree with it, but because I think it is a comment worth 1 upvote lol
my guess is they are either getting their butthole pierced or tattooed, but I know that OP won't confirm. THat's just my guess here. I really hope it's not something more gross than that, but I can't handle that.
The problem with downvotes is they're supposed to be used to push irrelevant things down and bring forward the "productive conversation", but...
...it's easier to use them as an "I disagree with you, get lost loser" button, and I feel like that doesn't usually help the discussion. And upvotes already bring up the good comments (although sometimes the most voted stuff is just memes and you miss the interesting stuff).
I like the thought behind this idea but I don't think it's a good solution. It requires having a reputation score, which I think outweighs the positives here. I could also see people trying to play this system in a couple different ways, which is just plain bad for discussion culture: encourage others to downvote something without spending the reputation yourself, or collect downvotes with bait content in order to eat through other peoples reputation.
While you're right that that's a downside of downvotes, I think that it's far better than the alternative.
Downvotes means we have a way to discourage really bad behavior and lets others see that it's discouraged. For example, suppose someone posts something bigoted. It sucks to see those kinda comments (especially when they affect you personally). When those comments are heavily downvoted, it feels better, since it tells you that the views expressed in the comment are not acceptable. It's extremely discouraging when I see bigoted posts with a positive score. Without downvoting, they all have positive scores and it's just "less positive".
It'd be nice if reporting was able to remove such comments before anyone sees them, but that will never be the case. Too many communities don't remove comments fast enough and many more simply won't remove comments unless they're really bad, if at all. Some moderators are bigots themselves and others simply don't have the ability to recognize dog whistles that may be in comments. Or they're not personally affected by the malicious comment, so they can be more easily convinced that if the comment was politely worded, it's acceptable even if it's blatantly bigoted.
To be clear, it does suck that users will use it as a disagree button for comments that are otherwise good, but that is far, far worth it. The presence of downvotes were a major reason why I used Reddit (and now this) while disliking the likes of twitter.
I don't care for Karma-farming, but I liked having some way to tell if someone was a real community member or a throw-away account. I liked that there were some subreddits that wouldn't let you post if you had low karma because it helped hold back the trolls.
Can’t say I recommend it but if I were given this unique challenge I suppose I would try MREs. MRE meals are designed to have the nutrients needed for soldiers and not cause repeated bowl movements.
You can spread powder on the floor so you could see if someone had stepped in. It wouldn't keep them out unless they didn't want anyone to know they'd been in there.
I didn’t see this answer, so sorry if it’s been said, but just don’t eat. It’s three days, after all. Incidentally I’ve read that if you ate solely what your body needed to survive, it would take 20-40 days to even build up enough waste to have to poop.
Holy shit. Alright, so naturally I have to ask if it's possible to eat just what you need to survive and still remain somewhat healthy. Or are you slowly withering at this point? What's the middle-ground here? How long can a person survive on just the bare minimum before their body becomes too weak?
No cause it’s like a inside joke so it works with people who know me and my humour and I feel sarcasm is better used in some form of criticism like quoting something hypocritical.
asklemmy
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.