Just wish there were more transparency around counts and content engagement.
I firmly believe most influencer these day were propped up with payed views and botted engagement. Not that lemmy is the same but it all feels so dirty.
I prefer votes being semi-anonymous. The vote counts are technically public, you just have to use software that displays them, but that added barrier is enough for most people to never check and that is how I prefer it. I feel like seeing voter names just encourages getting into pissing contests about “why did you downvote me” which I don’t want to happen because: A, votes don’t matter and B, if someone downvoted without commenting they probably don’t want to spend half an hour arguing in comments.
if someone downvoted without commenting they probably don’t want to spend half an hour arguing in comments.
Bingo.
This is precisely my reason for why they should be public.
In my view downvotes should be used sparingly, only to suppress spam and trolling comments that don’t add to the conversation.
By keeping votes private people just downvote anything they disagree with
So what are you going to do with the knowledge that I downvoted your comment?
You have no reason to so I presume you haven’t.
If we were actually in a discussion and you started downvoting all my comments I’d see it as a sign of pettiness and disengage.
I’d probably also tag you as a reminder to myself not to engage with you again.
You have no reason to so I presume you haven’t.
I’m telling you I downvoted your comment.
You got your answer, I guess.
I guess. I don’t get it. If I refused to talk to anyone if they ever downvoted me, I would run out of people to talk pretty quickly.
Wouldn’t that give trolls a juicy target to harass, thus leading into people not bothering to downvote to avoid the harassment?
That’s what the report and block tools are for.
If it occurs harassment is an issue for moderators and admins to deal with.
Because the reason for a vote is personal and different to everyone.
If I see a post with a title containing 20 emojis, I downvote it. Doesn’t matter the content of the post.
Now, assume that post was about fighting for lgbt rights or fighting against anti-abortion legislation. Some moral crusader sees my downvote and immediately calls me a bigot. When, from my perspective, all I did was downvote a bunch of emojis.
Take that idea and expand it.
This. One thing I couldn’t stand about Reddit was seeing people who could be doing anything else with their lives, but decided it worthwhile to “background check” other posters.
This was a big thing with Twitter too. “Oh, they follow such-and-such in their list of 10,000 follows, who turned out to be bad in recent news, so this person’s views are worthless and they must also be bad!”
Like, being able to have a quick glance and be like “Ah this is clearly a bot / hate-troll / what-haves”, can be handy for some sense of accountability, but purity-testing and association-mobs are the stuff of cautionary science fiction, and should be avoided.
100% agreed.
I wish people would respond to the comment, not the commenter.
I’ve seen it too often on Lemmy too.
Most are of what you describe, but not all of them. I have seen valuable background checks before (back on Reddit). I specifically remember an elaborate post about bots/botnet.
I don’t like your dismissive qualification of “have so little going on in their lives”. Some background checks are good and important. Dismissing people who are willing to invest into that in general, but also dismissing people who “have nothing better to do” for their situation, feels like an awful, uncalled-for, inappropriate insult.
/edit: Rewording to better get my point across.
Sorry I didn’t mean to cause any offense but maybe I can clarify too. The people I’m referring to are what’s referred to often as “terminally online.” They could be doing anything with themselves and their lives, but instead they’re choosing to deep-dive on anonymous message board posters they disagree with, so they can tear them apart or call them out for some post made years ago, or an assumed affiliation or belief, that kind of thing.
It’s a choice to be vindictive and petty to people.
Like, yeah you’re right, sometimes looking at post histories and such can be helpful to unmask a bot net or a troll riling up a community, but I’m referring to people doing it just to be obsessively petty and vindictive to strangers.
But okay, in good faith I’ll add “decide they have nothing better to do” to emphasize one’s free will, because the joke is that anybody could be doing better than trying to dig up personal beef on each other over message boards when nothing is at stake lol.
I don’t have a strong opinion on the matter, but it really seems like it would encourage stalking and revenge-downvotes.
The thing about any stalking and revenge downvotes is that everybody would be able to immediately see exactly what was happening, due to the added transparency. Rules could very easily be made against this. So, when I see this argument it strikes me as a bit of a red herring.
What I think is really going on, is some people want to be able to stalk and downvote bomb without being recognized, which the current system allows.
Now I really wanna go investigate who downvoted this comment
What are you going to get out of knowing I downvoted their comment?
How would such rules work across federation?
Sure, one instance can make their rules regarding it. But if everything they federate with ignore them, do they have to exclude all federated votes? Would they have to filter all votes according to some technical-representable rules?
Hm. That’s a good question. It’d be up to that specific instance owner to take action, which not all would. Though even without an applicable rule, I think the transparency alone would cut down on the behavior more than people think.
deleted by creator
I don’t love the idea that Nazis can lookup that I voted against their propaganda when it appears here.
Piefed has supposedly implemented a workaround to allow for private voting.
Oh, neat!
I’m not sure what you’re referring to here.
If you mean like to see who upvoted and who downvoted you, you can actually see that on Mbin. It’s a Lemmy fork that allows you to see exactly who upvoted and downvoted your comments or posts. Lemmy just didn’t add that function itself.
If you mean a Karma total, because it just harbors a competition. If people are posting just to get their number higher then they don’t care about the community or engagement. They just want a bigger number on their account. I don’t post a fuckload because I want Karma, I post a fuckload because I like lemmy and wanna give it some content because I have saved content.
First, I wasn’t talking karma count, I think that is toxic.
To answer the rest, I guess I would like to have the option of seeing who voted native to the main site.
I don’t like downloading apps or installing plugins.
Mbin is not an app or a plugin. It is a fork which means that it took the basecode of Lemmy and repurposed it into something else. Some instances have then used Mbin, like fedia.io. It just happens to be that lemmy.world doesn’t include that function because it uses Lemmy as its base and not Mbin.
Mbin is able to completely interact with Lemmy, mind you, so it’s not seperate in anyway other than how it works.
So, you’re saying I have to change my instance? Which would be fine and I am already debating just that.
If you want to see who specifically upvoted or downvoted, then yes. If you want the general numbers you can stay here.
Personally I’ve never understood the obsession with seeing who votes for you. I post constantly and have people who follow me about downvoting me everywhere. If I was checking who was downvoting me all the time, I’d never get shit done.
I don’t see the interest in who voted what on my stuff, but it could be interesting to do some analysis of system-wide voting behaviors. The bigger Lemmy gets the more of a problem it’s going to have with bots. People will need to create tools to identify these bots, and voting behavior seems like the primary data source.
i need to know who downvoted me so i can ban them
Mbin shows who upvoted, but it does not show who downvoted. Kbin used to show both, but there are no active Kbin servers anymore.
I was just thinking about kbin. It died? I signed up long ago but didn’t really use it.
It leads to low quality communities banning people who downvote their posts, artificially inflating their engagement metrics
If you want to read up on people’s objections, there’s load of comments at https://lemmy.world/post/18805474 and the GitHub Issue it links to at https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issues/4967
I’m not personally in favour of ideas about voting privacy (I think it’s a bit anti-Fediverse and hampers backfilling), but those who disagree tend to feel more strongly about it than I do, so I try to avoid arguments about it.
To be clear - are you asking about a breakdown of who voted which way or just a per comment/post total (i.e.
+6)Sigh
I’m going to have to repost aren’t i?
This seems like a you thing. I mean, with no big algorithmic promotion engine and no immediate reward for upvotes I just don’t see the point either way.There’s like a dozen of us around here and no prize for being popular. Who gives a crap? It’s a little button thingy that helps you feel like you did a thing to the thing wihtout having to write a post and clutteirng the feed. It does its job.
You know what I’m really against? People asking leading questions in asklemmy.
Who says I am?
Votes don’t matter. They are the hide button of Lemmy.
This may be overthinking things a bit but…
I mod a desert of a sub for my alma mater, and I’m pretty sure the same person downvotes everything I post there. No comments, just a single downvote. As a mod I would love to be able to confirm my suspicions, but as a user, I like my votes to be anonymous.
As a middle ground, perhaps the software itself could auto-mod a bit. If a single user only ever downvotes content from a community, and crosses a certain threshold, they might be soft-banned for some number of days with a note in the mod log to the effect of “negative contribution.” After some amount of time, the ban is automatically lifted. If a community mod notices that the same user keeps getting soft-banned every 30-something days (the soft-ban limit plus some amount of time for it to kick back in), they can decide if they want to ban the user.
There’s certain content that will always get downvoted.
If communities were standing alone, that idea would work. But communities are hosted and shared on an instance. I find it questionable in that context; it’s a slippery slope.
Should an instance’s users be able to vote on every community they see in their local feed, or should only community members be able to? Instance admins may decide a community does not violates instance rules, while users may feel like it does not fit the spirit or goals or mentality of an instance.
It could work if only community members can vote in their communities. Then you could make community-specific decisions and consequences, and the border of instance and community would be separated by definition.
I’d like to just see the name of the moderator that is banning me from 50 different communities they have the free time to moderate even if I’ve never posted in them because they disagreed with my opinion in one of them. I like to know who has skin thinner than the rice paper around a Botan candy.
If you view the modlog from an mbin instance it shows which mod took the action. The mbin modlogs aren’t very good for searching through, but a recent action should be easy enough to see
it was davel and it was for being a liberal
Yeah I figured that was the reason.
Out, loud, and proud
homosexualliberal (actually I am also homosexual)! Fuck tankies!
You shouldn’t read too much into being banned from 50 communities - it’s just a fudgy workaround for being banned from the instance.
Upvotes are public if you use mbin, not sure why downvotes are hidden
I firmly believe most influencer these day were propped up with payed views and botted engagement.
How does any of that apply to Lemmy? There’s no commercial interests represented here. I’m not following anyone on Lemmy because of their amount of upvotes. I’ll occasionally look at the heavily downvoted to see if its a opposing view I should consider, but mostly I see those are just trolling/racism/misogyny.
I like the different here over reddit for Karma. There’s no “score” and therefor no incentive for farming Karma and all the negatives that creates. We’re all equal here.
edit: to my downvoter. Thank you for perfectly proving my point. The whole thread is actually asking for opinions on why each of us holds a position on upvote/downvote transparency, and you downvote my valid opinion. I don’t need the vote transparency to tell me who you are, your downvote on this tells me everything I need to know about you and how to value your opinion.
deleted by creator
Oh? The answer requested by the OP is purely subjective. There is no right answer. Each of our answers is right for us, which is why the OP asked “Why are you personally…”.
There is no objectively right answer here, therefore all personal opinions are valid.
deleted by creator
your supposition that there’s no commercial interests here is incorrect. just because it hasn’t manifested yet doesn’t mean it isn’t lurking beneath the surface
Wait, are you agreeing with me that commercial interested doesn’t exist yet? I’m making no claims about the future of it.
I sure don’t, I just wanted to extended a bit of “friendly” courtesy to point out the hypocrisy in your own words. In one breath you celebrate the freedom that comes from being unrestrained by vote count–and in the other your unabashedly chastise someone for daring to downvote your opinion and in turn sharing their opinion of your opinion.
You’re framing what occurred incorrectly. The OP is calling for vote transparency, as in ownership of the upvote or downvote to the person casting it. I’m saying that the ownership of the upvote or downvote is irrelevant. I’m proving my point because I don’t care who cast the downvote on my post.
It would be hypocrisy if I was claiming that knowing the ownership of the upvote/downvote doesn’t matter, and if I then demanded to know who downvoted me. I’m doing not such thing. I celebrate the anonymity of the downvoter. I just don’t put any stock in their downvote, which is my entire point that upvote/downvote ownership knowledge isn’t required or desired by me. Even if you disagree with my opinion, which you’re welcome to, its consistent and without hypocrisy .
Don’t worry, I swear I won’t form a complex opinion of you that’s too harsh. you certainly haven’t said anything that would warrant a strong opinion anyway.
I’m a rando on the internet to you. I am very glad you don’t put enough stock in anything anyone says on a random message board that would cause you any strong feelings positive or negative.
