Already I'm finding I can't be bothered with the upvote/downvote and have reverted back to just reading or skimming over the post and moving on, but I guess some people will indulge themselves.
Down votes aren't discouraging. Down votes from you fools are a point of pride!
blocked
it will get confusing to interpret data in any meaningful way. if there are many readers here, most are too lazy to vote. we know that already by how few votes there are. and well a known posters lack of down votes for a foolish post does not indicate how many people have simply blocked seeing the post.... there are some who i want never to see posts from but i want to make sure to down vote so they understand that i dont like their message... i guess what happens is, if enough "clear thinking" readers block a specific poster, then the blocked poster and a couple of like minded can up vote his latest foolish post . and the net effect will be 1 to 5 people upvote the post. while 20 people just blocked the post. all we'll see data for is upvotes... well i guess lots of people won't see posts or upvotes... but doesnt it kind of break your heart not to be able to pile down votes on known fools... maybe there could be an indicator of how many people have banned a poster along with the posters name when she posts.
Downvoting isn't simply gonna make someone’s disagreeable opinion a little less visible, it's potentially gonna lead to some very predictable negatively and abuse of a few marginalized posters.
How, you ask?
We could see these anonymous networked campaigns to thwart marginalized voices, and downvote anything they ever communicate simply because they don't like the person. So those people who are being downvoted either stop posting or they go dark and turn anonymous (perhaps still never bothering to post or comment on their fav threads or topics for fear of being discovered and hounded again by one or more people who don't like them).
Is someone gonna off themselves because the downvoting cyber bullies them? Who knows. Highly improbable. But, it can create a ganging up of people on particular posters simply because someone doesn't like them.
And that's not equity or inclusion. Something to consider.
Downvoting isn't simply gonna make someone’s disagreeable opinion a little less visible, it's potentially gonna lead to some very predictable negatively and abuse of a few marginalized posters.
How, you ask?
We could see these anonymous networked campaigns to thwart marginalized voices, and downvote anything they ever communicate simply because they don't like the person. So those people who are being downvoted either stop posting or they go dark and turn anonymous (perhaps still never bothering to post or comment on their fav threads or topics for fear of being discovered and hounded again by one or more people who don't like them).
Is someone gonna off themselves because the downvoting cyber bullies them? Who knows. Highly improbable. But, it can create a ganging up of people on particular posters simply because someone doesn't like them.
And that's not equity or inclusion. Something to consider.
Sherman
At first, I rolled my eyes (like most people probably did... I'm just being honest). But, I do appreciate what you're saying. It certainly would become an issue if someone just gets heavily downvoted for everything they say- even when they have valid points.
However, I believe that your post is actually quite cynical towards humanity. The underlying assumption is that people want to (or naturally) bully people with downvotes simply because they are mean. I believe in most circumstances though- this isn't actually the case. People get downvoted because they're wrong (or the majority disagrees). That's usually the cold, hard truth. I'll admit, I don't struggle with a lack of confidence, so if I posted something that was heavily downvoted, then I'd think "hmm, maybe I'm not actually right". And honestly- just being real here- that's probably the healthiest thing I could think. I'm not always right, but I think I am.
People say so many ridiculous things- this would give them a chance to see "Hmm, maybe I'm not the center of the universe and right about everything". In addition, it'd encourage better conversation. Most of the times, the conversations seem so ridiculous, I just assume everyone agrees with the negative cynicism of a few posters. So I don't even post. But now, I'm seeing that most observers of LetsRun actually don't agree with the frequent negativity. I'm actually more encouraged to post with positive dialogue, and I'm sure many others are too.
Of course, if you have low self-esteem, don't handle criticism well, and are out of touch with reality, then this system could be very damaging. I honestly don't mean that in a condescending way. I've gone through periods of depression where maybe I was this person. But, we can't always cater to those whose core issues have nothing to do with LRC to begin with, at the expense of everyone else. That's not equity either.
Hi, Rojo. Loving the changes. Can Covett get a red "troll" tag under his name? Also, a number indicating the bans he's served over the years would be nice. And maybe even GIF avatars. I've got one of Asbel Kiprop I'm dying to use.
It's not clear to me what are the practical consequences of tallying voting here. If it meant that posts were rearranged by order, then they'd become unintelligible, responding to things above or below randomly. So, it can't mean that. If it meant they disappeared, then that would have a similar effect. But it is good that the outrageous and virtually criminal be labeled accordingly, and the helpful as well. At least it will become evident that Kremlin stooges (most of the anti-vaxxers) paid to promote anti-democratic ideas here are not affirmed by the crowd, despite their many daily posts.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.