Requested feature overview description.
Remove downvotes from the "voting" system

Why would it be useful?
Niche fetish art is almost always downvoted far into the negatives by people who don't like those fetishes. Removing downvotes would still let the really popular pictures accumulate high scores without completely attacking less popular kinks.

What part(s) of the site page(s) are affected?
Submissions

ShaunDreclin said:
Niche fetish art is almost always downvoted far into the negatives by people who don't like those fetishes. Removing downvotes would still let the really popular pictures accumulate high scores without completely attacking less popular kinks.

I've heard this said a few times and it is factually incorrect.

Median score for images tagged scat: ~3, ~73% with non-negative scores.
Median score for images tagged vore: ~5, ~89% with non-negative scores.
Median score for images tagged gore: ~1, ~64% with non-negative scores.

Sure, yeah, they tend to get downvoted more often than images without fetishes in them, but to argue that they are "almost always downvoted" is wrong, when the majority aren't even in the negatives at all.

I feel that there should be a feature that shows blacklist options for newly registering members on certain fetishes that are generally unfavorable, as to decrease the amount of unwanted hate comments and targeted downvoting.

https://e621.net/forum/search?query=Remove+downvote+

Feel free to look through absolutely anything this search (it doesn't search for context, just two words) as to offer, since this has been suggested far more than once...

-1, downvotes aren't just used on fetish imagery. It also applies to poor quality, irrelevant, non-fetish disturbing imagery (I recently saw that, and promptly upvoted), et cetera ad infinitum.

No, this would only end badly.
A better solution would be to provide the user with a welcome page suggesting tags to blacklist via checkboxes or something.
↓1 I downvote this suggestion.

TheGreatWolfgang said:
I feel that there should be a feature that shows blacklist options for newly registering members on certain fetishes that are generally unfavorable, as to decrease the amount of unwanted hate comments and targeted downvoting.

I've once wished that we direct newly created users to the account settings (which includes the blacklist therein), and separately to direct newly created users to the on-site wiki (this being for a separate reason) which has a blacklist article.

Images with a large number of downvotes are often entertaining in their own way.

The only other way we could potentially find and quantify them are the various WTF tags and lol_comments.

Birthday_Rat_Siral said:
https://e621.net/forum/search?query=Remove+downvote+

Feel free to look through absolutely anything this search (it doesn't search for context, just two words) as to offer, since this has been suggested far more than once...

-1, downvotes aren't just used on fetish imagery. It also applies to poor quality, irrelevant, non-fetish disturbing imagery (I recently saw that, and promptly upvoted), et cetera ad infinitum.

Granted the other reasons you listed to keep the downvote are valid and perhaps the the intended purpose, but in the end downvotes is a pretty useless system no matter where and how its used. Youtube is an example of where it literally means nothing and in fact sometimes ends up being worse.

Yes again you could argue that its only used on the bad videos(Which rarely happen because of Youtube's algorithm anyway.) but I've also seen plenty of really good videos get mass downvoted(Again algorithm and people that just want to mess someones day up) though various methods. E621 may not have this problem but it could arise.

Any way back on topic. Honestly given how E621 is at the moment I don't vote either way on this topic just yet.

↓1 This is an anti-user feature request. It removes information and a way of organization for the user. You can search images you have downvoted or voted, or exclude them for searches.

The only reason "YourStrangeFetishHere" gets downvoted is when people who use their blacklists are forced to see it due to lazy taggers and downvote it out of spite.

I downvote myself

↓1

TheGreatWolfgang said:
I feel that there should be a feature that shows blacklist options for newly registering members on certain fetishes that are generally unfavorable

Default blacklist for guests, also used as the default value for user's own blacklist upon registration. Would be good for the site's overall image as well. Too bad it won't fly, because "how would they discover their new fetishes".

United_Gamers said:
Granted the other reasons you listed to keep the downvote are valid and perhaps the the intended purpose, but in the end downvotes is a pretty useless system no matter where and how its used. Youtube is an example of where it literally means nothing and in fact sometimes ends up being worse.

Yes again you could argue that its only used on the bad videos(Which rarely happen because of Youtube's algorithm anyway.) but I've also seen plenty of really good videos get mass downvoted(Again algorithm and people that just want to mess someones day up) though various methods. E621 may not have this problem but it could arise.

Any way back on topic. Honestly given how E621 is at the moment I don't vote either way on this topic just yet.

The skew towards comparing our downvote system to YouTube is that YouTube has no deterrent towards mass accounts. Sometimes it is not people, just person... But E6 bans vote-cheating accounts & gives records to their main.

But that is nothing towards your opinion, just a fact that might be skipped over. I am willing to introduce, however, what I believe is a good argument against thinking votes matter:

I draw mainly violent fetish art, and while I would love to see more love for my work, I think this suggestion is a terrible idea. For one thing, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I've learned since I came here a couple years ago that if people don't like my stuff, that fighting them when they leave a nasty comment or getting furiously angry when they leave an anonymous downvote doesn't help me in the slightest.

For another thing, though, while I would love to have my art have heaps of upvotes, I also want my work to stand on its own merits. Removing this feature would cripple the viewers' ability to judge my work on its own merits, because if they decide they don't like it and they can't downvote, the only way they have to say they don't like it is in the comments, and not everybody likes commenting, and not everybody even knows what the fuck they'd say was even wrong with the work. So a downvote would be the only real way a lot of people would be able to confidently say they don't like it. If you take that away, any amount of praise you get is artificial, because there's no real accomplishment there.

Personally, I think the system as it is could be changed, but I would suggest putting up an indicator showing the number of upvotes alongside the number of downvotes instead of the present system which just has one indicator which shows up or down depending on how many people upped it or downed it. But I think removing the ability to downvote altogether is more a knee-jerk, feel-good reaction that doesn't solve any real problems than a well thought-out solution that actually works.

+1 default blacklist. It makes the site better for the average user, encourages account creation, and understanding site features and reduces blacklist complaints.

Yes to suggested blacklistings, no to default, no to removing negative voting.

↓1. I use downvotes as a secondary blacklisting feature.

Birthday_Rat_Siral said:
The skew towards comparing our downvote system to YouTube is that YouTube has no deterrent towards mass accounts. Sometimes it is not people, just person... But E6 bans vote-cheating accounts & gives records to their main.

But that is nothing towards your opinion, just a fact that might be skipped over. I am willing to introduce, however, what I believe is a good argument against thinking votes matter:

Art=Good

Let's simplify all our tags into binary, where if the image possesses it it gets a 1, and if it doesn't it gets a 0. So, for instance an image featuring BDSM would have BDSM=1, whereas images without would have BDSM=0. We can do this for all basic tags. Now, on our site tags can imply other tags, thus these 1s can inspire other 1s, when not on this site (including not possessive, like talking about) they remain separate from everything else.

But, let's introduce a meta tag: Score=Positive. For intents and purposes, an image uploaded has a positive score until downvote into the negatives, so Score=Positive & Score=Negative is our binary.

Now, let's introduce an imaginary tag: Art=Good. Images that get accepted on site means they meet our site standards, so images that are accepted get Art=Good and images that aren't accepted (thus deleted) get Art=Bad.

I now fall back to "... they remain separate from almost everything else", and apply this to our new binaries. Art=Good doesn't mean Score=Positive, and et cetera for the rest. BDSM=1 doesn't mean Score=Negative, nor BDSM=1 mean Art=Bad. No binaries out there means an art is good or bad, nor should the score be positive or negative. Therefore, Score=Positive can be argued irrelevant in any case, as it has no influence on anything else.

Mind you, this is without the human factor, but this system lets you argue that the downvote doesn't mean anything to a fetish, even when a human wants to downvote because of a fetish. I included Art=Good because that is probably where the most downvotes reside: on images where they did not meet the minimum quality standards.

Fair and I will freely admit my bias against downvotes led me to pick the most extreme example I could think of, which is actually pretty disingenuous.

And reading Inanna's post I suppose there is a difference between drawn artwork and videos. with artwork being eaiser to judge with downvotes(I still see it being misused though. Just how I am.) and videos needing more directness. at least thats what I believe.

-1

If there's so much worry that users will abuse a core feature necessary to practically anything that even remotely involves users, then the issue isn't that the feature exists. And if that hypothetical situation were true, it would be a lot more obvious and the site would have devolved into "YouTube for furries" a long time ago.

People are going to find a way to complain about what they don't like. Even if downvote abuse were a problem, which it isn't, removing downvotes would only change how those complaints spring up.

I disagree strongly with having a "default" blacklist. Various reasons. In general I don't like sites assuming what I want / don't want to see, and I don't like them taking their own initiative on this, particularly with a feature that is not immediately obvious as to the location.

Instead, if anything is going to be done, I think the blacklist ought to be made a bit more visible. Either upon account creation, you are taken to your settings immediately, to be able to see and modify your blacklist, or, alternatively, the blacklist ought to have its own section apart from the "My Account" -> "Settings" area, because honestly that's not where I'd first look to find a blacklist.

Clawdragons said:
I disagree strongly with having a "default" blacklist. Various reasons. In general I don't like sites assuming what I want / don't want to see, and I don't like them taking their own initiative on this, particularly with a feature that is not immediately obvious as to the location.

Instead, if anything is going to be done, I think the blacklist ought to be made a bit more visible. Either upon account creation, you are taken to your settings immediately, to be able to see and modify your blacklist, or, alternatively, the blacklist ought to have its own section apart from the "My Account" -> "Settings" area, because honestly that's not where I'd first look to find a blacklist.

The way FurryNetwork (owned by the same people as e621) does it, is when you first login, it shows you a list of commonly blacklisted items, and asks which ones you want to have blacklisted. Doing something like this here would immediately alert new users, "Hey, there's a blacklist."

Making it more visible than hidden behind "My Account, Settings" would help though.

How about any time you downvote a post every single tag on that post is automatically added to you blacklist. Permanently.

Sure it might make it difficult for some people to use the site, but it would keep us safe from people who dislike things.

-1

why do some people want a rating system like the one youtube uses for comments? a voting system that is pretty much useless.

on youtube you can only upvote comments because the downvote button no longer does anything. they may as well just scrap the comment voting system entirely since it's now useless.

Beanjam said:
How about any time you downvote a post every single tag on that post is automatically added to you blacklist. Permanently.

Sure it might make it difficult for some people to use the site, but it would keep us safe from people who dislike things.

You realize just how dumb that is right?

Anyways -1

Anti-user for the sake of a few people's "feelings"

The usefulness of downvoting things genuinely terrible outweigh what you said

CamKitty said:
You realize just how dumb that is right?

I'm pretty sure Beanjam was being sarcastic.

imagoober said:
I'm pretty sure Beanjam was being sarcastic.

I hope so :P

Clawdragons said:
In general I don't like sites assuming what I want / don't want to see, and I don't like them taking their own initiative on this, particularly with a feature that is not immediately obvious as to the location.

Tag aliases and implications are way worse in this regard. Blacklists are at least user-editable. Sure it's "to tag" vs "to see", but tags still affect the "see" part indirectly.

And the site already takes initiative with the "" initial blacklist, assuming every user wants to see all the crap. Some sort of forced blacklist editing on first visit would make a difference. Changing the initial value won't, it's still assumptions.

hslugs said:
And the site already takes initiative with the "" initial blacklist, assuming every user wants to see all the crap.

Or it's making no assumptions and leaving the blacklist blank because it has no idea what you want to blacklist until you tell it what to blacklist. It's your job to fill the blacklist, not the site's.

BlueDingo said:
Or it's making no assumptions and leaving the blacklist blank

Assumption: had the user been asked to fill their blacklist, they would have left it blank.

No assumptions: ask the user to fill the blacklist before showing any pages with images.

hslugs said:
Assumption: had the user been asked to fill their blacklist, they would have left it blank.

No assumptions: ask the user to fill the blacklist before showing any pages with images.

This not how a completely optional feature works.

NotMeNotYou said:
This not how a completely optional feature works.

Yeah? Put this way, the decision to make this feature "completely optional" whatever that means was the initiative taken by the e6 side.

I'm not saying it's wrong or anything. The site inevitably has to decide which features should be enabled by default, and which should be configurable. My point is that Clawstripe's "I don't like sites assuming what I want / don't want to see" is not a good argument for empty default blacklists. Some users may feel the same about soft-deleted DNPs, and it's not like DNP restrictions are going anywhere.

Also the thread is really about changing the way certain features work

hslugs said:
Yeah? Put this way, the decision to make this feature "completely optional" whatever that means was the initiative taken by the e6 side.

I'm not saying it's wrong or anything. The site inevitably has to decide which features should be enabled by default, and which should be configurable. My point is that Clawstripe's "I don't like sites assuming what I want / don't want to see" is not a good argument for empty default blacklists. Some users may feel the same about soft-deleted DNPs, and it's not like DNP restrictions are going anywhere.

Also the thread is really about changing the way certain features work

That's what I was saying about FurryNetwork, rather than automatically forcing the blacklist on you, it asks you "hey, do you want these commonly blacklisted tags blacklisted?" and lets you answer yes or no to each one.

NotMeNotYou said:
This not how a completely optional feature works.

I wouldn't say it's entirely optional, since there's an entire rule specifically addressing failure to use one's blacklist. I'm not against the rule (I actually like the rule). I'm just pointing out that there is a rule that would make blacklisting non-optional because the alternative is completely-preventable flame wars.

kamimatsu said:
I wouldn't say it's entirely optional, since there's an entire rule specifically addressing failure to use one's blacklist. I'm not against the rule (I actually like the rule). I'm just pointing out that there is a rule that would make blacklisting non-optional because the alternative is completely-preventable flame wars.

Not really, the use of the blacklist is optional, whining about other people's fetishes is prohibited. The latter can be achieved without using the blacklist at all, but it's a tool that makes it easier by hiding the content automatically.

No. Absolutely not. Under no circumstances should a blacklist be enforced by default. That means that the admins would arbitrarily have to decide what are considered "ok" or harmless fetishes and what are not "ok" harmful fetishes.

And that blacklist is forced on everyone who doesnt log in.

And rhen forced on people who make new accounts. And if its not editable (defaults are often forced) in the worst case scenario you have to turn off the list every time you wanna view stuff even tho only one of those fetishes is something you like.

Its in the territory of separation where people can arbitrarily say something is "bad for you."

The enforced rule about using your blacklist is forced because if you dont like it you shouldnt be specically going to go view it. Simple as that. Its not a case of "you shouldnt see these things" its "if you dont like it stop looking."

That said. A feature like flist has where popular tags are selectable via checkbox would be v useful. Esp for new users.

Also personally downvotes probably should exist. But I personally am tired of seeing good art get slammed because some people are butthurt and dont know /how/ to blacklist.

Also personally downvotes probably should exist. But I personally am tired of seeing good art get slammed because some people are butthurt and dont know /how/ to blacklist.

I still say it's not the responsibility of the people using their blacklist to have to fix tags for shit they shouldn't be seeing in the first place because people are lazy taggers.

GDelscribe said:
the admins would arbitrarily have to decide what are considered "ok" or harmless fetishes and what are not "ok" harmful fetishes

I think you're reading way too far into this. A default blacklist doesn't mean certain tags are okay or not okay it just means some tags are commonly blacklisted. If we blacklist scat it doesn't mean that's harmful or wrong, just that many users don't want to see it. This is common across many porn sites.

GDelscribe said:
And if its not editable (defaults are often forced)

Of course it will be editable, that's the whole point. To get people to use it.

GDelscribe said:
I personally am tired of seeing good art get slammed because some people are butthurt and dont know /how/ to blacklist.

A default blacklist would help solve this exact problem by encouraging blacklist use.

-1

Personally, I don't think it's the mechanics of the feature that are an issue so much as its place in the psyche. By calling it a downvote as compared to an upvote, we unnecessarily imply it is a superfluous second "anti-number" to determine image popularity, which is indeed useless to that end.

However, a system mechanically indistinct from downvotes is quite necessary for upload policy issues that aren't intuitive to apply through user flagging or spamming administrator alert boxes. For instance, e621 has (very forgiving) quality standards - how do we passively allow the users to alert administrators to awful-quality images in something resembling good faith, without swamping them with identical flags and alerts from individual users?

The only way to easily and consistently identify such images while keeping the inbox clean is that they likely have a shitload of downvotes. Simply not having upvotes is not a specific symptom - that could also reflect an image that nobody's seen or that nobody has any strong feelings either way towards.

And by employing such a system, no matter what you call it, the inevitably toxic fraction of a standard image board community will abuse that system to attack images they don't like. We're quite fortunate that this abuse appears to be a very small minority of the userbase.

I still say it's not the responsibility of the people using their blacklist to have to fix tags for shit they shouldn't be seeing in the first place because people are lazy taggers.

I don't sympathize with anyone who is so petty and sheltered that seeing a single image they don't like sets them on some sort of temper tantrum about their rights being violated and how the image must be destroyed because it burned their precious baby eyes.

Blacklists are a courtesy, not a human right. Decent people don't need blacklists to externally stop them from whining about other people's fetishes.

FibS said:
Blacklists are a courtesy, not a human right. Decent people don't need blacklists to externally stop them from whining about other people's fetishes.

That's some soapbox you got there.

Votes have absolutely no say in whether or not something gets deleted. I have deleted a lot of posts with many upvotes and favorites, especially recently, because despite your opinions they are not supposed to be here. Your downvotes don't "alert" us; we don't care what your opinions are about a post until you shit all over the comments or something.

Moreover, users are not allowed to flag for quality purposes. If I see people doing that they get a nice slap on their records page for flag abuse.

FoxFourOhFour said:
That's some soapbox you got there.

And a poor strawman on your part; what's your point?

Grow up and stop making a big deal over something as petty as "I-I sometimes see stuff I'm not comfortable with!!" Maybe if the people who cried and whined about missing tags ever actually corrected them we wouldn't have this problem anymore.

Ratte said:
Votes have absolutely no say in whether or not something gets deleted. I have deleted a lot of posts with many upvotes and favorites, especially recently, because despite your opinions they are not supposed to be here. Your downvotes don't "alert" us; we don't care what your opinions are about a post until you shit all over the comments or something.

Moreover, users are not allowed to flag for quality purposes. If I see people doing that they get a nice slap on their records page for flag abuse.

I was speaking more generally or hypothetically - I know downvotes are currently not a reliable metric for upload policy violations (as all of the current most downvoted images are smarmy shock meme images rather than violation images.) They could be if nearly the exact same system was not called a "downvote" and was not in direct opposition to the purely subjective upvote.

I continued that even in this case, at least some users would continue to abuse the mechanic to flag images they didn't like.

FibS said:
And a poor strawman on your part; what's your point?

It's comments like this that make me resistant to calling out actual strawman fallacies. The term "strawman" has become a buzzword for a lot of people who don't know what it actually applies to.

Where did FoxFourOhFour deliberately misrepresent your position to a weaker, similar version in order to defeat it and make it look as though he defeated your original argument?

They didn't. This isn't even an ambiguous case or anything. There is literally zero applicability of the strawman fallacy here. Completely separate.

Clawdragons said:
It's comments like this that make me resistant to calling out actual strawman fallacies. The term "strawman" has become a buzzword for a lot of people who don't know what it actually applies to.

Where did FoxFourOhFour deliberately misrepresent your position to a weaker, similar version in order to defeat it and make it look as though he defeated your original argument?

They didn't. This isn't even an ambiguous case or anything. There is literally zero applicability of the strawman fallacy here. Completely separate.

Eh, I'm used to people like that and just blocked em. Proof the blacklist works when it needs to. \o/

Clawdragons said:
It's comments like this that make me resistant to calling out actual strawman fallacies. The term "strawman" has become a buzzword for a lot of people who don't know what it actually applies to.

Where did FoxFourOhFour deliberately misrepresent your position to a weaker, similar version in order to defeat it and make it look as though he defeated your original argument?

They didn't. This isn't even an ambiguous case or anything. There is literally zero applicability of the strawman fallacy here. Completely separate.

To be fair there is little difference between strawman and ad hominem aside from effort.

Beanjam said:
To be fair there is little difference between strawman and ad hominem aside from effort.

Not really. One attacks a separate unrelated argument while the other attacks the person instead of any argument at all.

kamimatsu said:
Not really. One attacks a separate unrelated argument while the other attacks the person instead of any argument at all.

Yes, that would be the effort: creating an unrelated argument to attack. Remove that and it is just attacking an unrelated thing you are arbitrarily attributing to your opponent.

Beanjam said:
Yes, that would be the effort: creating an unrelated argument to attack. Remove that and it is just attacking an unrelated thing you are arbitrarily attributing to your opponent.

That would be removing the entire definition of the fallacy. They both fall into a similar category along with Appeal to Emotion and Non Sequitor, but it's a broad category and there are a lot of fallacies where it involves the arguer. I think Strawman is similar to a combination of Equivocation and Non Sequitor. It doesn't target the opponent, it just doesn't target anything else that exists either.

ShaunDreclin said:
Requested feature overview description.
Remove downvotes from the "voting" system

Why would it be useful?
Niche fetish art is almost always downvoted far into the negatives by people who don't like those fetishes. Removing downvotes would still let the really popular pictures accumulate high scores without completely attacking less popular kinks.

What part(s) of the site page(s) are affected?
Submissions

One of the reasons of having a voting system, is so people can give their opinion of whether they like something or not. Limiting how people are able to vote, is basically limiting how people are able to express their opinions. Also not everyone wants to leave a comment everytime they dislike something ( whether its art or a comment ), its much easier to just down vote something. Not to mention it keeps the comment section from being flooded with stuff like "this cartoon porn sucks" or "your fucking stupid" and I sure the mods prefer this.

I really don't like idea of of limiting how people can vote (aka censoring opinions aka thoughtpolicing) just to protect feelings of a few hyper sensitive individuals from the dreaded downvote (Oh no, not muh feelings). Once you give in it never stops and eventually it wil turn this place into a hugbox echo chamber, that protects hyper sensitive individuals from other peoples opinions and no one wants that, in fact it will drive people away from your site.

ThoughtCrime said:
One of the reasons of having a voting system, is so people can give their opinion of whether they like something or not.

Imo "like" is a bad word to use here. Disliking something because it's poorly draw or because it does not fit on this site is a good reason to downvote. But disliking something well drawn just because it strokes your hair the wrong way is a reason to use blacklist and move on.

Think Reddit or HN policy. Do not downvote because you don't agree, downvote because it does not contribute to the discussion.

Sure people will slap the downvotes no matter what just because they don't like the subject matter, but I think it's really abuse of the voting system.

GDelscribe said:
No. Absolutely not. Under no circumstances should a blacklist be enforced by default. That means that the admins would arbitrarily have to decide what are considered "ok" or harmless fetishes and what are not "ok" harmful fetishes.

Baaaw. The most obvious default blacklist is "rating:e" aka register or just say yes to view explicit content. LOTS of sites do it one way or another. Start a crusade or something. Make sure to wipe e621:tagging_checklist as well, hey, they took some arbitrary decisions as well.

e6 doesn't even enforce blacklists, the toggle is right there on the sidebar. It's about as bad as hiding downvoted comments by default.

hslugs said:
Baaaw.

I'll open with this because it just sets the tone of your post.

hslugs said:
Think Reddit or HN policy. Do not downvote because you don't agree, downvote because it does not contribute to the discussion.

You don't define what the system is for, and you don't get to tell someone how to use it.

hslugs said:
e6 doesn't even enforce blacklists, the toggle is right there on the sidebar. It's about as bad as hiding downvoted comments by default.

I don't think you know what 'enforce' means, either, because we certainly do enforce using the blacklist.

EightyNine said:
I don't think you know what 'enforce' means, either, because we certainly do enforce using the blacklist.

We only enforce using the blacklist if a person fails to simply ignore something. If you don't like something, don't comment. If you can't help yourself, then blacklist.

hslugs said:
But disliking something well drawn just because it strokes your hair the wrong way is a reason to use blacklist and move on.

It is possible to dislike something for reasons that can't be blacklisted.

The first thing that comes to mind for me is when artists draw a "human" bottom lip on an animal face. Looks absolutely terrible to me. Horrifically unappealing. And can't be blacklisted, since there is no tag for it.

I'm sure other people have similar things. Elements that they dislike but which can't be blacklisted. And they have the right to downvote for that reason (or for just about any other reason).

Votes aren't an "artistic quality" measure, and it is impossible to make them into that. Stop thinking of them that way, because it is pointless and impossible, and I think you might find that the current system starts looking better.

Clawdragons said:
It is possible to dislike something for reasons that can't be blacklisted.

You got that right. Technical errors, lighting errors, bad anatomy, perspective errors, there's a whole list of them.

Clawdragons said:
The first thing that comes to mind for me is when artists draw a "human" bottom lip on an animal face. Looks absolutely terrible to me. Horrifically unappealing. And can't be blacklisted, since there is no tag for it.

big_lips, thick_bottom_lip, thick_lips, plump_lips, huge_lips, and a whole lot more which I'll probably consolidate soon.

it's very undertagged

BlueDingo said:
You got that right. Technical errors, lighting errors, bad anatomy, there's a list.

That falls squarely into the "poorly drawn" bin. Human lips, close, but that's also something that should be tagged really. Here's a better example I think:

post #981185

Try to come up with a tag that would describe what exactly irks people there.

Clawdragons said:
Stop thinking of them that way, because it is pointless and impossible, and I think you might find that the current system starts looking better.

I have nothing against current voting system. OP brought up the problem: posts get downvoted for wrong reasons. His idea was to remove downvotes. I think it would be better to push people towards ignoring them instead (with default blacklists) and leave votes alone.

And they have the right to downvote for that reason (or for just about any other reason).

Not taking their rights from them lol. But I don't think it should be encouraged either, like downvote anything you dislike.

Here's why. Let's say I strongly dislike scat, and mildly dislike generic character portraits. I put scat to blacklist per site guidelines, so I never see those posts and never downvote them. But I keep downvoting generic portraits because I "dislike" them. Repeat for sizable fraction of site users, and post scores become meaningless. The net result does not show how much "liked" or "disliked" a post is. If anything, it's more like how much trouble the post is to blacklist.

Knotty_Curls said:
big_lips, thick_bottom_lip, thick_lips, plump_lips, huge_lips, and a whole lot more which I'll probably consolidate soon.

thick_lips, plump_lips A-> big_lips

hslugs said:
Not taking their rights from them lol. But I don't think it should be encouraged either, like downvote anything you dislike.

Here's why. Let's say I strongly dislike scat, and mildly dislike generic character portraits. I put scat to blacklist per site guidelines, so I never see those posts and never downvote them. But I keep downvoting generic portraits because I "dislike" them. Repeat for sizable fraction of site users, and post scores become meaningless. The net result does not show how much "liked" or "disliked" a post is. If anything, it's more like how much trouble the post is to blacklist.

Similar situation, different examples. I don't see a problem in downvoting the ones you don't like, but having a good reason helps.

Not really one to speak up much, but I have to say I support this. The internet has enough of it's fair share of, "I don't like this, so I'm gonna attack the people who do!". I believe not having a downvote system would help to discourage people who just aim to hurt from wasting time doing so. It would help encourage the, "I don't like this, so i'll just move on" mentality. Supposedly.

But that's just my two cents. I'll go back to lurking now. Ta ta

Sithris said:
Not really one to speak up much, but I have to say I support this. The internet has enough of it's fair share of, "I don't like this, so I'm gonna attack the people who do!". I believe not having a downvote system would help to discourage people who just aim to hurt from wasting time doing so. It would help encourage the, "I don't like this, so i'll just move on" mentality. Supposedly.

But that's just my two cents. I'll go back to lurking now. Ta ta

Being able to downvote and move on protects people from the aggression of others for their fetishes.
If someone doesn't have that outlet, and the negative reinforcement of "if you start shit we will smack you down hard," they're inclined to engage in that hostility.

The system is structured on the threefold count of allowing opinions in a controlled measure, suppressing hostility in comments and eliminating any demonstrable maliciousness that overrides those limits.
Having it there provides a logical outlet for users who could actually dislike something to express that -- are you really inclined to be rid of that because of some trolls? Pfeh.

hslugs said:
That falls squarely into the "poorly drawn" bin. Human lips, close, but that's also something that should be tagged really. Here's a better example I think:

post #981185

Try to come up with a tag that would describe what exactly irks people there.

not sure what to tag it as but based on the included story below the pic:

"'Oh it is, absolutely. Except on religious grounds. Even better is that the sods wont let me use anesthetic or any sort of humane surgical procedure, just the old-school banding method. And don’t even get me started on how utterly unnecessary it is in the first place Evee. I think most species, even the dumbest ones, have mastered the art of cleaning their fur so it doesnt get infected and bloody fly-blown. But tradition trumps logic, more often that bloody not, apparently.'"

it seems to be a procedure similar in nature to circumcision.

Sithris said:

In short: the downvote system gives power to no one. That is the best reason IMO, as every other system you can find can speak against itself.

hslugs said:
post #981185

Try to come up with a tag that would describe what exactly irks people there.

imminent_amputation?

Siral_Exan said:
In short: the downvote system gives power to no one. That is the best reason IMO, as every other system you can find can speak against itself.

It give me the power to exceed the limitations of the blacklist.

BlueDingo said:
It give me the power to exceed the limitations of the blacklist.

In terms of artist vs critic, that's not a power, that's just inventive thinking.

If you remove downvoting (for the con of fetish images getting downvoted), you also remove the ability to downvote content that is "repulsive" for other reasons, like poor art quality, and disturbing imagery that isn't fetish-related.

hslugs said:
My point is that Clawstripe's "I don't like sites assuming what I want / don't want to see" is not a good argument for empty default blacklists.

I don't recall posting in this thread before. Where did I argue that?

About the upvote/downvote system, you mean it actually matters? At best, it gives an uploader or artist a general trend of public opinion about their pictures. At worst, it doesn't mean much of anything and is there just to give an illusion that our opinions about a particular picture makes a difference.

Clawstripe said:
I don't recall posting in this thread before. Where did I argue that?

I ugh... really should stop typing names from memory. This post:
https://e621.net/forum/show/228456?page=1#post-228505
Are you guys related?

About the upvote/downvote system, you mean it actually matters?

Yes? order:score is one of the most useful search tricks imo.

hslugs said:
Yes? order:score is one of the most useful search tricks imo.

I actually tend to look at past comments I've made beginning with the lowest score to see if there was maybe something I may have done wrong that could have been avoided if I acted differently, and while there have been downvoted things that made no sense, often there was something I definitely shouldn't have done, and it helps me avoid making these mistakes in the future. I don't mean things like "don't make a comment people won't like", but more like "become more aware what crosses the line and what doesn't".

hslugs said:
Are you guys related?

I would be extremely surprised if we were. As far as I can tell, we derived our names independently.

Yes? order:score is one of the most useful search tricks imo.

That answers my question. Thank you.

And just to cement it: I also use order:score all the time. It's handy for various things, such as quickly finding good-quality thumbnails for the wiki.

If you remove downvotes how am I meant to express my opinion on things I don't like or disagree with?

Pendraggon said:
If you remove downvotes how am I meant to express my opinion on things I don't like or disagree with?

snark and memes