questionsshould negative votes be followed up with a…


It goes both ways...woot people are crazy with the voting. Wooters will +++up cheap crap then ---up good stuff because they cant look past the picture or items name.

It blows my mind everyday, but then again it doesn't take much to blow my mind :)


Explanations for downvotes should not be required. You wouldn't ask someone why they upvoted something.


Most of this stuff is closeout, therefore it is already starting Down. That should be clear enough. People voting down are just agreeing. Up votes should require explanations.


Why not just read through this previous and very recent discussion on the matter:

Edit - and consider this post my explanation of my downvote for your question.


@durkzilla: The questions are on the same subject I will give you that however the questions are not the same. So thanks for the link I have read that thread.

IMHO Silence is a down vote. I think the community weakens with the down vote. Now instead of someone leaving a comment explaining why the product is garbage you get twenty -'s and no comments... That is not a very useful community driven site. To me that just looks like a bunch of WOOT's provided by drive-by wooters clicking up or down following the first vote...

My goal with the question and long explanation is people like yourself that are active in the community take time to improve the community and promote healthy aspects that add value to the site and an enhanced user experience. WOOT is starting to seem more like a hot or not site with fewer relevant comments since the introduction of down votes.


@theoneill555: Thanks for the links heading there now.


@sykotek: I look at silence as a down vote. I don't see why we need to go negative to say the same thing. If a product has a 0 or -54 it says the same thing. Even more so when the one with -54 has <5 comments after 24hrs...

The goal should be increasing the user experience and product awareness. You have no idea who is WOOTing something without comments. If I could see all of the negative's came from Wooters with 95 reps or higher it may say something... Perhaps they should apply the same legend next to the WOOT number to show the quality of the voting by averaging the reputations... Thats actually a good idea...



@straightrazor: You are entitled to your opinion, but I disagree with you.

A down vote is a down vote. Silence is an indication of apathy. They are two very different sentiments. I'm happy that Deals.Woot! has given me the ability to ignore a post without it being an indication of disliking it. That way when I do down vote you get a clear understanding of my opinion, regardless of whether I publish my rationale.

Again, no offense intended here, I've only scanned through some of your deal postings, but I get the impression that the folks most vocally opposed to the current down voting "rules" are vendors who have gotten roughed up a bit. The community will do what the community will do, and one of the things the community does is, as you mention, "increase user experience and product awareness." Sometimes that will work in a vendor's favor, and sometimes not. As I said before, venditor emptor.


@durkzilla: I am glad to get your input and honestly would be fine with down votes that show me an averaged reputation without comments so I can factor in the value of -'s attributed to an item. I have never had anything go seriously negative but I have seen several good deals get thrown under the -'s bus and not sure why other than a popularity contest.

Thanks for your valued comments and insight. The underlying goal is improved community for all (even capitalistic vendors) ;-) I am not looking for an uneven playing field just a transparent one. eBay has destroyed their clever model over the years by messing with the "free market" that originally made it such a great site. It would just be nice to preserve the positive aspects of WOOT and continue to improve in the correct direction and encourage value added engagement not easy click eye candy for those that just vote the populous.



As an obvious example of ignorant down votes would be my previous comment and the fact that it is now 0...


A vote that is not transparent is really of no value. I suggest WOOT making it transparent on the item/comment/question etc... who is voting for it up and down. It would help with filtering deals...

ie: Show me all WOOTs with +1's from with an average reputation >80 or show me all WOOTs with more than 10 +1's from WOOTers with a reputation >95...

The idea is enhanced user experience. These are solid gold ideas that should be considered and with actual community input could be improved.


@straightrazor: When you start following your own rules I might begin to have sympathy for your arguments.

Don't you think of that ten pages of down votes that you have made you could have helped out the community even ONCE by explaining your down vote?



@durkzilla: Did you read my question? I clearly state that I have changed my mindset on down voting. My last one was a week ago and that one is pretty obvious. There is no need to be a name calling DurkBag just read a bit more before you comment perhaps would help.


@straightrazor: Let's see, you label someone who down votes your comment as "ignorant", you argue for transparency but don't follow your own advice, and when you get called on it in public you resort to infantile name calling.

No wonder you're having problems here.

Instead of trying to change the way the community behaves, I'd encourage you to change the way you behave. Your combative nature is not going to win you any fans here.


@durkzilla: Additionally its not about having sympathy for my argument based on the relativity of my ability to adhere to my suggestions. I think the fact that I have down voted and not commented proves the point that I discovered in my own voting and why I suggested the idea of leaving feedback.

I can tell you as a vendor knowing what is wrong is helpful a down vote is useless without some insight. I am not saying I am the shinning example of how it should work I am making the case that by reviewing my habits I have found that I am not adding value by just pushing the down arrow with no explanation.



@durkzilla: Its not a combative nature its called not being a push over.


As I've said before, the way to determine whether a given restriction on down-voting makes any sense is to restate it with up-voting in place of down-voting. In case case:

Should comments be required when up-voting a deal? (I paraphrase, but it is close enough.)

This is clearly not feasible, so I'll stand by my position that comments should not be required for down-votes.

Your real complaint is about down-votes in general: you simply don't want them. However, this is woot! and we have to play by their rules, so until they change this particular rule, we are stuck with it.

Taking reputation into account when voting is an interesting idea, though. I don't think that breaking vote tallies down by triangle color is worth the recoding, but I could see weighting votes based on rep (though this would cause mondo confusion at first, and might just be bad). (By weighting, I mean a vote is multipled by the rep and then added to the tally). But non-integer vote tallies would be so strange...


@durkzilla: I tend to agree with you. I like the notion that a deal I just don't care about can be ignored, while a deal that I think is overtly bad can be downvoted.

As in any community, though, the issue is one of a common standard. I'd be much more comfy with downvotes if I thought they were truly an expression of being a 'poor deal'... My fear is that too often they get muddled up. People downvote a product they're just not interested in (good deal or not). People downvote out of herd mentality. People downvote out of moral objection to a product (e.g. lingerie or similarly 'controversial' items). I've found myself tempted: I was about to downvote a "vampire jewelry" posting because I'm so sick of the whole vampire thing... But stopped myself when I realized it had nothing to do with whether it was a 'good deal' or not.

I don't know the solution. Sometimes I feel like mandatory comments is good - you should say why if you downvote. Other times... feel like that's not merited.


@straightrazor: Gotta agree with Durkzilla... You can talk around it all you like, and say your actions and your argument are not one and the same; but "do as I say, not as I do" is never a very potent position.

I see both sides myself, but probably lean more toward your viewpoint: If you're going to downvote, take the 20 seconds to pen a quick reason why. Although I do see the converse - that the fear or retaliatory downvotes etc. makes that questionable. There's a reason any real democracy has anonymous voting...

The issue aside, I assume that going forward you will ALWAYS and INVARIABLY post a comment when you downvote something, as 'the right thing to do' whether required or not, right?


I don't think a comment should be required and I do not like the idea of labeling who votes on every comment. As seen in this very post, downvotes hurt feelings and start grudges so I don't see how it could be overall better to make things even more transparent.

Downvoting should be done away with altogether though, it's just causing too much drama and personal attacks.


I think an explanation should be required when the deal is "popular" or maybe if it has 20+ votes require an explanation.

I really would like explanations on why someone downvotes an obviously great deal.

Take my deal from the other day

I received 254 up votes and 2 downvotes. I received those downvotes somewhere after 30 upvotes.

It was a free deal for a great product at great company. Why downvote?


@journeyloaded: And I agree with the getting ride of the downvote all together.


@segafanalways: I don't agree that an explanation should be required in that situation. You got 254 upvotes, so does it matter why a couple of people voted it down?


@journeyloaded: for case like this, it feels like someone is down voting my deals because I upset them at some point not because of the deal not being good. I was just using that as an example of a deal that had tons of positive votes but only a few negative.


@segafanalways: Agreed I think this can be an issue or other competition.


@kcjones99: My goal is to add comments now as much as possible. I think those are more valuable then votes. Cant say that I will always add them but I would if it was required. That's the point I am making...


@journeyloaded: Agreed down votes are really arbitrary silence says the same thing without creating choas.