Honestly? I'm all for removing the downvote button. It feels like it causes more problems than helps, and it's primary purpose can easily be misinterpreted since it's such a vague system. Most any reason you can think to downvote something, can just be hit with the 'blacklist' excuse from someone else.

Don't like a topic in the art? Blacklist it. Don't like the artists style? Blacklist them. Don't like the character in the post? Blacklist it. Don't think it's a good post? Just blacklist the post itself.
If a post isn't good, just don't upvote it, don't even bother with having a downvote button. If the art is bad then just leave it with no score.

Genuine use of the downvote button can't be discerned from disingenuous use, why? Because of it's vagueness, it's just an up 1 or down 1, the reasoning behind it can be literally anything from something as serious as someone being hateful to something as benign as someone just disliking the art in question. This has unfortunately led to problems with posts that might have sensitive or protected content, you can't honestly take scores on these posts seriously due to 'us vs them' kinds of people and those who are trying to just leave their opinion on something can be unfortunately lumped into groups they do not associate with.

How would I fix it? I think the best way, for both users and others, is just to replace the downvote button with a button that just blacklists that specific post. The artist doesn't have to deal with their posts getting downvote bombed, and users can more easily avoid posts they do not like. Then again, making the blacklist more user friendly and more obvious can also help as well.

Removing the ability to downvote = more complaining in the comments

kemonophonic said:
Removing the ability to downvote = more complaining in the comments

That, at the very least, lifts the veil of ambiguity. Are they making valid criticisms, or just harassing? It's easier to see when they actually have to speak out their mind than just hitting a button.

somerandomvoir said:
That, at the very least, lifts the veil of ambiguity. Are they making valid criticisms, or just harassing? It's easier to see when they actually have to speak out their mind than just hitting a button.

Which will in turn lead to more people arguing back about blacklist use, people will always find something MORE to complain about if they can't just hit a button to show displeasure without needing to explain a reason as to why.

I've always hated when forums do this. Voting is such a pointless system to begin with. I say either keep all of it or remove it entirely.
Only having upvotes removes information about the post. One might argue the comment section conveys similar information but it doesn't always tell the whole picture.

somerandomvoir said:

Genuine use of the downvote button can't be discerned from disingenuous use, why? Because of it's vagueness, it's just an up 1 or down 1, the reasoning behind it can be literally anything from something as serious as someone being hateful to something as benign as someone just disliking the art in question. This has unfortunately led to problems with posts that might have sensitive or protected content, you can't honestly take scores on these posts seriously due to 'us vs them' kinds of people and those who are trying to just leave their opinion on something can be unfortunately lumped into groups they do not associate with.

You can't always take comments or comment votes seriously either. The e621 userbase is very capricious. Things like time of day or content often affect how it's received.
and tbh, does it really matter if you can't take the voting score seriously?

somerandomvoir said:

How would I fix it? I think the best way, for both users and others, is just to replace the downvote button with a button that just blacklists that specific post. The artist doesn't have to deal with their posts getting downvote bombed, and users can more easily avoid posts they do not like. Then again, making the blacklist more user friendly and more obvious can also help as well.

A blacklist button is a really good idea though. Such an important system yet barely visible.
I'd put it next to the tags or something. Blacklisting a single post isn't necessary except for the "chronic offenders" like nazi tails.

I also wish the downvote button was removed :P forum #381812

somerandomvoir said:
How would I fix it? I think the best way, for both users and others, is just to replace the downvote button with a button that just blacklists that specific post. The artist doesn't have to deal with their posts getting downvote bombed, and users can more easily avoid posts they do not like. Then again, making the blacklist more user friendly and more obvious can also help as well.

This is a fantastic idea!!

alatreonspaws said:
Which will in turn lead to more people arguing back about blacklist use, people will always find something MORE to complain about if they can't just hit a button to show displeasure without needing to explain a reason as to why.

Why couldn't a new blacklist button do just that? 'This post displeases me, I don't wish to see it anymore' boom, score isn't affected, user doesn't have to see post anymore, it's a better downvote button where someone's feelings don't have to be hurt and the user can more easily avoid an image they don't like.

No, we don't need it. Get rid of it. You can get a record if you use it.

Even as someone who tends to get insta-downvoted a lot for reasons I don't really understand (I mean, I know I'm a pretty bad artist, but still...), I'm really not in favor of getting rid of the button. Folks like me are the exception, not the rule. For the majority of posts, the entire score is useful. And I HATE when other sites get rid of theirs, YOUTUBE.

Besides, we already have an up-only system in the Favorites button.

hjfduitloxtrds said:
No, we don't need it. Get rid of it. You can get a record if you use it.

That's because people mass-downvoted based on a theme/tag, rather than choosing to blacklist it instead.

popoto said:
Only having upvotes removes information about the post.

Not that having both really gives any information either. People can upvote and downvote for literally any reason whatsoever, and the post score treats every upvote as equal to every downvote, regardless of the reason a given person clicked on it. It makes no sense to compare upvotes to downvotes, and as long as upvoting and favoriting are separate, it's not really a substitute.

lendrimujina said:
And I HATE when other sites get rid of theirs, YOUTUBE.

The downvote button is still there. You just don't get to see how many other people clicked it or the ratio, which I like. Strange as it may sound, I'd actually feel a bit of anxiety when seeing the dislike count/ratio on videos I want to watch, and it's been a more pleasant experience since it's not shown anymore. That information may be useful to content creators (and I'm pretty sure they can still see those statistics for their videos), but for users I don't see the point to having it visible other than to spread negativity or bandwagon on a hate train.

thegreatwolfgang said:
That's because people mass-downvoted based on a theme/tag, rather than choosing to blacklist it instead.

Because certain themes are not allowed to be downvoted while others are allowed. If it's popular and has many upvotes, It's not allowed to be downvoted, but if it's unpopular and already has 100 downvotes go ahead downvote it no one will notice. The rule, as written, is purposely vague and open to interpretation to make it easier to give out records. It's not clear how many downvotes can get you in trouble either. Just get rid of the button. It's not allowed to be used. It's useless and pointless. BTW I do and have used the blacklist for many various tags and artists. It just doesn't work when the tag you're claimed of downvoting is not something you'd want blacklisted.

thegreatwolfgang said:
That's because people mass-downvoted based on a theme/tag, rather than choosing to blacklist it instead.

Yeah but how can you 'tell' when a vote is theme/tag based? I mean, think of it, there's a lot of tags and not everyone keeps track of what tags they've downvoted in the past and it might not even be the tag in question as to why they're downvoting it. Heck in some cases you might not even see the thing being tagged in question, and some tags are present in almost EVERY image on the site.
For example, the butt tag has a wopping 874k posts. Just because you downvote 1k, 2k, 5 or even 10k posts with the butt tag in it, does that just mean your downvoting because of the tag, or the tag just happens to be there when you're downvoting it?

I can understand when like, post after post after post, in quick succession, are downvoted, but that's a specific case.

hjfduitloxtrds said:
Because certain themes are not allowed to be downvoted while others are allowed. If it's popular and has many upvotes, It's not allowed to be downvoted, but if it's unpopular and already has 100 downvotes go ahead downvote it no one will notice. The rule, as written, is purposely vague and open to interpretation to make it easier to give out records. It's not clear how many downvotes can get you in trouble either. Just get rid of the button. It's not allowed to be used. It's useless and pointless. BTW I do and have used the blacklist for many various tags and artists. It just doesn't work when the tag you're claimed of downvoting is not something you'd want blacklisted.

That's... that's just conspiracy theory talk, man. I can understand being paranoid, but I've downvoted plenty of popular posts before, and upvoted unpopular posts.

If you have a problem with records you've gotten, there are other courses of action to take for that.

kemonophonic said:
Removing the ability to downvote = more complaining in the comments

This person gets it!

Well, TBF, it is a good feedback mechanism. "Geez, I guess I shouldn't say s*** like that." but long before you get to level of "LOL, I really want to *insert banning offense related to one of the characters in the post*.".

lendrimujina said:
That's... that's just conspiracy theory talk, man. I can understand being paranoid, but I've downvoted plenty of popular posts before, and upvoted unpopular posts.

no it's not.

If you have a problem with records you've gotten, there are other courses of action to take for that.

Which I did and have yet to receive a satisfactory answer.

hjfduitloxtrds said:
no it's not.

Which I did and have yet to receive a satisfactory answer.

Just don't mass-downvote a single user, or get your 40 buddies to do it with you? I mean, THAT is the intent of that rule, right?

Meh, the points don't matter, so goes the comedy show motto.

Eh, I think it's good that we has a way to express our disapproval for things like nazi posts. Like, fine, they're allowed, but it's nice that it's also made obvious that the community in general isn't in favor of them. Yes, it's often misused, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

hjfduitloxtrds said:
Because certain themes are not allowed to be downvoted while others are allowed. If it's popular and has many upvotes, It's not allowed to be downvoted, but if it's unpopular and already has 100 downvotes go ahead downvote it no one will notice. The rule, as written, is purposely vague and open to interpretation to make it easier to give out records. It's not clear how many downvotes can get you in trouble either. Just get rid of the button. It's not allowed to be used. It's useless and pointless. BTW I do and have used the blacklist for many various tags and artists. It just doesn't work when the tag you're claimed of downvoting is not something you'd want blacklisted.

Downvoting something, because you don't like it, is ok.
Not liking something, and going on a downvote spree, isn't.
The latter is what gets you in trouble.

dubsthefox said:
Downvoting something, because you don't like it, is ok.
Not liking something, and going on a downvote spree, isn't.
The latter is what gets you in trouble.

What constitutes a spree? Two posts within an hour? Five within a day? Does it depend on the users general activity and duration of stay? Do they have to be back to back or between several other visits?

I entirely agree that if people actively look for certain kinds of posts and downvote them back to back on mass, like ten posts within thirty minutes, should be in trouble, but there are times and days where one particular tag just gets extremely popular or bulk posted on some days so there's just a lot of exposure for that kind of tag, especially all on one, two, or three pages.

And before you say 'then just blacklist it', what if it's content you genuinely want, but it's just seen as rarely done in a high quality way? What if they happen to contain content that doesn't have tags for? Or things that are just portrayed in a fashion that does not appeal to you? What if you're not even AWARE of the tag in these posts to begin with? There's so many nuances to take into consideration but NO information past a single button being pressed several times.

somerandomvoir said:
What constitutes a spree? Two posts within an hour? Five within a day? Does it depend on the users general activity and duration of stay? Do they have to be back to back or between several other visits?

I entirely agree that if people actively look for certain kinds of posts and downvote them back to back on mass, like ten posts within thirty minutes, should be in trouble, but there are times and days where one particular tag just gets extremely popular or bulk posted on some days so there's just a lot of exposure for that kind of tag, especially all on one, two, or three pages.

And before you say 'then just blacklist it', what if it's content you genuinely want, but it's just seen as rarely done in a high quality way? What if they happen to contain content that doesn't have tags for? Or things that are just portrayed in a fashion that does not appeal to you? What if you're not even AWARE of the tag in these posts to begin with? There's so many nuances to take into consideration but NO information past a single button being pressed several times.

Ok. let me say it differently. If we notice a user is constantly downvoting something that's blacklistable, they get a bonk for it. But it is not like they get an instant ban if they downvote "often affected themes".
If they don't like it, they can downvote it, but we expect them to adapt to a certain level.

We barely have enough staff to deal with the actual important things on the site, having to devote even more time to go through suspected downvote streaks and make judgement on them feels like a waste. Eliminate the ambiguity and just leave favoriting/blacklisting, post scores are just something thats present today because other sites did it at the time, not because they are some integral part of the site thats absolutely required

dubsthefox said:
Downvoting something, because you don't like it, is ok.
Not liking something, and going on a downvote spree, isn't.
The latter is what gets you in trouble.

That is sadly just not true. I got a slap on the wrist for downvoting one, maybe two - it's been months, I don't really recall anymore - comments in a lengthy comment chain whose points I disagreed with. Unfortunately those points are considered policy here, and while I respect that I do still disagree with them. So yes, (near-)singular downvotes do occasionally get punished.

dubsthefox said:
Ok. let me say it differently. If we notice a user is constantly downvoting something that's blacklistable, they get a bonk for it. But it is not like they get an instant ban if they downvote "often affected themes".
If they don't like it, they can downvote it, but we expect them to adapt to a certain level.

What constitutes 'constantly'? EVERY post? Two out of three? One out of two? Nine out of ten? Does upvoting any of them matter at all for the count? What about posts where the tagged thing in question is hard to see or not the focus of the image? How can these people adapt aside from taking the time to read the tag list EVERY time to make sure what they're about to downvote doesn't contain the tag they're being bonked for? You can't blacklist some tags because if you do, you can end up entirely missing out on vast amount of things that are associated with the tag, IE, if you blacklisted butts, but if you enjoy gas-play, a majority of the content you enjoyed is all blocked off because one of those tags is almost always paired with another one.

Why not just disable the downvote button when people exceed downvoting a tag type? Or to tie back into the original topic, why bother having a downvote button at all when it mostly just gets abused or gets people in trouble even when they aren't intentionally doing it? A scoring system doesn't necessarily need a method of decreasing points, when just 'not getting them' works just as well. A post that's been around for three years but only has 5 upvotes is obviously not doing as well as the post that has 3k upvotes within three days.

mabit said:
We barely have enough staff to deal with the actual important things on the site, having to devote even more time to go through suspected downvote streaks and make judgement on them feels like a waste. Eliminate the ambiguity and just leave favoriting/blacklisting, post scores are just something thats present today because other sites did it at the time, not because they are some integral part of the site thats absolutely required

The amount of posts I see get removed by automod's because no one comes around to approving them actually feels like a crime.

I like how the most vocal of those against downvotes are the ones who that got slapped for "abusing" it.
The topic of removing downvotes have been brought up time and time again, and each time it has been shot down and locked.

Regardless of opinions or whether blacklists should be used, I do find certain useful functionality for downvotes.

• Posts that do not meet the uploading guidelines or artistic standards get marked by downvotes, making it easier for janitors to go through them first (as opposed to a system where no scores exist).
• Decreases the amount of negative comments about the artist or theme. Removing downvotes/scores will just encourage more negative comments and subsequently Refusal to Use Blacklist reports.
• Show disapproval towards certain decisions made by an artist that one follows, but not particularly hate enough to blacklist. I have seen popular artists getting downvote-bombed on specific posts, due to terrible paywalling/censoring or story plot directions for comics.
• You will get slapped for complaining about it in the comments, so it would be advised to just downvote the ones that you don't like silently or to not be outright aggressive in the comments.
• If that sort of behaviour happens a lot for the artist, then you are expected to blacklist them entirely instead of subjecting yourself to even more discontent, and mass-downvoting stuff as they come.

IMO I think COMMENTS do not need upvote nor downvote, but image posts on the other hand do.

thegreatwolfgang said:
I like how the most vocal of those against downvotes are the ones who that got slapped for "abusing" it.
The topic of removing downvotes have been brought up time and time again, and each time it has been shot down and locked.

Regardless of opinions or whether blacklists should be used, I do find certain useful functionality for downvotes.

• Posts that do not meet the uploading guidelines or artistic standards get marked by downvotes, making it easier for janitors to go through them first (as opposed to a system where no scores exist).
• Decreases the amount of negative comments about the artist or theme. Removing downvotes/scores will just encourage more negative comments and subsequently Refusal to Use Blacklist reports.
• Show disapproval towards certain decisions made by an artist that one follows, but not particularly hate enough to blacklist. I have seen popular artists getting downvote-bombed on specific posts, due to terrible paywalling/censoring or story plot directions for comics.
• You will get slapped for complaining about it in the comments, so it would be advised to just downvote the ones that you don't like silently or to not be outright aggressive in the comments.
• If that sort of behaviour happens a lot for the artist, then you are expected to blacklist them entirely instead of subjecting yourself to even more discontent, and mass-downvoting stuff as they come.

Well I'm not going to, nor am I able to, hide that. This is the second time I have ""abused"" it and whilst the first person was more than cordial and polite in handling the misunderstanding in the first case, I was not fortunate in the second one. No amount of explaining or answering questions seemed sufficient enough reasoning, and when appealed to a higher up, I was flat out just hit with a 'I don't believe you' and have been stuck with the slanderous record. I do not, and have not, gone out of my way to downvote certain tags, yet, here I am.

I understand that flatout removing downvotes has been discussed, but I wish to replace it with something, something that perhaps help users whilst eliminating needlessly negative feedback, as well as stop others from ending up in similar situations.

As for your points:
*Posts that don't meet uploading guidelines should be flagged to begin with, multiple flags could serve just as well as an indicator, though anything flagged like this should be reviewed anyway.
*It takes considerably more effort to go out of ones way to leave a negative comment, people that are petty enough to do something like that are going to do that anyway, regardless if they can downvote said content to begin with.
*Disapproval of a post can be shown through comments or a lack of upvotes, you can't tell me that a post with only five upvotes and a lot of comments isn't as telling as one that gets downvote bombed.
**People could be encouraged to leave constructive criticisms for artists, understandably there will be those that disregard this and leave nasty comments, however if they are interested in steering the artist in the right direction, they will leave good criticism or at least non-hostile criticism, these are the people that are worth listening to.
**An easier to use blacklist option, like a button with perhaps with options attached to it that allow you to blacklist either a tag, artist, or specific post would considerably help users in avoiding artists they find discontent with.

Enough of this. The issue was escalated and escalated with the same answer each time. If you downvote predominantly LGBT posts and comments to the point I can actually see it in a single list, you will get the bonk. We aren't going to play semantics here with how much you need to make trouble, before you are in trouble.

Edit: To clarify (and be a bit less rude) we aren't talking about a trip or two of posts. This is hundreds and hundreds of posts over a few years. That's excessive.

calydor said:
That is sadly just not true. I got a slap on the wrist for downvoting one, maybe two - it's been months, I don't really recall anymore - comments in a lengthy comment chain whose points I disagreed with. Unfortunately those points are considered policy here, and while I respect that I do still disagree with them. So yes, (near-)singular downvotes do occasionally get punished.

No, it wasn’t one or two comments, it was 17 comments. I just counted them.