What is the purpose of down-votes?

And the threat of prison doesn't stop people from being criminals if they want to be criminals. Should we get rid of prison as well?

If a potentially harmless comment is causing you frustration, then the problem is with you.

Weren't you just arguing the exact opposite a moment ago?

And I rebutted it by pointing out an administrator with common sense would have stopped good users from being driven away by obvious trolling.

And now we're back to how criticism causes problems. Pick a side and stick with it.

I would know even without confronting you. Since you clearly confabulated excuses, the poor syntax would notify me that you were flying blind. This would be even more apparent if I read your story and compared your coherent thoughts to this comment.

Additionally, the best way to intercept lying is to press the issue. As the lie grows, the part of the brain responsible for keeping the story together becomes more stressful. As the exchange continues, your responses become further and further apart and the possibility of contradictions increases. Once you slip, I can take the exchange to an admin to deal with your actions.

Finding liars is easy once you learn their mannerisms and put them under pressure. As a story-based site, this is the ideal situation for learning.

No one is arguing it won't. That's why we have moderators. Removing anonymity facilitates their work by making the consequences for the latter two more likely, and ensures those who ignore it can be intercepted.

Also, way to steal my own point.

And I'm really getting tired of hearing this. I get it already: your rank is more important to you than your rating. But guess what? The rating is more important. I'd rather be told what I'm doing right and what I'm doing wrong than be told I'm popular.

The point was that haters are always going to exist. They're a part of the real world. You can either suck it up, give up, or go to the effort of abolishing critics.

Well, that might happen again. The new system means that the most vocal fans dictate the list. In other words, inferior stories that appeal to a crowd more likely to click like will surpass sensational stories with quiet fans.

That's how popularity works. More lovers means more people to pick at your faults.

First of all, literary fingerprints are much deeper than mere increases of semicolons. The words "of," "to," "and," "or," and "the" (among others) are more closely associated with literary fingerprints. It's actually extremely easy to develop a profile for comparison from text.

Second, again you think only in small degrees. If they try once, they may try again. If they do, then banishment work on more than the username is initiated, which in turn locks them out of their primary username.

This assumes they didn't take the hint the first time they suffered, but that's also my point. They only get one free chance. After that, they risk losing everything.

That's why the farmer has farmhands. They find the bad kernels and help the farmer dispose of them. But they can't do that if they're blindfolded.

And then we establish that this isn't a playground and actions have consequences. Order returns with a swing of the hammer.

And I've already mentioned the benefits of down-votes with comments, a point no one has yet disagreed with.

Which is exactly what happened on the forums during our trolls' eras.
Which is exactly what happened when one troll took to thr comments sections and submitting threads to the same end.
Which is exactly what could happen again at any time.
And which is exactly why I suggested removing anonymity and forcing elaboration.

I'm astonished you're actually asking this. I've answered this repeatedly. Yes, they should be objective, and is exactly why comments need to be mandatory when voting.

No one is making you read this. Just like no one made anyone care about down-votes and ranking. Although, we did something about those bits of thin skin for much the same reason...

 

I don't think at any point did I say that jerks and idiots shouldn't be punished when they're jerks and idiots.

"Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me?"

I'm pretty sure there's a slew of evidence that proves otherwise.

Hardly. If you make comments mandatory, every comment could trigger a potential shitstorm. With the old system, that would likely only be one or two comments. With the system you propose...it could be literally hundreds of comments. Each one could lead to an argument that would leave both parties angry, frustrated, and possibly banned depending on how bad it got.

My idea was to have anonymous feedback sent to the story owner/editor/writers. I never said that information would be anonymous to moderators or administrators. In fact, it would be better if it wasn't. Just to the people more likely to cause problems(those that the feedback is about).

Look, I don't care about how highly rated my story is or how popular it is. I write for fun, for practice, and experience. Go in and remove all of my chapters likes and I'll be back to writing in a week. All I want is for something that looks and feels fair to everyone. The way the site determines the "best stories" right now is weird. It is weird. I remember the first time I discovered its weirdness, I was browsing through by rating and discovered lots of popular, highly rated stories that I didn't even know existed. How is it fair to those people that their stories sit back, hidden in the depths of the search function where one has to go through dozens of pages, hundreds of stories many of which have a fraction of the likes, views, and effort that they have put into it? Especially considering how easily a story could be trashed with the dislike button. There was a period of about a month earlier in the year where I would post a chapter and within minutes there would be a dislike on it: No explanation, no argument, good, bad, long, short...whatever. It didn't matter. Of course, That's the whole crux of this conversation isn't it? Trying to fix the abuse of the system? However, i think that regardless of what the ultimate solution is...As long as the dislike button exists, people are going to abuse it and people are going to get in trouble with it and people are going to get away with it. Anonymous, not-anonymous. It doesn't matter.

I'd rather be told that what I'm doing is right or wrong too, but you typically have to be doing something right in order to get popular in the first place. Not always, but typically.

Surely there has to be a better system that doesn't involve dealing with a weighted system that relies solely on likes and dislikes? Perhaps one that also takes on weekly or monthly viewership numbers? It may make things more convoluted, but surely it's an easier pill to swallow than "Dislikes have more of an influence on a story's rating than Likes because it's weighted that way" . If a story is getting enough views to qualify it for being 'sensational', then surely if the algorithm was worked out right, it would give it more of an influence than another story that is simply highly rated, but hasn't been updated for four years.

Fair enough, but again isn't this something that needs to be actively investigated or are there literary fingerprints that are set up and developed for everyone who gets into trouble?

I mentioned it earlier in this post, but I'll mention it again. Just because the feedback would be anonymous to the writer of the chapter, doesn't mean that it would be anonymous to the moderators/admins.

Well, I'm glad that I'm not one who would have to settle disputes every week or month if your non-anonymous criticism idea come to fruition.

I don't disagree with the benefits of down-votes with comments. I disagree with the level of anonymity. Someone should never be afraid of retribution when offering criticism. There's always going to be people who abuse a rating system of any kind for personal gain or payback. However, the average user may not use the dislike button simply for fear that they may get caught up in drama that they do not want to deal with. Especially if one or two very public incidents end up happening.

So your solution is a system that would make situations like that more likely to happen, but easier to moderate? You do know that often by the time the authorities get involved, the damage typically has already been done. Feelings have been hurt, grudges have started, and people are angry.

Mandatory comments aren't going to stop people from making subjective dislikes. Then it'll be up to the admins to decide if the dislike was subjective or objective.

You know, this is a fair point. I started posting in this thread, because I wanted to offer my opinion on the subject of down votes and hoped that the discussion would benefit the site as a whole. Instead the discussion got rather heated and that doesn't really help anyone. Some of my statements may have been made in ignorance. I may have been on the site since leaving Chyoo, but I have only been active in the community only for the last 10 months or so. I didn't know for example, how the rating system works(and it's still weird). However, I didn't think that everything that I said was completely stupid...although I might be wrong.

I'm not a confrontational guy. I'm also not an angry guy and on the rare occasion I do get angry, I lose coherence. Probably why my previous post was so scatterbrained. Since I know nothing(Jon Snow), I'm going to abscond and call my participation in this thread. I'll read your reply, but probably won't respond unless my input is necessary...Which it likely won't be because I'm an unimportant nobody.

Whatever the penultimate decision is on how best to manage the dislike button; I'll live with it...As will probably most everybody on the site.

 

I don't think anything more constructive can come of this thread. The people that are for and against seem firmly placed in their respective camps. Maybe it's time to lock this one and let everyone move on.

 

Doesn't the same thing apply to writers? The most vocal writer would try to get rid of as many dislikes as possible. The quietest writer will keep the most dislikes.

In Javalar's "The Invitation", 18% of the likes comes from 3% of the chapters (they have 2% of the total views, so they are not the branching chapters). This is probably due to the fact, that he motivated the readers in these chapters to push the like button.
I suppose, you agree, that there is nothing wrong in "manipulating" the likes that way. Every writer could do that.
The author can actively promote for likes.
Can he do something similar to avoid dislikes? Should he use another account for reading and criticizing? Would that be different to anonym dislikes? Should he stop criticism and throw away the benefits of feedback?

Can you clearly determinate, who would write "Your sentences are too complicated."?
Can you be sure, that your literary fingerprint wouldn't produce false positives?
Can you be sure, that the person doesn't copy (eligible) criticism from someone else?
A literary fingerprint can be used as a clue, but not as an evidence.

No need to be astonished. There is a reason I used parentheses.
Should Likes be objective?
Should we compare subjective Likes with objective Dislikes?
About comments, see below.

Don't you have the same benefit from comments and criticism PMs?
How many readers would change their Dislike into a Like (or a neutral state) after the author adjusted the chapter?

I agree with the benefits of criticising in comments or PMs with shown username.

Is the purpose of feedback to tell the author if or how to do better?
Or is it meant to tell them "You did it wrong!"?

Are Likes motivating?
Are Dislikes demotivating?

Would a regular reader read a story which he dislikes? Should he dislike a story he likes?

Would someone who dislikes a story stop after disliking one chapter? Won't he answer "I like the story idea, but there is a lot to do with everything else" if you ask, why he disliked 50% of the chapters?

Would other readers see the reason for a bad rating?

Yeah, and we still have a holy shrine where we offer attention to that troll again and again, although he "left"* a long time ago. (*due to the work of moderators/administrator)
Don't feed the troll. Just ignore them.

The internet currently doesn't offer true real names.

A site like this should not offer real names. A writer may reveal (maybe hypothetical) intimate thoughts and dreams and probably don't want, that his employer, friends or family members would know, what he is writing about.

(This could be a compromise approach with anonym dislikes to reduce the effect of abusing the dislike button related to top stories and other rating related stuff.)



Without the dislike like button, it is much more likely, that I will leave criticism (preferably by PM).
If we have a dislike button (with mandatory comment) I would just keep my mouth shut.
Why should I invest time to provide criticism? Do I want to provoke, that one of my stories is getting targeted? How can I be sure, that every of my chapters provides perfect grammar and everything else which could be considered as not eligible for objective criticism?

 

Complete agreement.

In summary of the last two pages of the thread and week or so of 'discussion':
PROS:
1: People could again express their dislike of chapters in a meaningful way.
2: By doing so they provide feedback to tell writers what they are doing which is having a negative impact on the readers enjoyment of the story.
3: Theoretically this allows the author to improve.

CONS:
1: Downvotes have/had a disproportionate impact on the ranking of chapters and stories for the advertised "Top X" positions.
2: Making down votes require a comment invites trolling and retaliation
3: Dealing with the problem above makes more work for the moderators.
4: If the moderators fail to deal with issues promptly and adequately members of the community could be driven off leading to an implosion of the site.

SUGGESTIONS:
1: To deal with the disproportionate impact of downvotes, measure them as a numerical value instead of a percentage: 100 up votes and one down-vote would be marked as +99 instead of 99% while three down-votes and no up votes would be marked -3 instead of 0%.
2: To prevent the rest of the issues, get more moderators and...
3: expect the readers on an adult site to behave like adults.*
*(This is the internet: Have you MET us? "A person is smart. PEOPLE are dumb, panicky, animals and you know it!"
~ Agent K, Men In Black 1.)

 

Prisons do more than punish. They also discourage. However, that doesn't always work. That's why it's also punishment. You seem to believe one won't deliver the other.

And that slew of evidence will prove the problem is with you. As I said, no one is making you listen. You can log out, admit I'm full of it, or anything besides cry in a corner.

Why? There's no difference between the negative comments being left now and negative comments left with a dislike.

So you want it to be the moderator's responsibility to read every single comment to try and establish a pattern of abuse rather than let the community establish it one comment at a time in their free time?

They also got less dislikes than these more popular stories. Popularity doesn't necessarily mean fame. It can also mean infamy. Plus, more popularity means more haters. That's how voting works: the loudest run the show. And the problem is those haters don't have to be intercepted since we can't prove they're haters without comments.

As long as the like button exists, it will be abused.
As long as the forum exists, it will be abused.
As long as people are allowed to think and speak their minds, it will be abused.
The answer is to instill responsibility and punish those who lack it. Not strip away anything that could be abused.

Why? Just because the story is popular and active doesn't mean it's the best.

Think like the police. They only get your DNA and fingerprints in the system once you do something wrong. Once you mess up, you're investigated. We're intercepting it in the early stages, not in the calm after the storm.

And thus the farmhands are blind while the farmer is overworked.

So now most people won't react maturely. Now we're not banning trolls. Now we're arguing the looming hammer doesn't mean anything again.

Back to maturity. Okay.

And those one or two public incidents resolved quickly because someone was there to intercept it. The message is clear: getting even gets you banned.

First, again, they're just as likely to happen now since we have comments. All that changes is we eradicate all doubt. In a way, it can reduce occurrences by eradicating all doubt of a comment's intentions.

Second, detectives get involved when it's too late. Patrol officers get involved in the middle of the situation, sometimes when no violence has occurred due to the nature of the crime.

Third, the biggest problem with police investigations is "Stop snitching!" People who abide that rule resolve problems themselves instead of involving the police.

Point three is my entire point. We do better if everyone is actively investigating, not just the small number of moderators.

Giving undeserved likes and dislikes requires one vocal person. Keeping them requires everyone to be silent. Just because the story owner is quiet doesn't mean that readers will be.

I'll respond to this when it becomes consistent. You go from wanting to stop dislikes to pointing out why we should encourage dislikes.

You do remember that I said there's more than simple words, right. Just what I've listed is merely the tip. And it's as likely to produce false positives as regular fingerprints. So yes, it is evidence.

Well, more astonishment. Yes, likes too should be objective. Subjectivity os supposed to be done with favorites and bookmarks. But now you want to argue that subjectivity and trolling should be held to the same standards. This is the power of the word "should." People aren't going to use these the way they should, but that doesn't mean they're wrong in using it this way.

And I'll ask again: how do I separate the critical commemts from the ego stroking?

Something else I've already argued we should have the right to do.

You obviously know the answer, but the fact is it's used both ways. Just like the dislikes, and we did away with that.

It exists because we're enjoying our time laughing at him. And he's still reaching out to be made part of CHYOA again. That shrine exists to set mew users straight and issue a warning to all future trolls.

And who is saying anything about teal names? Try reading a topic before you start discussing it.

Why? Because you fear backlash via dislike?

So even though you could leave a comment without a dislike, you won't?

You just said you would.

Are you going to be a jerk about it?
If someome takes it the wrong way, are you going to behave like a child as well?

And the answer is yes, you should put up your story as a gamble. After all, the person who counterattacks will as well.

And to those who want a lock, you're going to want to report the thread. Usually I'm the one who locks the threads on the forum, and I'm not in a position to make that decision for this thread.

 

So people use Likes and Dislikes with subjective reasons and are right doing so? Then, what would be the reason to delete a Dislike?

Would the reader do it on his own or would it be another moderation effort?
Would every author know, that he can/should call for it?

You can still give feedback in comments and PM.

If you are anonymous with one named account and you know how to do you can be anonymous with another named account.
Only a connection to a real name could prevent this.

I won't gamble if I can't win but loose.
I would take the time if I can't win and can't loose.

So the only reason is, that you don't have the time to read the comments?


Wouldn't a PM with the tag "criticism" fulfil that needs?

 

Read the topic. I beg of you. I've already answered all of this, and I'm getting sick of repeating myself.

Dislikes are deleted if they are malicious, made not due to problems or personal opinion, but due to personal motivations. It requires common sense on the part of the administration, but it's easily accomplished with experience.

Users should be able to rerate personally. Otherwise, we just do away with likes.

Still doesn't tell me which comment is the most pressing.

Really? Care to prove that?

Or we investigate flagged accounts and bar anonymous email sites like HideMyAss. The sad truth is anyone who's dumb enough to go through the trouble to circumvent a banishment isn't smart enough to cover every base.

So helping your fellow CHYOA users isn't a win for you? Improving the quality of the whole site isn't a win to you?

And how does a comment distinguish from dislikes in that regard?

READ THE TOPIC!

Yes, I only have time for you guys when I'm doing cardio or it's the middle of the night. Most of us have actual lives. Something to sort the comments is necessary.

And how does that provide any meaningful distinction from a dislike with a comment? I can literally turn every comment you've made against dislikes back against you with that idea.

 

Then the conclusion is, that likes and dislikes may be subjective, as long as they aren't malicious (trolling, war).
So, if I dislike a kink (personal opinion), it is no problem to dislike the chapter.

Users would rather "click and forget"

Well, the last sentence can be true, but I wouldn't build on human error and missing knowledge anyway.

Of course, it is.
If not, I wouldn't maintain parts of the CHYOA Guide, wouldn't answer questions from the comments and the forum, probably wouldn't try to improve CHYOA with additional features and surely wouldn't participate in that thread.

But giving someone a bad criticism isn't THAT satisfying, that it would be worth it.

It is tagged as "important". You would see that it is a critical comment. You could still call it dislike.
The difference is, that all the possibilities that can occur around it, won't happen.

One purpose of a discussion is to give everyone the chance to show their opinion.
Another purpose of a discussion is to give the participants the chance to adjust their opinions with new information and ideas. If you start a discussion with an irreversible opinion, you should not participate.
Another purpose of a discussion can be to find something, that would serve the need of everyone as best as possible.

The majority of my comments wouldn't be affected by this idea, as most things are related to the negative effects of a dislike to the story rating.
And it is just a thought, I could live with - and I suppose, that the most opponents of dislikes could too.

 

For the love of all that is holy will a moderator who is not involved in perpetuating this argument please shut down this thread? I am sick to death of a trio of people who should, by their own statements, know better, clogging my ALERTS with this pointless dick waiving contest!

 

So there's no reason to ever read it again? They felt strongly enough to read and rate, but not enough to see if criticism was taken to heart?

Besides, as you keep reminding me, there's always PMs to draw attention back.

And thus you have no clue how to read people. Treating people like people is the only way to figure them out.

Difference of opinion then. Because frankly, improving people's ability and weeding out the bad eggs before they do any serious damage is vastly more important than improving functionality in my opinion.

Really?

Would people not find this "essentially a dislike" to be demotivating?
Would people never compare the number of criticisms to the number of ego strokes? (essentially an unofficial story rating)
Could they never be misused to troll someone and nerf a story?

Even more I could use in a game of turnabout.

 

yes, but with less effect.

The author can decide for himself if the criticism is eligible and - yes - he can be annoyed about it, no matter of the content. The same what can happen with a public comment. No other readers could compare the number of criticism-PMs with the likes a chapter gets.

they can, but with less effect.

You are still avoiding to answer the question if this would be a solution or why it would be worse than both other ways of handling dislikes.

 

Really? And how is there less effect?

So what difference is there between comment-required dislikes and dislike-free comments?

And therein lies two additional problems:

1.) If done as PMs, a single editor and writer will be bombarded with identical concerns due to no one having a point of reference to know whether or not they should drop these criticisms. The effect is identical to having no point of reference under the current system.

2.) If the writer or editor refuses to admit there are problems, how exactly does everyone else know not to waste their time, on either reading or criticizing?

Again, how so?

Does me saying "turnabout" alongside all of these holes I'm punching into your arguments really not make it clear? If you really need me to spell it out for you, here it is: even under your best intentions, all you're proposing is a lateral move. We have exactly the same effects, but via much more effort. Under the worst conditions (which I have not addressed until this post), you've created a system in which there's trolls hiding in plain sight, no community watch against trolling, cases and evidence of trolling going unreported by users who would rather handle it themselves, no outside parties to hit report and create intervention until someone runs out of things to say. no system of forewarning to other users, a dramatic increase in negative sentiment reaching the editor and writer, an increase in time wasted on the part of parties who did not sign up for more laborious efforts, and a perception-based average rating for users' abilities (as opposed to an average that's mathematically calculated).

 

Hey there, reading this thread made me want to say just this.

Critics hurts.
Always.
If you ever (and i'm sure you did) create something, you know that the thing you made, whatever it is, is like a child to you.
Or a part of you, good or bad that it is.
So the fist reaction when it gets criticized is being hurt and to try to defend it.
Pretending not, is silly.
What you do after that, it's another question...
Someone acts more mature, someone other less.

Imho you should stop trying to find a way to protect writers from bad feedback.
It's impossible.
It weights all on the shoulders of the person who write the feedback to give a good one.
To be sensible.
To take in account the effort.
To set aside presonal taste.

You can't force people to give good feedback.
You can't force your community to grow either.
You can just plant the seeds, pour some water and wait.
And occasionally trim out the bad leafs.

If the matter is just about ratings and popularity, then i don't know what to say.
I find that the most accurate meter for popularity should be views, as a good story gets read over and over, while votes can be cast just one time per user.

Just the two cents of a passerby.

 

You say that Dislikes (with negative rating and public comments) are no problem, because of your experiences and assumptions about human behaviour. (as described above)
I say that they are a problem, because of my experience and assumptions about human behaviour. (as described above)

So, you don't punch holes in my arguments, because our arguments don't rely on concrete facts but experience and assumptions. (as my do)
After all, it appears, that you won't convince me of your opinion as I won't convince you of mine.

 

Wrong again. I made it very clear, from the get-go, that there are problems. The differences between this proposed system and the previous system are that under the proposed system:

We're not hiding the problems where no one can see them without specifically looking for them via privacy invasions.
We're not taking it on faith that the parties directly involved do the right thing.
We're not putting ourselves in a situation where the problems can't be settled until it's too late to do any good.
We're not preventing people from witnessing the transpiring situations and acting on them.

Really? Looks quite different from where I'm standing, given how I'm pointing out every thing you've suggested carries the same effects as dislikes at the cost of more work. I find this especially so since you've yet to provide any reasoning behind your rebuttals; not even my little game of saying "turnabout." Something, by the way, I find extremely hypocritical after your recent demand for me to spell it out, something I've been demanding of you for the past few posts. And I find it very revealing that this massive evasion occurs immediately after I leave my criticisms splayed across the table without matching your facetious questions with some of my own. Similarly, you did say there's nothing that would convince you dislikes are a good idea after scolding me and saying a person needs to be open-minded when entering a discussion. Noticing a trend in your words and actions yet?

 

Thanks to everyone who has voiced their opinion.

Since this discussion became heated, probably more than intended, I close this thread.