Massive thumbs-down

Let me be clear, I haven't contributed to either of these topics in posts or ratings. That said, surely the point of ratings is for people to show whether they agree with you or not. If they agree, thumbs up, if not thumbs down. You can only rate once so if there are 4 thumbs down ratings then 4 people disagree with the comment.

Surely in a democracy this is reasonable. That said, if you disagree with a comment strongly then really you should write your own comment expressing your own views.

@tjb Yeah that would be reasonable ofc. But it seems that some trolls are hanging around here because we got some guys which are downrating every single post in those 2 threads. And I am sure that's not a reasonable voting. I am not the only one who noticed that. From one minute to the next, all posts got -1. That's why I opened this topic...

Here are my thoughts:

Just don't pay attention to what others are saying about your post. Pretend it's not there, because, who really cares if someone hits the thumbs down. That tells me they don't have the courage, intelligence, or time to use words to reply, they just hit a button. It's the easy way out. It's inappropriate and shouldn't be a feature. That's like sending a text to someone about a serious matter when you know a face to face is the right thing to do.

I've always wondered what the purpose of a thumbs down would serve. Anyone know?

By the way, I just tried to thumbs up my own comment and to my dismay, I can't do that. Connosr, that's genius.

@Maltmark, the purpose of the rating system is quite simply, as @tjb stated, to express support or lack of support for the opinions expressed on the threads. The thumbs down specifically is sometimes used to erase some statements which may be inappropriate or offensive to others. If a post receives more than... 5 thumbs down, I think? It is automatically erased.

Personally, I have never been offended or bothered by any post enough that I wished for it's removal. I am a very, very strong supporter of the right to freely express oneself, and I would much rather respond to a post I didn't agree with than have it deleted.

Generally I think Connosr is a fantastic place for allowing it's members to openly discuss various thoughts and opinions. As with any site like this however, there are 'trolls' that lurk about. Such is the nature of the world we live in.

I would agree with many in this case. The thumbs system is not particularly accurate so I don't worry about it. Occasionally my finger hits it accidentally. I would just ignore...

@CanadianNinja Yes, if we reach -5 (and we are nearly reaching this in the Mackillops thread...) a comment gets disabled. I don't like this even if I disagree with the postings opinion. I am just really curious because from one day to another it seems that not only one troll is there. We never had quite a lot of thumbsdown at all, because there aren't really bad answers and the regs know that and are seldomly downvoting.

If it's like it is (hi trolls/spammers/multi-acc-users... get a life plz...) I vote for at least one of the two:

• No erasing of comments at a minus-status (-5 atm)
• Removing the voting system

@Jean-Luc and @Piero what do you think?

Hi folks, the thumbs up/down system was originally added in case a nuisance user was posting offensive or irrelevant content on the site. In theory it meant that the wisdom of the crowds should prevail over such content - without moderators having to step in too often - and up to now has worked quite well in the limited number of cases where this occurs.

However as the community has grown so have the moderation needs and it's quite possible that this system doesn't cover all the bases in its current state. We will review the situation and see what revisions can be made.

We will also check the logs and take appropriate action if it appears that any users are deliberately using this feature to disrupt the discussions.

Feel free to contact me on support@connosr.com if you want to provide any additional information on specific posts or entries.

@Jean-Luc Nicely said. While I have used thumbs up/down in the past, my down votes have only been directed as you describe: toward irrelevant content. Some of this irrelevant contact has actually been offensive to me by being completely irrelevant to the purpose of this site, namely, to share our thoughts and experiences about the whiskeys we've tried. I try not go negative but some of the irrelevant political diatribe and the tangents unrelated to the purpose of the site make it unpleasant to follow the posts.

@PMessinger, first of all let me say that I respect your opinion sir. However, I would also like to say that I feel it is extremely important to allow Connosr to be an arena where it's members can express any and all views, regardless of the topic. This, to me, is necessary for a number of reasons.

First, when discussing whisky, whisky distribution, government regulations on whisky and whisky sales etc. it can be almost impossible to keep from addressing many issues which can only be labeled 'political.' The control of the production of alcoholic drinks and their sale and taxation have a long history of being manipulated for purely political reasons.

Second, whatever the topic may be, political, environmental, social, could most definitely be pertinent to whisky, it's production and sale.

Third, of course this is a site first and foremost for the discussing of whisky. But that doesn't mean that it's members should have to steadfastly adhere to the suppression of voicing opinions regarding other issues. Sites like Connosr are truly wonderful because they allow people who share a common interest to come together and share their thoughts and experiences, this allows growth. Growth for me has been achieved of course in the area of whisky knowledge, but also in other areas where I have greatly benefited from reading statements made on other subjects by people coming from various cultural and social backgrounds.

You have every right to give any statement you disagree with a thumbs down my friend. I am simply suggesting that one shouldn't be hostile to the inclusion of comments addressing issues other than whisky simply because this is mainly a site for reviewing whisky. Sites like Connosr are formats for the expressing and sharing of ideas. Whatever category those ideas may fall into, they should be allowed to be shared without censor.

@Wills I. too. have not contributed to either of the topics you identified. Simply because I felt I could not provide an informed opinion that was either pro or con. Clicking a positive speaks for itself. Clicking on a negative also speaks for itself. However, what it doesn't do is indicate why someone disagrees. I would think it would be more interesting to enter into a conversation on why they disagree with a comment. Isn't that the purpose of having a friendly debate?

From my perspective, I may not always agree with what someone wrote; however, rather than click negative and move on, I would prefer to say why I disagree. For the record. I like witty banter and have never clicked on a negative.

@CanadianNinja Hear hear!

@CanadianNinja Agreed and well stated. Your well considered comments underscore the need to retain both the thumbs up and the thumbs down. On reflection it is tangential content delivered in a condescending tone that draws my thumb downward most often. There is no margin here for healthy debate when the perception is of a writer with a narrow mind. For this reason, a negative is given when a reasonable boundary appears to have been crossed. I use direct communication with friends on this site for such communications and depend on the public posts on this site for the wonderful variety of opinions and information related to the appreciation of whiskey. I offer humble apologies if my comments seem hostile when only meant to explain why I have sometimes used the downward pointing thumb.

Absolutely no apologies are necessary @PMessinger! I didn't intend to suggest that you had anything to be sorry about or that your comments were inappropriate. As I have said, I respect your opinions and I feel that you are just another high caliber individual that we are lucky to have so many of here on Connosr ; )

I was simply stating the strong feelings I have for being able to comment on a number of issues other than whisky. I think it is the willingness to allow discussions to explore various other subjects, and the lack of rigid censorship, that helps create such a wonderful atmosphere here on Connosr!

Cheers my friend : )

Guys you'r all right with the general opinion about voting. And I also disike censorship, therefore I wouldn't mind to abolish this -5 point-disable-function.

But the main reason to open up this discussion was the fact that I am sure some corrupted individuals had quite some fun in the last days. The downvoting-rate just exploded from nowhere... Thx for the response @Jean-Luc, glad you will have a closer look at it.

First of all, I would like to applaud Wills for beginning this discussion. I think it's quite worthwhile to sort out these types of things so that our mutual love of whisky can continue to grow and benefit from free and open questions, ideas, and advice on this wonderful website.

I think the blanket "thumbs down" ratings are because a few members did not like the hosts of each of the discussions you mentioned, Wills.

A small handful of members on this site do indeed behave like children, and it's interesting that they are actually quite well educated and not on the young side. Some folks just never grow up.

For me, the real value of this site is the free exchange of information. Not so for those who harbor grudges, post impulsively, and let their emotions reign supreme.

It's ironic that "left brain" emotions veer off in the general direction of sociopathy. Left brain thinkers that do not moderate their thinking with "right brain" cooperative soothing emotions ultimately begin to feel superior to others and as if they are entitled to "rule the roost," so to speak. That's not to say these folks are indeed sociopaths; merely that their behavior is indeed moving a little in that direction on the overall scale of human behavior.

The problem with the thumbs down system is that it can eventually "bury" a discussion.

That can be a real shame in most cases, unless the poster was just some troll looking to disturb the "waters of life," so to speak, which is actually rare on this site.

Those coming through with the thumbs up or down system do seem to fit into that category more often. Sometimes these folks seem to react more to the member than what he or she is actually saying.