Yesterday I saw a couple of religious posts downvoted by a bot, somebody was taking the time to give them an upvote so they would be visible. So no, I don't think downvotes are of any use, while I have this feeling that there must be a creator somewhere I am definitely not a fan of religion or of reading what other people think about it, but I do think they have all the right to write about what they believe in, downvoting is just taking away their right to do so, and then the person who is upvoting could give that uvote to a more deserving post but doesn't because he thinks the post deserves to be seen even if he wouldn't have voted for it otherwise, have you thought about that?
As for the stats of the downvote, what was the activity level, more or less than the previous month? Yes, I know the percentage went slightly down, but if less people are engaging it means that probably most of the people who are posting are people who don't get downvoted.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
It is, the two posts I am talking about were hidden because of a downvote. Why, because somebody doesn't like religious content? So yes, the people who posted these two articles were denied the right to be seen because somebody doesn't like that kind of content.
You don't need to downvote something to the point that it is hidden (below zero). Just make a smaller downvote. If it is earning a reward of $ 50 and you think it is not worth more than a dollar you can easily knock the reward down a few dollars or a few cents or whatever without even coming close to hiding it.
IMO the vast majority of downvotes should not to the point of hiding anything or downvoting content with little or no rewards (which is more likely to hide it) but rather reducing the excessive rewards of milkers from pulling too much out of the reward pool and thereby preventing others from earning anything.
But that is what happens, the two posts I talk about were Christian posts, OK I am agnostic so I really shouldn't care, but if the only reason for downvoting them was that they are against the downvoter's ideals or beliefs (in this case I don't know if that applies as the downvoter is a well known bot) then you can obviously see the problem with downvoting.
And yet I have seen these days a lot of posts by one person who upvotes himself, is posting the same thing ten times, and none of you downvoting gurus who swear by downvoting have seen the need to downvote this. Are you guys afraid of downvoting him, or is it just cool to downvote someone when he can't hit back? See, I am against downvoting but if it has to be done do it fairly and do it completely don't be afraid of the consequences.
I've downvoted probably more than almost anyone else on the entire platform so don't look at me when it comes to people not downvoting.
Probably a good part of the problem is that downvotes are so extraordinarily rare (I had previously heard 0.01% to 0.1% but here we are seeing 0.005% which is really negligible) which turns every single downvote into some sort of man-bites-dog type of story.
If we're able to get downvotes used more frequently by more people then more of them will be about pushing back against reward milking, as is intended.
Oh, come on, you understood what I was trying to say (English isn't my native language). And yes you can see them but who is going to open an article that is nearly faded out, this means it was downvoted, so naturally you think it is plagiarism, hate or some other nasty thing so that is one article that gets no eyes on it after the downvote.