questionsit has been over a week since downvoting was…


It doesn't really help me see which deals are good/bad. It seems mostly a way for people to "spank" the people or products they don't like for whatever reason. Not that that's always a bad thing...


Since the only thing I think it is doing is helping vent anger and cause chaos (among a few instances of showing shady deals), I believe it has fully lived up to what I could only imagine it's intentions were.


I think it works better on the comments than the deals themselves. When a deal has more than a few posts, it's an easy way to quickly decide which ones are worth looking at.


If it was designed to hurt feelings and cause tension, I'd say it was a winner all around. It needs some fine tuning. The limited negative voting cap appears it can be gamed by casting an enormous amount of up votes. I hope I'm mistaken about that.
It's still too Gladiators-in-the-arena for me. I know @Snapster has a grand master plan where everything will finally mesh, but I just can't get past the way I was raised: if you haven't anything nice to say, then say nothing at all.

Ok, so I've called a few people idiots. But I did it with nothing but love & good intentions, bless their little hearts,


@lavikinga: You are not mistaken. You do have to cast a lot of up votes to get a down vote.


From a usability perspective, voting in general would be more useful if users could set visibility thresholds.

For example, if I don't want to see any deal with a -3 rating or less, I should be able to set that. Or maybe nothing less than a +5, or whatever.

As it is now, I just see a lot of vengeance voting against dealer-provided and protectionism for forum favorites.


@lavikinga: I agree. And you, dear lady, are most courteous and kind when you explain why you disagree with something!


I agree that TPTB obviously have more in mind than is apparent. I think it is sad to think that someone would vote down a genuinely good deal to effect some nafarious purpose. But then again, one man's prize is another man's poison as they used to say in the dark ages of long, long ago and far, far away.


It's been going how I thought it would go... Revenge down voting, people getting upset about down voting, comments/questions being posted simply for the "+1's" rather than adding any real feedback... Facebook hasn't added a dislike option for a good reason. "Negative votes" brood negativity in communities, and it is starting to show IMO

But that's just me...


The negative number next to the Netflix deal was pretty amusing.


I think that down-voting has accomplished its purpose.

We were all given an extra option. People who disliked something before (but couldn't be bothered to put in a comment explaining why), can now simply down-vote = extra time spent on woot.

Sneaky sneaky.


It's there. I do not like it and have been a little less active. To be honest I've seen more garbage deals on the main page because of the 'you have to vote up to be able to vote down' thing, so everyone is voting up on very 'meh' items. I miss the old woot button too.


@ebarker: Damn. I am really that dumb. I thought we were just in a summer slump of deals. It hadn't dawned on me all those meh deals were actually a result of people banking their evil votes. I mean, I knew you had to reach a "good" vote bar in order to earn down voting privileges, but voting up crappy deals just to earn them? In what kind of sick Wootworld are we living??

I miss the old button too.


@ebarker: Agreed on all counts. I haven't been nearly as active as I was a few weeks ago. Also, I think that a formalized down-vote system is unnecessary. With the old system, if you like the deal, Woot it; if you don't like the deal, don't Woot it. That way it eliminates the animosity that's arisen from people feeling as if they've been ganged up on.


@sclark89: If I recall, some of the vendors complained that we ganged up on them well before the downvote system was in place. What was the name of the company that spammed all of their tactical equipment deals? They got shamed pretty regularly and created another account.


@drfaulken: BKIndustries was one of them =/ with their 1-3 month wait time mystery boxes


It was designed to achieve something?


@promyst: "But that's just me... "

No, it's not just you.


I can't answer the original question since I have no idea what adding down-voting was expected to achieve. For me, though, the whole place is different, darker, and more divided. And less fun and less useful.

I don't enjoy seeing negative votes on what seem to be perfectly okay deals. I've researched several of them and haven't found anything objectively bad about them, so I can only assume the down votes were from people who just didn't want or like the item itself. I think that's a seriously crappy reason to smack the deal.

The end result for me is that I spend less time, energy, and money here. If that response is what was hoped for, than I guess down-voting has achieved its goal.


I don't like it. It seems to cause too much drama/hurt feelings on deals and questions, especially since you can see what people have voted down. I think it's useful for comments, though.


@theoneill555: I agree. I think @lavikinga has been using downvoting CONSTRUCTIVELY by leaving a comment on the reason why she downvoted AND made suggestions on what the deal poster could have improved with the post. What kind of information would be useful to add etc.

Kudos to @lavikinga.

I believe that the Woot team implemented this with a fundamental belief that, in general, people are good and that we are going to contribute constructively. I admire that.

I also notice that the Popular deals these days have a much higher positive vote count than before the implementation. I wonder if this system has increased the overall "engagement" of the community. That said, I agree with many of the comments above; that it adds a lot of negativity to the site.


@jumbowoot: Is the down voting still in it's experimental phase where there is a possibility that it will end or is it a permanent feature of the site? I have seen where a certain member votes up their deals and votes down every deal around the one they posted.


@eviloverlord333: How can you tell who voted up or down any specific deals? And doesn't each member have the ability to only vote up one or vote down one on each deal?

I think the deal is automatically voted up if one posts it, no?


@lll0228: It is very easy to see what deal a member has voted for or against. Yes, a member can only vote one way or the other. Yes, if you have voting privileges and you post a deal, you will automatically have your vote placed on your deal. I am just saying that I have just seen a member that will post a deal and then immediately down vote every deal around the deal they just posted (all I can surmise from this activity, is that they are trying to increase the odds of their deal going popular).


@lll0228: I don't down vote. At all. Whatever downvotes you might have received have not been mine. Instead of downvoting, if I have an issue with a deal, I will make a comment, leave a suggestion or help flesh out a decent deal that severely lacks details. But downvote? Never have. Never will.

If you click on someone's name, a tab will appear allowing you to see deals added, comments made and voting history. It can be a clever tool to see who is being a "tool" downvoting decent deals.


I think it actually makes sense in the questions/answers area - but only if reinterpreted as "agree/disagree" more than an up/down. (and that basically means that its impact on leaderboard rankings would have to be reinterpreted too.)

For the deals themselves... I think it works better to have a system where you simply vote (i.e. up-vote) or don't vote: e.g. the "lowest" score a deal can have is zero. The 'best' deals will still get the biggest upvotes while the real loser deals hover in single-digits... I don't really see where the ability to 'down' vote rather than just not vote really adds much.