Respectfully disagree. Downvoting is part of the system and essential to maintain balance and limit harmful reward concentration.
We need to normalize it and remove the stigma otherwise careless or abusive whale voting that concentrates payouts will (and in many ways has) destroyed the ability of most users to ever earn anything. (I credit @beanz, who, when downvoting posts that I was supporting, made this statement about 'getting rid of the stigma' and I agree. I'd note, by the way, that I never attacked her or criticized her for how she chose to vote, even while disagreeing on the merits).
Numerous suggestions have been made to improve the situation, for example replacing the flag icon with a more neutral downvote icon, removing the pending payout amount (or replacing it with a cold-warm-hot icon) or other changes that will help avoid hurt feelings that occur due to common misunderstandings of the voting process. It is up to the team to implement these or others. One good change that has been made is removing the flag count which, though not in this case, caused hurt feelings when a large number of Sybil flags were placed. More improvement along those lines is needed.
I would like it if the stigma could be removed but we've had this down voting system a long time now and whether a user is old or new or understands what the down vote is we are getting the same bad results.
At this point I think we should be trying alternatives to down voting posts, such as vote negation, where it is the voter who put the post on the trending page when they shouldn't have (in your opinion) who gets down voted.
That way if you don't like the way 3 different accounts voted together on somebody very much loved by the community such as @karenmckersie, you will have to down vote the voters (as your comment suggests you wanted to).
I don't see how that would help. The poster would still see "their" earnings drop from $50 to $30 and feel they have been attacked or slighted. It could be slightly better in terms of allocation of curation rewards but from the poster's perspective, much the same. IMO the only way forward on this is to overcome the stigma, including with some UI changes. Sites like Youtube have a balanced upvote/downvote system and it works. I just looked on Youtube trending and the top 5 have between 60% and 90% upvotes. I imagine those posters feel happy about it, and do not feel attacked because 10-40% felt differently.
The difference it would make would be to hold the voter accountable since the author is not responsible for their post rewards. Curators would have to rethink their curation of too many people disagree with them. Currently it doesn't matter enough when a large amount of SP holders disagree with your vote. Vote negating would make it matter to voters that bit more.
The difference it would make would be to hold the voter accountable since the author is not responsible for their post rewards
I don't think you understand how vote negation works. If one voter upvotes a post (call this voter A) and a second voter (call this one B, and assume the same vote power as A) negates the first voter, then the upvote is canceled out and the post rewards would drop to the point where they would be if A did not upvote. In fact. the drop is identical to what it is now when B just downvotes. The main difference is that without vote negation, A would still get a portion of the curation rewards and with vote negation would not.
So yes, in effect, the voter is held accountable (and loses curation rewards as a result), but from the perspective of the poster, who is either way not earning as a result of the upvote, it is much the same.
I'm not saying this form of negation is bad necessarily, but it doesn't solve the problem with people being upset when "their" earnings drop.
I completely understand all of that. And in the case of @karenmckersie who is a very confusing target for a downvote the result may well be the same. But adding the accountability to the voter makes the voter rethink, especially if their votes are regularly negated. Currently it's too easy to gain 25% curation rewards from a post or comment that was mainly only voted on by one account.
On a side note, I don't understand why you insist on commenting your reasons for downvotes when they consistently contradict eachother. One minute it's because the post was voted up by one large stake holder, the next minute it's because there were too many stake holders voting for this... If the reason is just "Because I Can" well you don't even have to say that. Let people be the judge of your actions without sugar coating it in contradictory rationalisation.
On a side note, I don't understand why you insist on commenting your reasons for downvotes when they consistently contradict eachother. One minute it's because the post was voted up by one large stake holder, the next minute it's because there were too many stake holders voting for this... If the reason is just "Because I Can" well you don't even have to say that. Let people be the judge of your actions without sugar coating it in contradictory rationalisation.
Frankly your comment here is hostile and offensive. I look at the posts, and the voting, and then I make a decision what, if anything, to do. Often the decision is to take no action. For every post you see me downvote, there are often several others that I looked at and didn't. Now, sometimes the decision is to take action (but not always based on the exact same reason or reasons) and I feel it is a reasonable courtesy to leave a comment letting the poster know why it was done.
It is worth considering that not leaving a reason might be better. It would certainly take less of my time responding to replies to my reason. Or because, in part, by doing the poster a courtesy of explaining why placed the downvote I open up an opportunity for some hostile and aggressive person such as yourself to come along and claim that my different reasons for taking actions on different posts are somehow "contradictory" or that my reasons are actually (according to you) really "rationalizations". I haven't decided whether avoiding this abuse is worth ceasing the courtesy to the poster or not.
Your point about giving voters more of a reason to rethink is a good one. Thank you for that.
Perhaps need to leave a reply to each post that you read but decided to take no action? So people will know how much curation work is done before an action. Just think out loud..
Frankly your comment here is hostile and offensive.
Your comments toward me often come across that way too. But I take it with a pinch of salt. I consider it the nature of communicating criticism through text, a limited form of communication. Neither hostility nor offense was intentional but it's understandable you could be insulted. You've never insulted me personally but I won't lie I've found you insulting of the general community here from time to time. Again, I put it down to the nature of a limited form of digital communication.
When I have the time to be less blunt I'll try. I'm lazy about it sometimes and I can never predict how readers with their own preconceptions will interpret the tone of text.
Respectfully disagree. Downvoting is part of the system and essential to maintain balance and limit harmful reward concentration.
We need to normalize it and remove the stigma otherwise careless or abusive whale voting that concentrates payouts will (and in many ways has) destroyed the ability of most users to ever earn anything. (I credit @beanz, who, when downvoting posts that I was supporting, made this statement about 'getting rid of the stigma' and I agree. I'd note, by the way, that I never attacked her or criticized her for how she chose to vote, even while disagreeing on the merits).
Numerous suggestions have been made to improve the situation, for example replacing the flag icon with a more neutral downvote icon, removing the pending payout amount (or replacing it with a cold-warm-hot icon) or other changes that will help avoid hurt feelings that occur due to common misunderstandings of the voting process. It is up to the team to implement these or others. One good change that has been made is removing the flag count which, though not in this case, caused hurt feelings when a large number of Sybil flags were placed. More improvement along those lines is needed.
I would like it if the stigma could be removed but we've had this down voting system a long time now and whether a user is old or new or understands what the down vote is we are getting the same bad results.
At this point I think we should be trying alternatives to down voting posts, such as vote negation, where it is the voter who put the post on the trending page when they shouldn't have (in your opinion) who gets down voted.
That way if you don't like the way 3 different accounts voted together on somebody very much loved by the community such as @karenmckersie, you will have to down vote the voters (as your comment suggests you wanted to).
I don't see how that would help. The poster would still see "their" earnings drop from $50 to $30 and feel they have been attacked or slighted. It could be slightly better in terms of allocation of curation rewards but from the poster's perspective, much the same. IMO the only way forward on this is to overcome the stigma, including with some UI changes. Sites like Youtube have a balanced upvote/downvote system and it works. I just looked on Youtube trending and the top 5 have between 60% and 90% upvotes. I imagine those posters feel happy about it, and do not feel attacked because 10-40% felt differently.
The difference it would make would be to hold the voter accountable since the author is not responsible for their post rewards. Curators would have to rethink their curation of too many people disagree with them. Currently it doesn't matter enough when a large amount of SP holders disagree with your vote. Vote negating would make it matter to voters that bit more.
[nesting]
I don't think you understand how vote negation works. If one voter upvotes a post (call this voter A) and a second voter (call this one B, and assume the same vote power as A) negates the first voter, then the upvote is canceled out and the post rewards would drop to the point where they would be if A did not upvote. In fact. the drop is identical to what it is now when B just downvotes. The main difference is that without vote negation, A would still get a portion of the curation rewards and with vote negation would not.
So yes, in effect, the voter is held accountable (and loses curation rewards as a result), but from the perspective of the poster, who is either way not earning as a result of the upvote, it is much the same.
I'm not saying this form of negation is bad necessarily, but it doesn't solve the problem with people being upset when "their" earnings drop.
I completely understand all of that. And in the case of @karenmckersie who is a very confusing target for a downvote the result may well be the same. But adding the accountability to the voter makes the voter rethink, especially if their votes are regularly negated. Currently it's too easy to gain 25% curation rewards from a post or comment that was mainly only voted on by one account.
On a side note, I don't understand why you insist on commenting your reasons for downvotes when they consistently contradict eachother. One minute it's because the post was voted up by one large stake holder, the next minute it's because there were too many stake holders voting for this... If the reason is just "Because I Can" well you don't even have to say that. Let people be the judge of your actions without sugar coating it in contradictory rationalisation.
[nesting]
Frankly your comment here is hostile and offensive. I look at the posts, and the voting, and then I make a decision what, if anything, to do. Often the decision is to take no action. For every post you see me downvote, there are often several others that I looked at and didn't. Now, sometimes the decision is to take action (but not always based on the exact same reason or reasons) and I feel it is a reasonable courtesy to leave a comment letting the poster know why it was done.
It is worth considering that not leaving a reason might be better. It would certainly take less of my time responding to replies to my reason. Or because, in part, by doing the poster a courtesy of explaining why placed the downvote I open up an opportunity for some hostile and aggressive person such as yourself to come along and claim that my different reasons for taking actions on different posts are somehow "contradictory" or that my reasons are actually (according to you) really "rationalizations". I haven't decided whether avoiding this abuse is worth ceasing the courtesy to the poster or not.
Your point about giving voters more of a reason to rethink is a good one. Thank you for that.
Perhaps need to leave a reply to each post that you read but decided to take no action? So people will know how much curation work is done before an action. Just think out loud..
Your comments toward me often come across that way too. But I take it with a pinch of salt. I consider it the nature of communicating criticism through text, a limited form of communication. Neither hostility nor offense was intentional but it's understandable you could be insulted. You've never insulted me personally but I won't lie I've found you insulting of the general community here from time to time. Again, I put it down to the nature of a limited form of digital communication.
When I have the time to be less blunt I'll try. I'm lazy about it sometimes and I can never predict how readers with their own preconceptions will interpret the tone of text.