I would like to see PeakD remove the down vote button.
Why should another interface for all of Hive remove the downvote button? It's not like hive.blog is the only interface for Hive. PeakD is my most used interface, and they are directly connected to hive. I'm a heavy downvote user, and why should I have to go to an alternate interface(especially since peakd isn't a specialized interface) to downvote?
Also with your idea of selecting a reason to downvote, who's to say that the reason was valid? Whats stopping me from selecting the fraud button on every downvote? Remember Hive is decentralized. There's no one authority to pick something. It's a community effort. With the current system, the community gets to allocate rewards, what you are proposing will have the community's effect reduced.
I believe this would decrease the amount of bot activity on the other front ends.
Bots don't interact with the UIs. They interact directly with Hive APIs which again are decentralized. You can't stop the bot activity.
And with all of this, if we want people to justify downvotes, why not the same for upvotes? Put same restrictions on both way.
And do you have a solution to the down vote issue? Down votes are a negative action, it does not matter how people phrase it, how they justify it. I want to make it hard for people to down vote, I want to make it uncomfortable for people to down vote, and I want people to understand that the down vote has issues and has caused problems and that the common user has no ability to counter act most down votes.
If an account reaches a reputation of 15, then that account should have its ability to down vote removed, just one more of my ideas. How long on a system that auto adds a comment do you think an account like sunsetjesus would last down voting.
I know people will keep saying those pissant down votes mean nothing and to ignore them, if you owned a store and every day the same person came in and emptied your need a penny take a penny dish would you ignore that person?
Selecting the real reason for the down vote of course not people that down vote out of spite are going to lie, people that are bullies are going to lie, people that are asshats in general are going to lie. They will still have an auto comment added they can not delete and open themselves for community retribution.
So sunsetjesus account is a real person going around and down voting in a willy-nilly way a lot of people and not a bot down vote account?
!ENGAGE 15
Hopefully some people will offer alternative solutions, mine I know are rather draconian in nature.
This is the kind of thing that makes the anti-downvote sentiment so strange to me. Why do people see the current post reward status as already "theirs". Like it's their money or something they own? It's not in their wallet, they know the voting window is open for 7 days. I don't ever see people throwing tantrums when the number goes up, so I'm sure they know it changes. Do you know where you picked up this sense that the current post status is the entitlement of the poster?
IDK. It honestly seems like that most people don't understand how the voting system works and thats its a community driven effort to drive a valuation until payout time.
Sorry I do not understand that line or reference. People do seem to forget that the window is 7 days long. I don't think I have ever had the thought that the person/author of a post is entitled to anything pre 7 day period. I also do not think as you can see from my suggestion that curators are Entitled to anything until the end of the 7 day window, thus the removal of curator earnings in a reward dispute, and not the author rewards in that one particular case.
I quoted it for easy reference. I'll add emphasis:
It makes it sound like downvotes are taking something away from someone. You can't take something away from somebody if they don't have it, don't own it, and have no entitlement to it. If you don't see people as entitled to post rewards prior to the end of the voting period, then what's the issue with downvotes?
The big issue with post rewards is people feeling as if something has been taken from them yes, does not matter if it is reality or not that is the way those that receive large down votes apparently feel. People rarely complain about the down vote received on spam, plagiarism, or the other items in the list. It is only when large vote values are removed. Thus my solution is for the curation reward to be removed from the top five up votes and not from the portion of the rewards the Author/poster would receive, that way they would lose no perceived value on day 7.
People have issues with the down votes, they will always have issues with the down votes. If people did not have issues with the down votes there would not be a lot of people posting about getting down votes, or bitching about the down votes or leaving Hive because of the down votes, so there are obviously issues with the down vote system as it currently stands.
There are few solutions being offered to the system other than ignoring there is an issue with it.
Sure, some people rage quit a basketball game and go home when they lose, but we don't say it's a problem with basketball and change the game so there aren't losers. Being bad at something doesn't mean that thing is a problem. I've read a lot lately on people complaining about downvotes, but I still don't see an issue with downvotes. I've owned several businesses, some of them worked, some of them didn't. It never occurred to me to go change the laws and change how everyone thinks and feels to make my businesses successful. Applying that kind of thinking to Hive and restricting everyone's freedoms to help a handful of people feel better... like... it could happen, but there would need to be a really good reason. So far, the only reason I'm hearing is "some people feel bad when they don't get as much free money as they felt entitled to". That isn't an issue that needs to be fixed
I think the entitled part with the big votes is the primary issue. Lets take three large daily up voters, haejin, ranch, and xeldal. Self votes are allowed. If these three individual made a post and only up voted themselves 10 times a day what would happen to them? They are no longer up voting content and other people for a curation reward they are only voting for themselves.
The down vote does serve a purpose, but it is currently not a fully functioning system. It is ignoring the large up voters that are only concerned with curation reward their vote is going to give them. Right now when it is a reward dispute the only person that is affected is the person that made the post.
Most people want to see the Hive Block Chain grow, want to see more users. Perception is very important for growth and for retaining people. Changing the system is only going to seriously effect a handful of people, the only down vote accounts and the excessive up voter accounts. balance will be reached only when the tools are available to achieve balance.
I say leave them as is. It's good this way. Downvotes are healthy and should be used more often(https://hivel.ink/short/@rishi556/short-form-content-is-contnet). It's how content gets valued. I shouldn't be forced to justify why I think something should be valued one way or another.
The current reputation system is garbage and will probably be scraped if anything better can be made so anything to do with that can just be ignored IMO. It's not an accurate measure of anything. Just look at the current user with the highest rep.
Remember, none of the rewards are yours until they get paid out. Nothing can been taken from you with a downvote. You aren't owed the rewards that you see. The community is working for 7 days to put a value on your post. A upvote just means they see it as more valuable, and a downvote as less valuable. There's lots of posts I skip voting even though I think they are good just because I think they are at a good amount of value already(but can later change my mind and vote one way or another depending on where it is).
It's a bot probably looking at its actions(can't say for sure though, there's some weird people out there). But it's not interacting with any particular UI, but directly with the chain. It's using code to downvote somehow, probably posts that match its requirements.
ENGAGEtokens.Same thing that was brought up over on steem. people just do not understand the difference between a positive action and a negative action. People that do not understand that difference will come up with all kinds of reason to take no action at all.
Do you need to justify helping a small child and old woman cross the road? Do you need to justify recklessly running them over in the street? Positive action, negative action.
There have been a few post about restricting the amount of reward a vote can give out.
Why is a downvote a negative action though? I see upvoting some posts as a negative action because they already have too much in rewards?
Why are people leaving Hive if it is a not a negative thing? Why do we see so many post about it being a negative action? I think there are really very few people that when it comes to the reward side of things that do not see it as a negative action.
I do see the down vote as positive in most instances.