You really don't seem to understand the mechanics of link aggregators and their comment sections. The votes are for curating content and downvoting posts that are not relevant or are poor quality is the entire point of the system. If you remove the ability to downvote bad content, you degrade the content for all the users. This is exactly why YouTube removing the dislike counter was an issue.
You already said the youtube thing.
Upvoting posts that are relevant or good quality and ignoring the rest does work though. There are several instances right now where it is working.
It works perfectly fine as a content curation method. I have no way to prove this for this, but it wouldn't surprise me if it works better.
You can't ignore bad posts when they get inflated ranking because no one can downvote them off the front page lol.
They never are on the front page. Idk why you don't get this. If I sort by new I see them but only then. If I did see a post on the front page that I don't like, obviously it is just a matter of taste. It doesn't bother me that I can't downvote it.
You really don't understand how removing the recourse from users to downvote bad content is a negative to any link agregator? Do you just never go to small subs and see less than 5 posts from the last week and not understand that someone could just flood those communities with poor content and the only recourse is for mods to ban that user who could have not even violated their rules? This is to say nothing of how bad nitch communities are already on Lemmy, if we remove the users ability to group moderate it would be even worse.
If I was moderating a small community and someone flooded it with unwanted content, I would consider that spam, which I would have against the rules.
So it would be a perfectly reasonable ban for an explicit rules violation.
It's not spam, it's content within the rules, it just bad. That's the situation we're trying to avoid so that bad content is seen by the least amount. Of users. When you can't downvote bad content, the moderators have to remove the content so we have just pushed more work onto moderators. Congratulations.
Lots of bad content posted excessively is spam. I refuse to let you handwave that, that is what spam is. But I'd like to be done here, I'm not enjoying this back and forth. You keep whatever opinion you want.
So how do you know it's bad content if no one downvoted it? A lack of upvotes does not mean it's bad, it could easily mean no one saw it and they simply fall of their first page too quickly to ever see it, a common issue on Lemmy. You're just making a judgement on what is or isn't good content, meaning the quality is no measured by the mods, not the users.
Simple. If the post is old and has no upvotes, I assume everyone else thought it was bad.
But really, on a post by post basis, I make up my own mind? Do you not? Like, do you decide whether or not you like a post based on the votes it has? Because I just, like it or dont like it.
You're a moderator, not a publisher. You don't decide what is or is not good content, you decide what is or is not against the rules. If "bad content is not allowed" is a rule, witch it virtually is if you remove posts because no one upvotes them, then why would anyone post to a community that forces you to appease the mods before anyone else has seen your post. The downvotes mean the mods need to do less work and the community can self moderate good posts and good content with the push of a button. How you do not understand that pushing down bad content is fundamental to link aggregation and combating community vote manipulation after all the shit that happened in Reddit, even through the downvotes, is beyond me.
This is silly. I just disagree with I think all of it. Spam is bad and should be against the rules. Part of what made me personally so ready to leave reddit was the toxicity, and the favorite toy of the toxic redditor is the downvote.
this isn't about what you agree with, your only counter to a situation where bad content can reach more people because no one can push it down is that it would never get upvoted in the first place, witch isn't the issue with not having downvotes.
You really don't seem to understand the mechanics of link aggregators and their comment sections. The votes are for curating content and downvoting posts that are not relevant or are poor quality is the entire point of the system. If you remove the ability to downvote bad content, you degrade the content for all the users. This is exactly why YouTube removing the dislike counter was an issue.
You already said the youtube thing.
Upvoting posts that are relevant or good quality and ignoring the rest does work though. There are several instances right now where it is working.
It works perfectly fine as a content curation method. I have no way to prove this for this, but it wouldn't surprise me if it works better.
You can't ignore bad posts when they get inflated ranking because no one can downvote them off the front page lol.
They never are on the front page. Idk why you don't get this. If I sort by new I see them but only then. If I did see a post on the front page that I don't like, obviously it is just a matter of taste. It doesn't bother me that I can't downvote it.
You really don't understand how removing the recourse from users to downvote bad content is a negative to any link agregator? Do you just never go to small subs and see less than 5 posts from the last week and not understand that someone could just flood those communities with poor content and the only recourse is for mods to ban that user who could have not even violated their rules? This is to say nothing of how bad nitch communities are already on Lemmy, if we remove the users ability to group moderate it would be even worse.
If I was moderating a small community and someone flooded it with unwanted content, I would consider that spam, which I would have against the rules.
So it would be a perfectly reasonable ban for an explicit rules violation.
It's not spam, it's content within the rules, it just bad. That's the situation we're trying to avoid so that bad content is seen by the least amount. Of users. When you can't downvote bad content, the moderators have to remove the content so we have just pushed more work onto moderators. Congratulations.
Lots of bad content posted excessively is spam. I refuse to let you handwave that, that is what spam is. But I'd like to be done here, I'm not enjoying this back and forth. You keep whatever opinion you want.
So how do you know it's bad content if no one downvoted it? A lack of upvotes does not mean it's bad, it could easily mean no one saw it and they simply fall of their first page too quickly to ever see it, a common issue on Lemmy. You're just making a judgement on what is or isn't good content, meaning the quality is no measured by the mods, not the users.
Simple. If the post is old and has no upvotes, I assume everyone else thought it was bad.
But really, on a post by post basis, I make up my own mind? Do you not? Like, do you decide whether or not you like a post based on the votes it has? Because I just, like it or dont like it.
You're a moderator, not a publisher. You don't decide what is or is not good content, you decide what is or is not against the rules. If "bad content is not allowed" is a rule, witch it virtually is if you remove posts because no one upvotes them, then why would anyone post to a community that forces you to appease the mods before anyone else has seen your post. The downvotes mean the mods need to do less work and the community can self moderate good posts and good content with the push of a button. How you do not understand that pushing down bad content is fundamental to link aggregation and combating community vote manipulation after all the shit that happened in Reddit, even through the downvotes, is beyond me.
This is silly. I just disagree with I think all of it. Spam is bad and should be against the rules. Part of what made me personally so ready to leave reddit was the toxicity, and the favorite toy of the toxic redditor is the downvote.
this isn't about what you agree with, your only counter to a situation where bad content can reach more people because no one can push it down is that it would never get upvoted in the first place, witch isn't the issue with not having downvotes.