Favcount is just as much of a popularity contest as score, if not more so. Just look at an order:favcount search; the top 1000 posts are almost entirely porn. It's a completely useless metric unless you're trying to determine which posts have been jerked off to the most.
The problem is that the number of users who can score is much worse than the total number of users. Back to the question you said, your comparison may not be right. It's better to have a look at order:favcount age:<=1d and order:score age:<=1d. Besides, if you don't want to see any porn, just add this tag "rating:safe".
The apparent reasoning of (atl one of) the persons doing it still seems bizarre to me and very roundabout way of doing things, especially considering how quickly the votes appear and considering the fact you can blacklist specific tags.
I disapprove of disliking for no good reason other than apparent self convenience at the cost of others, but not strongly enough to call damnation on those folk, merely a shake of my head and a bit "I think this is in bad taste" feeling about it.
Because remember, some of them are apparently disliking those images to avoid seeing them again... thus clicking on them in the first place and getting eyeful of the thing they apparently don't want to see. That don't sound weird to anyone else? It would have been way simpler to just -male_focus and such stuff rather than dislike individual images. Seems like a very masochistic way about doing this.
Ofc, some are no doubt doing dislike streaks on images now just because of this forum post, simply to spite folk or for their own amusement, as there are plenty of trolls and/or "You can't tell me what to do" folk out there.
I disapprove of disliking for no good reason other than apparent self convenience at the cost of others, but not strongly enough to call damnation on those folk, merely a shake of my head and a bit "I think this is in bad taste" feeling about it.
There is no cost to others, because score doesn't do anything. It's just a number that some people give more value than others do, which is not the fault of users just using a feature they have access to.
What qualifies as a "good reason"? Is "I don't like this" not good enough? Why does anyone need any reason? I don't understand why so many people want to dictate how, when, and why people should vote, and harshly judge people just for using the feature.
I don't care about the score but to me the current situation looks like someone with malicious intent is using bots to upvote/downvote posts, since they get downvoted the moment it gets uploaded, which might not be look like a bot behaviour when it comes from different users but it's easy to orchestrate such a thing even with multiple users so calling it "not malicious since they're multiple users" is being thickheaded and facing away from the issue.
And this situation being handled this poorly is normal since this is not a corporation site with PR or anything, just a regular Joe like you and me on top ultimately deciding, this or that. What he decides may be groundbreaking or retarded as in this situation. So I can't really blame them.
There's the Members being able to vote, which is, I think, a good move since it can reduce the impact of the current situation without touching voting mechanics.
I don't care about the score but to me the current situation looks like someone with malicious intent is using bots to upvote/downvote posts, since they get downvoted the moment it gets uploaded, which might not be look like a bot behaviour when it comes from different users but it's easy to orchestrate such a thing even with multiple users so calling it "not malicious since they're multiple users" is being thickheaded and facing away from the issue.
You do know that voting within minutes of being uploaded is laughably easy, right? Just turn on up or downvote mode, and refresh the front page every minute. It's the easiest thing in the world. I don't know why someone would dedicate every evening to doing that, but it doesn't make them malicious, and it doesn't prove they're using bots.
One of the users has been spoken to, and NNT has provided evidence that it's not bots, beyond just being multiple users. I think the admins can make that judgement call better than we can. What evidence do you have to support that it's bots with malicious intent?
You do know that voting within minutes of being uploaded is laughably easy, right? Just turn on up or downvote mode, and refresh the front page every minute. It's the easiest thing in the world. I don't know why someone would dedicate every evening to doing that, but it doesn't make them malicious, and it doesn't prove they're using bots.
You do know that it's also easy to set up bots to look human in that fashion?
One of the users has been spoken to, and NNT has provided evidence that it's not bots, beyond just being multiple users. I think the admins can make that judgement call better than we can. What evidence do you have to support that it's bots with malicious intent?
Yes, I've seen stuff he has shown, however I don't find Relic graph data on multiple users enough of an evidence (they're informative not decisive) since you can do elaborate shit with bots. Also even if they are not bots with malicious intent (which I don't buy that some sonicsucks level retard refreshing the page every second), the problem is, there also can be in the future with this kind of dismissive attitude, so my opinion stands, it's a problem and nothing is being done about it other than softening the impact.
Honestly, anyone can create a macro program that can vote down all posts searched with a specific tag if they want. Some people may say that the down-voting just reflects the person's taste, but it's also really annoying from the perspective of the person who's affected.
So I suggest one way to prevent this. One community site I use increases a number of times I can vote down by a number of up-votings. The point is to allow users to vote up and down according to their taste, but to limit a number of down-votings. This way not only reduces indiscriminate down-voting but also helps make a healthy and positive culture because up-voting should precede down-voting.
(+) I'm not sure if this is systematically possible. But I think it will definitely help.
I see the only way out that does not limit users and does not break the site for previous posts. Rating display timeout. This will save you from the panic that someone is immediately opposed to upload post. Here you need to think about whether you need to do a long time in days or about an hour is enough. It is permissible to make the condition "or": before the approval of the post, within the first hour / several hours. The "before approval" option will allow the reviewer to "up vote" if the picture deserves it. In addition, there is the concept of "standard instinct", when, like a wave, voices increase in one direction or another. Hiding the rating will allow you to more objectively evaluate posts, not based on someone else's opinion. After the timeout expires, the effect will have a different meaning, especially with a lot of votes.
Forced "correction" of the vote by moderators and other interested parties does not sound better than the original essence of the discussion of negative voting. Everyone can vote for and against, which means there is no need to be "against everything." If desired, you can enter an individual vote rating as a percentage. If the ratio goes off scale in either direction, then the site recommends or restricts voting so that users vote in both directions.
I think we don't need to overthink this. As far as we can tell, it's seperate users.
The only thing we can do is ask them to stop because it's not doing anything as nnt said, downvotes don't matter. However, when you catch it as the uploader, you feel quite annoyed and that's the main issue here because who knows what affects that may have on users, especially new ones. I for myself know that downvotes don't really matter because I have a good understanding where a post will land in terms of score. But even I feel quite annoyed by it which results in rolling my eyes irl. No real harm is done in my case but I feel like we need to ask ourselves hew newbies would feel and user that upload stuff that doesn't get many upvotes to begin with. And I think that aspect falls flat in this discussion up until now. In other words, it's probably better to be cautious with what you downvote and one should consider the effect such a downvote may have, especially when they come in bulk.
Just now I happened to see a deleted upload: post #4919156. I remember there were dozens of scores and dozens of favcounts before. Now it's -1 socre and 0 favcount. I don't know what happened.
Just now I happened to see a deleted upload: post #4919156. I remember there were dozens of scores and dozens of favcounts before. Now it's -1 socre and 0 favcount. I don't know what happened.
Approvers can move the favorites on a deleted post to its parent, which also moves the upvotes from those favorites.
You do know that it's also easy to set up bots to look human in that fashion?
Yes, I've seen stuff he has shown, however I don't find Relic graph data on multiple users enough of an evidence (they're informative not decisive) since you can do elaborate shit with bots. Also even if they are not bots with malicious intent (which I don't buy that some sonicsucks level retard refreshing the page every second), the problem is, there also can be in the future with this kind of dismissive attitude, so my opinion stands, it's a problem and nothing is being done about it other than softening the impact.
Then what should be done about it? Are you demanding they be banned or something? Because you think they're using bots? The admins have access to way more information than we do, if they could confidently establish that rules are being broken, they would've done something about it. Why are you just assuming they've put zero time and effort into resolving this behind the scenes? Just because they aren't handling the situation however you would prefer does not mean they've just dismissed it as a legitimate issue without having looked into it.
Provence said:
No real harm is done in my case but I feel like we need to ask ourselves hew newbies would feel and user that upload stuff that doesn't get many upvotes to begin with. And I think that aspect falls flat in this discussion up until now. In other words, it's probably better to be cautious with what you downvote and one should consider the effect such a downvote may have, especially when they come in bulk.
Again we're back to "people should only downvote the way I say they can." I'm firmly in evazion's camp on this one, everyone has the right to vote however they want as long as they're not targeting specific users or breaking rules. Insisting they should withhold their right to use the feature because it might hurt someone's feelings is absurd.
blindVigil said: Then what should be done about it? Are you demanding they be banned or something? Because you think they're using bots? The admins have access to way more information than we do, if they could confidently establish that rules are being broken, they would've done something about it.
If I had a solution myself I'd have said it already, as you said, they have more information on how to fix this than we do and since evazion already said "I have no plans of removing downvotes or hiding scores.", I don't really see any fruitful solution from just looking at the situation as a user.
blindVigil said: Why are you just assuming they've put zero time and effort into resolving this behind the scenes? Just because they aren't handling the situation however you would prefer does not mean they've just dismissed it as a legitimate issue without having looked into it.
I go by the information they give us on here, Discord and recent github PRs. I don't care about how they handle it, I'm saying they are not handling it at all, just softening it, and mostly dismissing the problem. Why should I assume "what if they're handling this behind the scenes" when they are not saying anything on any platform, if ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry Christmas.
And I just gave my opinion on the subject, as kind of a review on how I feel like this is. I'm not here to argue with anyone, much less someone that dig their heels in and telling me what already has been discussed in this forum topic.
Again we're back to "people should only downvote the way I say they can." I'm firmly in evazion's camp on this one, everyone has the right to vote however they want as long as they're not targeting specific users or breaking rules. Insisting they should withhold their right to use the feature because it might hurt someone's feelings is absurd.
You can never put this in a rule.
It's merely a request to the downvoting fraction to be a bit more selective and question themselves what they're actually doing with downvotes and if that is worth to make people potentially upset. I think that's a very valid request that isn't shaking the fundamental rules of the site. If they won't adjust, then so be it. But the goal is to reach a solution everyone can be satisfied with.
The new voting system is running. See topic #19990 for details. In short: everyone can now vote, it's easier to vote from the thumbnail page, you can see who upvoted a post, and you can see how many downvotes it has.
What I expect to happen is that having more people voting will drown out these individual downvotes. I also expect that when people see a post has a negative score, and they think it doesn't deserve it, they'll upvote it to balance it out. This is a lot easier to do from the thumbnail page now.
I have banned a user in this thread for vote botting. This user used a script to automatically downvote nearly 50,000 posts between 2021-11-15 and 2021-11-16. These were mostly male focus posts or other related tags. These downvotes have been removed.
You are allowed to manually downvote things you dislike. You're not allowed use scripts to mass downvote things you dislike. Using scripts or bots to automatically upvote or downvote posts is against the rules.
This user is not the phantom downvoter that people were originally complaining about. That person is someone who I have investigated and haven't found to be automating votes. They simply vote much more often than normal, but not more than humanly possible. In any system with thousands of users, there will be always some person who downvotes more often than normal, just as there will always be some people who upvote or favorite much more often than normal. This is to be expected. As long as you're not doing things like automating votes or voting multiple times, I don't consider it to be a problem.
I updated the userscript I posted on forum #200361 to Version 4.0, which adds back in the vote up and vote down modes. For myself at least, I find clicking the thumbnail to be much easier than trying to aim for those tiny buttons.
One caveat I noticed is that the unvote mode does not update the score underneath the post. It looks like only the /post_votes/####.json endpoint does this, and not the /posts/####/votes.json endpoint. I use the latter since the post vote ID is needed for the former, which isn't reliably available by default on the post page. If this isn't a big deal, I'll leave it as is. Otherwise, the script will have to perform an additional network query every time it goes to the post page.
This site has become a real toxic shit show as of late, then again this site has pretty much ALWAYS been a toxic shitshow.
The moderators are toxic, the admins are toxic, the community overall is toxic, The artwork that is shown here is literally the only real saving grace this cesspit of a site.
