6 replies to this topic

[Luminosity]

http://www.longecity...en-supplements/

 

I've been one of the main contributors to a thread about regrowing cartilage with supplements.  It's been viewed 68,000 times.  This topic has been possibly the one I've been contacted about the most, as people search for answers to this painful problem for which Western Medicine has no answer.  This is especially an issue for people as they age.

 

I've spent many hours and thousands of dollars researching this.  I'm happy to add my knowledge.  I'd be lying if I said that the occasional pats on the back weren't important.  I'm human.  

 

For some reason, someone went through this thread voting down a lot of my contributions.  I wonder if it was a certain person.  The person even voted down innocent non-drug remedies for relief of inflammation, like epsom salts.  For some reason, that person hates epsom salts.  

 

It's very easy to abuse an anonymous feedback system which you activate at the touch of a button.  Before this system, my posts on this thread drew mostly positive.  The dynamic has changed.  

 

Someone who contributes feels less like doing it if unbalanced people are taking random potshots at them because of their own personal issues.  If this system had been in place earlier, perhaps 68,000 views might not have happened here, and thousands of people might not have received needed information.  

[Galaxyshock]

Hmm what if downvoting required that the user writes a long enough comment/reason for the feedback, and if the user tries to fill this "comment area" with random characters the voting system would be disabled for the user. It would probably eliminate some of the random down-voting and mischief. Not sure if this kind of upgrade is possible to make though.

[niner]

Luminosity, I just combed through that entire thread, (9 pages) looking for unreasonable votes directed at you. I saw tons of likes, lots of posts with no rating, and a handful of dislikes. At the end of the thread, I found your comment complaining about the neutral rating of "unsure" that was given (not by me, btw) to a post of yours. Is THAT what you're complaining about? That's basically nothing.

[Luminosity]

Galaxyshock, I think the down voting is deliberate and targeted, not random.   

 

Just having people post actual posts under their own names is the answer.  When that was the system, I basically got mostly positive feedback on that thread, now it's mostly negative.  I'm not going to post information on that thread anymore or answer anyone's questions about that subject.  

[niner]

All this over a rating that is the equivalent of "I don't understand what you mean"?  Like I told you, I went through the entire damn thread, and I'm not seeing these "negative" votes that you're complaining about. 

[tunt01]

Given the open nature the feedback system, I think everyone should expect a % of negative votes, dislikes, etc.  Even if you were a nobel prize winning scientist, someone in here is going to dislike what you have to say and downvote you.

[redFishBlueFish]

Hmm what if downvoting required that the user writes a long enough comment/reason for the feedback, and if the user tries to fill this "comment area" with random characters the voting system would be disabled for the user. It would probably eliminate some of the random down-voting and mischief. Not sure if this kind of upgrade is possible to make though.

 

I completely agree with this. Code wise, it is possible. Reddit has this problem. Which hunting and auto-downvoting is common and apparently here too.

Edited by redFishBlueFish, 10 September 2014 - 05:36 AM.