questionswhat do you think about these suggested down…


I disagree with all three. You can read the description of deals without clicking on the link. There are many deals that you know are bad no matter what the description says. Some people constantly post bad deals so limiting the voting on their later deals seems unnecessary. I'm a laissez faire kind of guy and I don't think any restrictions on up or down voting are necessary. I am alright with the policy of only Woot purchasers being allowed to vote, otherwise it would be too easy to vote your own deal up.


I would think that implementation of these would be quite a time and resource consuming venture.

People are people, let them be jerks if they want.


@benyust2: I still maintain that at least for the first downvote on a specific item, a comment should be made as to why, even if it is self-evident. Then further downvotes would merely signify agreement that said deal is not a good one. Too many items are downvoted simply because a certain user is not familiar with same, would not purchase regardless of cost due to lack of interest or funds or whatever. That is not fair in my opinion to a good deal for SOME people who might have an interest in or the money to buy certain items. I have absolutely no idea whatsoever what some of the items are actually used for (techie stuff or gaming), but I never would vote them down just because I don't know what they are, what the value should be, or they don't make sense to me. Just sayin'


I think that if you were to impose these sorts of rules they must apply to all votes.

But to be honest, this proposal sounds an awful lot like sour grapes.

If you want to play in this sandlot you need to be prepared to take your lumps. Caveat venditor.


@durkzilla: Actually I am just wanting to start a conversation. We have good and bad days as far as down-voting just like some others. It is always good to have a discussion, because you never know something good might come out of it.


@klozitshoper: You make some good points, which is why I suggest better guidelines. I really don't think you can stop people from down-voting based on illegitimate reasons.


@klozitshoper: I read this suggestion from you previously, and thought it a good idea, initially. After some consideration though, I think some voters are afraid to explain why they have down voted, because they are afraid of retaliatory down votes, which does seem to be happening. I understand what you are getting at though., and the reasoning behind it.


@dollardealsclub: Fair enough, but I stand by my original position that the community will do what the community will do.

I would be all for coming up with a way to prevent shill accounts from voting up their own deals and/or voting down a competitor's, but I don't want Deals.Woot! to restrict me from voting how I feel.

Perhaps a pop-up box when you vote that offers the opportunity to comment on why you voted a certain way would be helpful? That might be easier to implement than a conditional based control...


I'm gonna have to agree with @durkzilla.

I've been reading your guys questions regularly, and the ones that aren't filler are basically you complaining in the form of question.

Or suggesting a way to make it easier for you to sell your stuff. (ie; making it easier for your deals to rank up or handicapping people who want to downvote you, etc)

Just my observation.


My problem with placing restrictions on down-voting is simple:

Very few seem to question why people up-vote a deal, so why are people worrying about why deals are down-voted?

Whenever someone asks a "question" like this, just re-read it with up-vote instead of down-vote. If the restriction no longer makes sense, then the restriction doesn't make sense.

For example, woot! doesn't allow people to up- or down-vote deals unless they are a "wootizen" (woot-citizen). This works both ways (up or down) and has good reasons (which we all know).



Ding ding ding ding! We have a winner! (At least IMHO.)


@baqui63: Gotta give you an amen, on that one.