Title.

There is no reason to downvote art on a site where blacklists exist. People just use it to express art they don't like, not art that is genuinely poor in artistic skill, political or any other valid reason for downvoting. The fact that something like gore artwork can still get downvoted today even if it's made well and despite everyone knowing about a blacklist now is a failure on e621's part. Get rid of downvoting on art.

How else would I express my disapproval for gore not being gorey enough?

If only we could downvote forum threads instead.

I downvoted post #805672 because I thought it was genuinely poor animation-wise (and, really, just not all that funny.) I downvoted post #2088998 for reasons I've explained in that comment section. It is none of your business how I use my votes.

Basically if it isnt furry, its getting a downvote. A lot of ppl post art here that should be posted elsewhere. Like, hentai image boards or their own personal social media art sites.

So, make it like facebook where you can only agree with things.

Ok . . .

lafcadio said:
I downvoted post #805672 because I thought it was genuinely poor animation-wise (and, really, just not all that funny.) I downvoted post #2088998 for reasons I've explained in that comment section. It is none of your business how I use my votes.

oyecomova said:
Basically if it isnt furry, its getting a downvote. A lot of ppl post art here that should be posted elsewhere. Like, hentai image boards or their own personal social media art sites.

Those are all genuine reasons to downvote. I'm mostly just speaking to those who downvote controversial art like cub for the obvious reason when really they should've just used their blacklist.

camkitty said:
So, make it like facebook where you can only agree with things.

Ok . . .

Yes. I still support comments being downvoted though because a lot of people can genuinely comment a lot of creepy or off-topic matters.

I'd rather not witness another YouTube comments system, where you cannot express disapproval at all because of (in YouTube's case) "muh feelings"... Instead, I'd advocate removing the vote system altogether if downvotes were removed, because favorites are a lot more accurate for seeing who "liked" an image; anyone can upvote or downvote for any number of reasons, but favoriting an image will cause the image to reappear if the user checks their favorites, so typically a user favorites something because they want to see it again.

siral_exan said:
I'd rather not witness another YouTube comments system, where you cannot express disapproval at all because of (in YouTube's case) "muh feelings"... Instead, I'd advocate removing the vote system altogether if downvotes were removed, because favorites are a lot more accurate for seeing who "liked" an image; anyone can upvote or downvote for any number of reasons, but favoriting an image will cause the image to reappear if the user checks their favorites, so typically a user favorites something because they want to see it again.

Honestly I can agree with that too, especially since scorecounts are reset when a better upload is posted (and is also why a lot of people like me sort by order:favcount instead of order:score). The only problem is that you can only fav 80k images max whereas score votes are unlimited. So people who reach their limit with favs won't be able to contribute to the favcount anymore, making them just slightly inaccurate as to the actual popularity of the image.

siral_exan said:
Instead, I'd advocate removing the vote system altogether if downvotes were removed, because favorites are a lot more accurate for seeing who "liked" an image; anyone can upvote or downvote for any number of reasons, but favoriting an image will cause the image to reappear if the user checks their favorites, so typically a user favorites something because they want to see it again.

+1

If an image is genuinely not as good, it will inherently get less favorites than similar but better images. There's obviously going to be fluctuations and outliers, but on the whole I think it's more stable than upvote-downvote scoring. Some people like being able to upvote or favorite separately, using each for a different reason, so I could see a compromise and allow upvoting to stay but remove downvoting as it is now (since there's no indication for why a given downvote was made, ranging from legitimate critique of image quality to the poster's poor tagging to the voter's hateboner for certain content they willingly search out, so treating each equally in comparison to each upvote is worthless).

... Are you getting grumpy that scat art is getting downvoted?

The score voting system should entirely remain in place, I'd say.

No, the scoring should stay. What if I want to find the least liked image? such a thing would be impossible with only upvotes.

Voting system should stay, both ups and downs.

Going by number of favourites does not tell you how good (or bad) an artwork is, it just tells you how much people like a particular piece or kink. I can't imagine looking at the posts page and just seeing the number of likes, nothing to indicate how one piece differs from the other in terms of score.

If people are abusing it for downvoting kinks that they don't like and are not blacklisting, I would just say to implement a system that sends an automated message or something to tell the user that most of the stuff they downvote contains X or Y tag and whether they want to include them in their blacklist.

Scrapping the voting system entirely without thinking of alternative solutions just seems pretty hasty to me.

I don't go out my way looking for stuff to downvote. I only downvote posts that aren't tagged properly that get through my blacklist.

how are we to know what is based and what is cringe if not for the funny arrows?

kyiiel said:
No, the scoring should stay. What if I want to find the least liked image? such a thing would be impossible with only upvotes.

Other than a general "haha, look at all the downvotes", what does that really serve? You can still find posts with the least number of upvotes or favorites. There's also lol_comments and some other tags for really wild content that can be combined with a low favorite count or score.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Going by number of favourites does not tell you how good (or bad) an artwork is, it just tells you how much people like a particular piece or kink.

But...

kemonophonic said:
I don't go out my way looking for stuff to downvote. I only downvote posts that aren't tagged properly that get through my blacklist.

Votes like this tell you nothing about how good or bad the artwork is, either. It just means these votes are a result of poor initial tagging on the uploader's part and someone who doesn't like the subject matter happened to see it, rather than reflect on the quality of the piece. This is why downvotes are useless, in my eyes; there's no way to tell why it has the downvotes it has.

I would argue that the number of favorites is a better indicator of how good or bad an artwork is, as a piece that's less good will have fewer favorites. By favoriting a piece, it means the user wants to add it to their favorites collection, which they or other people can see later, so a piece that's less good will naturally have fewer people favoriting to add to said collection as they'll not really care to see it again later. In contrast, downvotes subtract from a score for any or no reason and has no bearing outside of being another number. One person can upvote because the piece is really well compared and rendered, another can downvote it because the uploader forgot the cub tag for the 1 minute it took someone to see it despite their blacklist (or worse, someone purposely doesn't blacklist it and downvotes everything with subject matter they don't like and could blacklist), and the score is a solid 0 despite its quality.

There is no good reason to get rid of downvoting. It is easy to ignore it.

lance_armstrong said:
There is no good reason to get rid of downvoting. It is easy to ignore it.

Exactly.

Also order:score may not be perfect, but it is quite good at finding me the best stuff of something.

Downvotting hurts no one, and upvoting helps (with searches) but can only really function if downvottimg stays, there really is no reason to remove it.

pyke said:
Downvotting hurts no one, and upvoting helps (with searches) but can only really function if downvottimg stays, there really is no reason to remove it.

But it hurts muh feefees.

I will give the benefit of the doubt in that I see where you're coming from. If you're an artist who is particularly into controversial or generally disliked things or kinks, it's hard to judge whether your art is considered "good" or not to the people who are into the kinks based on the amount of dislikes it's automatically going to get. I don't want to say that they should expect it because I think it's unfair to relegate these artists to the hate just because of their personal taste.

However, like what has been said over and over in this thread, I don't think getting rid of dislikes is going to solve anything. As stated, if an artist really wants to see how much their art is liked, they can pay attention to the favorites or the comments.

I also believe that dislikes are valid way for people to express their opinion. Sure they could blacklist a topic or whatever but I think that people should have to right to express that they dislike the art being posted. The dislike button is pretty much harmless and a simple way of expressing dislike. The only time I think that it's wrong to express your dislike in something is if it's a harmful or demeaning comment, which is against the rules anyway.

Personally, I don't support getting rid of dislikes because I pay attention to scores to see what art I should click on, since the thumbnails are hard to see what's exactly going on. I generally expect to see gore, scat, politics etc. downvoted (although some of that I have blacklisted already) but when it comes to poor art, I'd rather see the dislikes and skip over it than click on it thinking it may be good art but it turns out to be bad. Of course all that is just how I personally use the site and view the likes/dislikes and I don't expect it to be a universal experience.

This is not YouTube, we will not hide or remove the downvote button on posts.

There's nothing inherently wrong with the voting system but the site's userbase sure ruined it. Beyond kinks or whatever, look at the bigger picture. It was never about artistic merit and it's funny that anyone thinks otherwise. We'll start with the obvious. There's definitely a "genital bonus." You can see this in works that have a nsfw and sfw version. Guess what, the one with cock or pussy is gonna have way more upvotes, even though the posts will almost always be, by any metric, pretty damn close as far as artistic merit is concerned, given that it's mostly the same drawing.

There's also the "animation bonus." Like the prior example, static images that are later "animated" will often see the animated version receive a whole bunch of extra upvotes over the original drawing, even if the animation itself is pretty crappy and low-effort as opposed to the high-effort, well drawn static image it's based on.

And, well, anyone who thinks political images are upvoted or downvoted according to the merits of the artwork is kidding themselves. Same with joke images.

The lesson here, I suppose, is not to read too much into scores. They mean nothing. Does that mean they should be removed? Well, maybe not, but why would anyone be sad to see them go, especially when favcount exists? The only redeeming quality that score has is browsing the most-downvoted posts, which is pretty funny most of the time, so we'd lose out on that, at least.

Thank you all for your input. While I still think scorecounts can be handled better, admins and janitors are not onboard with the idea so it's not worth discussing any further for me.

poontang said:
I will give the benefit of the doubt in that I see where you're coming from. If you're an artist who is particularly into controversial or generally disliked things or kinks, it's hard to judge whether your art is considered "good" or not to the people who are into the kinks based on the amount of dislikes it's automatically going to get. I don't want to say that they should expect it because I think it's unfair to relegate these artists to the hate just because of their personal taste.

Even as a user, if I see a post with a sizable downvote count, I'm left to question, "why?" My first thought isn't "This art must be bad", it's "This art must be triggering to you folks." and I'm no wiser as to whether it's actually worth my time to look at. Though I wager there is a subconscious effect, where I look at fewer low-score posts as a result of the score without realizing it.

At the same time, when I upload a piece and see it gets downvoted into the negative in the first couple of minutes, I'm wondering "Is there a problem with the image quality? Or do you just not like the concept? Or do you not like the subject matter?" Again, it tells me nothing.

poontang said:
Sure they could blacklist a topic or whatever but I think that people should have to right to express that they dislike the art being posted. The dislike button is pretty much harmless and a simple way of expressing dislike.

And therein lies the problem. Some people downvote art because they genuinely don't think it's good quality. Some downvote any blacklistable thing they don't like and refuse to blacklist. Others downvote what happens to squeak by their blacklist for a hot minute. So when you see the downvotes, what is it telling you about the image? Nothing.

poontang said:
Personally, I don't support getting rid of dislikes because I pay attention to scores to see what art I should click on, since the thumbnails are hard to see what's exactly going on. I generally expect to see gore, scat, politics etc. downvoted (although some of that I have blacklisted already) but when it comes to poor art, I'd rather see the dislikes and skip over it than click on it thinking it may be good art but it turns out to be bad. Of course all that is just how I personally use the site and view the likes/dislikes and I don't expect it to be a universal experience.

This doesn't seem to be the case at all in my experience. I've seen some really great art, good detail, good composition, good lighting, nothing controversial about it in any way -- the kind of art any furry (and some non-furries) would have framed hanging up in their room if they could -- and it gets next to nothing on score. Upload a good, cute pic, someone goes, "I hope this gets more than 100 upvotes", and the votes shoot up. So in the end, there's no real information about the image to gleam from the score, yet it's having a (sub)conscious effect on users to see or skip posts based on this non-info.

watsit said:
All that was said

All good points, it was a good read and a good representation of the other side of the argument.
Although it doesn't change my opinion on the subject because we just experience the point system differently. Because although the points don't tell you anything, they tell me something.
I also don't believe that people downvoting controversial content they could blacklist is warrant enough to get rid of downvotes all together because there are plenty of other reasons people use the downvotes legitimately.

I will admit that the point system does sometimes subconsciously make me view art differently based on the score, although that's not always the case. In my experience, art that has a negative score (when it's not controversial) tends to be lower quality and when it's not I think it's the exception. And I don't think downvoted art is as common as one might think. Also, if art has a low score (let's say an upvote count of like 5) I don't think getting rid of downvotes will "boost" the score of these pieces that much.
To me, it more sounds like you're advocating for no point system at all.

Please don't take this post as a debate, it was good to see your side on the matter because I was genuinely curious. Just because I value the negative votes doesn't mean everyone does and a lot of my like of downvotes when it comes to the experience of this site is just years of experience and kinda understanding what kinds of art will have negative votes.

Besides, it seems like our fate is sealed on this one.

poontang said:
To me, it more sounds like you're advocating for no point system at all.

I'm still convinced it's more of a grievance that their personal tastes aren't closely represented by the score trends.

magnuseffect said:
I'm still convinced it's more of a grievance that their personal tastes aren't closely represented by the score trends.

You might be convinced of it, but I am not convinced that it is so much of a problem as to warrant action. You have to be a serious loser to follow someone around and downvote everything they say and do just to upset them, especially if they are the kind of people who don't look at a number on a webpage to see what kind of opinion they should have. Moreover, it seems to me that net-negative score images are at best random with no correlation to the pictures content, or sometimes even quality. Tends to be amusing whenever I do see it.

lonewolf343 said:
You might be convinced of it, but I am not convinced that it is so much of a problem as to warrant action. You have to be a serious loser to follow someone around and downvote everything they say and do just to upset them, especially if they are the kind of people who don't look at a number on a webpage to see what kind of opinion they should have. Moreover, it seems to me that net-negative score images are at best random with no correlation to the pictures content, or sometimes even quality. Tends to be amusing whenever I do see it.

Targeting someone for mass downvoting get noticed and gets people in trouble on e6

camkitty said:
Target ting someone for mass downvoting get noticed and gets people in trouble on e6

Wouldn't that include someone who habitually downvotes particular kinds of content, that certain users may regularly upload, in effect mass downvoting those users' uploads? Which we often see people admit to doing, but as far as I know, no one has gotten in trouble for mass-downvoting e.g. cub because they refuse to blacklist it. But even then, short of them being pompous enough to admit to doing it, how would a normal user be able to tell that's happening, and to what degree it's happening?

watsit said:
Other than a general "haha, look at all the downvotes", what does that really serve? You can still find posts with the least number of upvotes or favorites. There's also lol_comments and some other tags for really wild content that can be combined with a low favorite count or score.

Finding the worst image. You can't find the worst image by favcount. You will only see the oldest images with no faves if you search favcount_asc. Sometimes I wanna see the shittiest art there is.

lonewolf343 said:
You have to be a serious loser to follow someone around and downvote everything they say and do just to upset them

Agreed, and I'm not sure how this factors into the post it's replying to.

kyiiel said:
Finding the worst image. You can't find the worst image by favcount. You will only see the oldest images with no faves if you search favcount_asc. Sometimes I wanna see the shittiest art there is.

Which the downvote count won't indicate. The site does have some quality standards, so the real low-quality pieces won't be found here. Beyond that, "worst" is entirely subjective. Some of the worst art I've seen has a good number of upvotes. Just because I don't like it doesn't mean everyone else doesn't either, so the score isn't very meaningful there.

watsit said:
Which the downvote count won't indicate. The site does have some quality standards, so the real low-quality pieces won't be found here. Beyond that, "worst" is entirely subjective. Some of the worst art I've seen has a good number of upvotes. Just because I don't like it doesn't mean everyone else doesn't either, so the score isn't very meaningful there.

Fallacy of virtue. You claim that downvotes should be removed because they are subjective. However, just because the downvotes are subjective, doesn't mean they aren't useful or should be removed.

Art itself is subjective. Using a subjective system to find subjectively the best/worst art, is perfectly reasonable, and expected.

Upvotes/downvotes are working exactly how they're supposed to. It shows what images users like and dislike most on the site. If the userbase doesn't like a particular type of content, then it shows that. This is not a bad thing, even if content you like doesn't get voted in the manner in which think it should.

kyiiel said:
Fallacy of virtue. You claim that downvotes should be removed because they are subjective.

No, I'm saying they should be removed because at least some people downvote it for invalid reasons that have nothing to do with the quality of the art (i.e. not blacklisting content they don't like, or ignoring what happens to slip through their blacklist), and there's no way to filter those out or even guess how much it may factor in to the downvote count for a given post. That every downvote is treated as equal to every upvote is another issue with the scoring system, as different people prioritize different things when considering upvoting or downvoting; some people may not care about the reason a given downvote was made, or a given upvote for that matter, so having any given upvote equalize against any given downvote results in a poor metric.

If people would just vote based purely on their subjective opinion of the quality of the art, that would be fine. But that's not what happens in a good number of cases, and there's no way to know even roughly how often it happens, just that it happens regularly given how often I see people complaining about the subject matter of a post. So the current scoring system is inherently flawed to the point of uselessness, but still provides a false sense of quality rating to some people which makes it detrimental and not harmless.

watsit said:
Some stuff.

Seeing as you draw issue with every upvote and downvote being equal, would a five/ten/one-hundred point-based system with a "number of votes cast" count appease you? Most folks are probably going to still just resort to binary minumum or maximum, but at least that would resolve that percieved issue... or are you talking more in the sense of "some people's votes should matter less"?

The problem with using favourites as a measure is that as an image grows older it's logically going to accumulate them, skewing things massively by virtue of sheer age of an image. The vast majority of "use your blacklist" downvotes, in comparison, are most likely to happen immediately due to initial visibility and then sharply trail off as an image ages.

votp said:
Seeing as you draw issue with every upvote and downvote being equal, would a five/ten/one-hundred point-based system with a "number of votes cast" count appease you? Most folks are probably going to still just resort to binary minumum or maximum, but at least that would resolve that percieved issue... or are you talking more in the sense of "some people's votes should matter less"?

They're still likely to take issue with theoretical reasons behind low voting. Argument in the past has centred around a "lack of certainty" surrounding negative votes rendering them meaningless, and that this uncertainty is not applicable to positive votes.

votp said:
Seeing as you draw issue with every upvote and downvote being equal, would a five/ten/one-hundred point-based system with a "number of votes cast" count appease you? Most folks are probably going to still just resort to binary minumum or maximum, but at least that would resolve that percieved issue... or are you talking more in the sense of "some people's votes should matter less"?

More in the sense that "some reasons matter less", and that there's no way to know whether any given upvote is comparable to any given downvote. The upvotes and downvotes aren't an apples-to-apples comparison, as anyone can vote whichever way they want for any or no reason, so you can't derive a single score from it that says anything meaningful.

The system does keep track of the upvotes and downvotes separately (you can see it when you hover on the score in the post, but it doesn't work on thumbnails), so a compromise could be an account option to show upvotes only, show downvotes only, show upvotes and downvotes separately, show the score (downvotes subtracted by upvotes), or nothing (just show favorites, no score or vote counts), on both the thumbnails and posts. Maybe that's too invasive of a change, though.

watsit said:
show downvotes only

someone's gotta be real pessimistic to enable that

strikerman said:
someone's gotta be real pessimistic to enable that

Not quite the same thing but Lance once asked for most controversial searches

Downvotes should stay. I find them very useful to see what types of art people like and dislike. Sure, they might be abused by people who refuse to blacklist, but honestly, I don't see this as a big problem. If you only want to see what people like, sort by favorites. Removing downvotes is a pointless and useless endeavor.

I'd rather see both upvotes and downvote statistics on a post instead of the number of the score of the combined.

kemonophonic said:
I don't go out my way looking for stuff to downvote. I only downvote posts that aren't tagged properly that get through my blacklist.

And when tags are fixed or put on that put it in your black list, do you go back and remove your downvote so others can know its good or neutral content that fits their preferences? No, I doubt you take that much effort. Don't downvote art you don't like or that makes it through your blacklist, just take three seconds to edit and put in the tag that qualifies for your blacklist and applies to the art, so others like you who downvote out of laziness, won't see it.

millcore said:
This is not YouTube, we will not hide or remove the downvote button on posts.

I'll bet three years before a lot of these problematic 'features' are removed. E6 has removed and changed features, and enforced the will of the loudest forum users in the last couple years, only a matter of time. Honestly it'd be a really good change for the site, downvotes just enable mass 'review bombs' and are abused by people who refuse to blacklist a tag or two. Talking about art post downvotes, not comment downvotes.

A good option would be to make it like whatever that one dude said who said if you downvote enough art with a common tag, that user gets a message saying they dislike X amount of posts with Y and Z tags, and give them the option to put it on their blacklist, but instead of being an option to add it, have it forced added to their blacklist so they stop downvoting and causing stress to uploaders and newbies who forget a tag, don't know all the tags, don't know about tag_me, and/or use upvote counts as a source of serotonin.

The thought of disabling down-votes is a pretty good one in my opinion. A big chunk of art - specifically on e621 - is down-voted for containing a more extreme kink. Neither as an artist, nor as someone who posts a comment needs to know how many people disagree with me or my art, I want to know how many people agree and support my art. I'm already well aware that something I draw, write or do isn't going to be everyone's cup of tea. I don't need that rubbed in as well. One can only ignore that much before falling for the opinions.

marflebark said:
I'll bet three years before a lot of these problematic 'features' are removed. E6 has removed and changed features, and enforced the will of the loudest forum users in the last couple years, only a matter of time. Honestly it'd be a really good change for the site, downvotes just enable mass 'review bombs' and are abused by people who refuse to blacklist a tag or two. Talking about art post downvotes, not comment downvotes.

A good option would be to make it like whatever that one dude said who said if you downvote enough art with a common tag, that user gets a message saying they dislike X amount of posts with Y and Z tags, and give them the option to put it on their blacklist, but instead of being an option to add it, have it forced added to their blacklist so they stop downvoting and causing stress to uploaders and newbies who forget a tag, don't know all the tags, don't know about tag_me, and/or use upvote counts as a source of serotonin.

If it's worry about critism one has, it would be a better feature to make it use optional to disable the score on their account. Rather then remove the voice of the public to avoid hurt feelings. disliking something isn't a problem with refusal to use the blacklist, no one is obligated to like anything. If all you're doing is a -1 on some post you don't like, so what. As long as you're not out bashing people or the art for looking at it, that's life.

As far as uploaders not knowing tags, literally at the top of the upload form is

Before uploading, read the how to upload guide.
Make sure you're not posting something on the Avoid Posting List
Review the Uploading Guidelines
Unsure what to tag your post with? Tagging Checklist

with hyperlinks. If people take the time to read it

versperus said:
(...) If people take the time to read it

If anything has been drilled into me about the mindset of the average internet user as a years-long member of ye olde F-List; "Reading? What's that?".

votp said:
If anything has been drilled into me about the mindset of the average internet user as a years-long member of ye olde F-List; "Reading? What's that?".

I don't believe people should be exempt from "feels bad man" because of their own negligence :V

versperus said:
As far as uploaders not knowing tags, literally at the top of the upload form is

Before uploading, read the how to upload guide.
Make sure you're not posting something on the Avoid Posting List
Review the Uploading Guidelines
Unsure what to tag your post with? Tagging Checklist

with hyperlinks. If people take the time to read it

Not every applicable tag is going to be obvious. Some people don't know how to or don't bother learning how to blacklist effectively (I've seen some people effectively go "I don't like X content, I see Artist Y draws X content a lot, I'll blacklist Artist Y" and they'll still occasionally see and downvote X content from other artists). Sometimes there isn't always an applicable tag. Sometimes it's not even the content itself, but that a particular type of content is getting flooded all at once and someone doesn't want to see that much of it when they're more interested in something a bit different, which is hard to find from being flooded out.

Aside from obvious contenders like cub, who know what specifically a given person won't like and will downvote instead of blacklisting? And in some cases, the way e6 defines certain tags doesn't align with how others want them to be. For example, some people consider bestiality to be anything with a "non-sentient feral" and a human, whereas here it's feral-on-non-feral regardless of sentience or sapience, causing them to not blacklist bestiality because they still want to see MLP ponies or sapient/talking ferals with anthros, but still downvote porn of what they consider to be "non-sentient ferals" regardless of quality, and there isn't a tag for that (nor can their be, as it can't fit TWYS and it's not often stated for lore).

That on top of some people not bothering to read when uploading, and sometimes mistakes happen (I've certainly forgotten obvious tags once or twice). But either way, I don't think it's fair for an image to be downvoted because of poor initial tagging, especially if the score won't be fixed when the tagging is fixed. Or because someone can't just look away from content they don't like (and rather than simply not give their upvote and/or favorite, they are compelled to give an anti-upvote).

watsit said:
Not every applicable tag is going to be obvious. Some people don't know how to or don't bother learning how to blacklist effectively (I've seen some people effectively go "I don't like X content, I see Artist Y draws X content a lot, I'll blacklist Artist Y" and they'll still occasionally see and downvote X content from other artists). Sometimes there isn't always an applicable tag. Sometimes it's not even the content itself, but that a particular type of content is getting flooded all at once and someone doesn't want to see that much of it when they're more interested in something a bit different, which is hard to find from being flooded out.

Aside from obvious contenders like cub, who know what specifically a given person won't like and will downvote instead of blacklisting? And in some cases, the way e6 defines certain tags doesn't align with how others want them to be. For example, some people consider bestiality to be anything with a "non-sentient feral" and a human, whereas here it's feral-on-non-feral regardless of sentience or sapience, causing them to not blacklist bestiality because they still want to see MLP ponies or sapient/talking ferals with anthros, but still downvote porn of what they consider to be "non-sentient ferals" regardless of quality, and there isn't a tag for that (nor can their be, as it can't fit TWYS and it's not often stated for lore).

That on top of some people not bothering to read when uploading, and sometimes mistakes happen (I've certainly forgotten obvious tags once or twice). But either way, I don't think it's fair for an image to be downvoted because of poor initial tagging, especially if the score won't be fixed when the tagging is fixed. Or because someone can't just look away from content they don't like (and rather than simply not give their upvote and/or favorite, they are compelled to give an anti-upvote).

again I would like to see both sets of numbers for up an down, I don't think removing peoples ability to have a voice is the right answer. However, giving induvial users the ability to toggle statistics in their user settings could be an option. Let the more sensitive people only see positives if that's what they want, people who care about the whole picture see both, and people who only want to see the negs such.

UnseenPanther said:
Title.

No.