Please add a comment field for post downvotes

Service: Narrative

I've down-voted many posts for AUP violations (copyright violations).

Sometimes it's hard to see the original source.  The violator may have cut sections from several different articles.  They may have slightly changed the wording to frustrate searches.  They may have stolen an image and altered it.

I think it would make life MUCH easier for the Tribunal if I could include an explanation of the violation, along with links to the original source(s).

 

Original Post

Activity Stream

I've wanted something like this for a while. I would like to be able to share the links to the original content that has been copied word for word, or the Tineye results for where a photo was stolen from. 

Heck, I'd like to be able to say, "I voted this low-quality because it contains too many grammatical errors to be entirely comprehensible." Or "I voted this low-quality because it suggests never using the downvote button at all, which I think it harmful for the platform." Or "I voted this low quality because much of the information in it is misleading or untrue."

@Former Member, clarification. This is not true:

Note that when you downvote as a AUP Violation, if the Tribunal disagrees, which they do the majority of the time, your vote is changed to zero.

Tribunal inaction on an AUP report has zero impact on your vote.

Sol Cycler posted:

This has been suggested more than once and Staff says it will be required in the future for AUP downvotes, but it's low on the update list.

Here is the post by staff explaining this.

https://community.narrative.or...s-to-include-members

@Former Member

We have a big problem with plagiarism, and it needs to be addressed soon.  I think most of us can agree to that.

Ted's proposed solution was very unwieldy and unrealistic.  

What I am proposing would be trivially easy to implement, and would give the Tribunal the information they need to make informed decisions.

 

Sol Cycler posted:
Brian Lenz posted:

@Former Member, clarification. This is not true:

Note that when you downvote as a AUP Violation, if the Tribunal disagrees, which they do the majority of the time, your vote is changed to zero.

Tribunal inaction on an AUP report has zero impact on your vote.

Good to know. I saw this from a staff reply somewhere recently, but spent an hour trying to find it but can't. I think it was a response to a question from @Christina Gleason. Could you weigh in if my memory is correct Christina?

My memory on this subject is not helping at the moment. Sorry!

Sol Cycler posted:

Unfortunately, unless we get as strict as Steemit on original content, we are never going to address it well enough.

My feelings go both ways. Everytime I receive a downvote I want to be able to know who it was. But when I truly try to convince myself this is really what I want, I can't spin it as the best option.

Flag wars affect the whole platform, but sporadic and even consistent targeted downvoting only a fraction.

Downvote wars do way more damage too.

There are pro's and cons to both sides here.

Of course, if the comment for a dv is made anonymously, but the Tribunal has access to that info then there's no issue. 

Require a 15 chatacter min. Comment, which must state a valid reason with the ability to be held accountable. Unfortunately corrupt Tribunal Member's could leak this info as well.

 

The system can work really well even if the Tribunal does not know who the downvoter is.  Complete anonymity can be maintained, and the Tribunal can rule solely on the validity of the reason provided for the downvote.

The Tribunal could even be able to see a history of that user's downvote reviews, without knowing who the user is.  This way, they can assess whether the user has heeded prior warnings about abusive downvoting, and escalate penalties when appropriate.

@Robert Nicholson - I think the Team does intend to have this field to require info on the AUP violation.  I seem to recall one of the staff members saying it is slated for development - they want a link to be provided to the original content.

I think what is important to note here is the value of the title of your ticket - which requests a field for information on all downvotes.  If someone is downvoting for low quality, they should be able to explain why.  This will greatly minimise abuse straight out the gate - it will deter abusive downvotes because of the inference of scrutiny, and the fact that though still anonymous, everyone will be able to see if downvote was sincere or not.

Add to this the ability for the downvote to be referred to the Tribunal, and for penalties (rep and even financial) to be applied to abusers, and we FINALLY have a environment that does not tolerate abuse.

Without this, IMO, Narrative will suffer catastrophic abuse of the downvote - it is only a matter of time.

MineYourMind posted:

That'll work only if the Tribunal is completely diverse. Knowing the content author could and will also promote bias.

You can hide and author's username, but not the content and style. It's still too easy to figure out who the author is.

Just pointing out more issue's so we can do a better job.

Your description here is definitely a start.

Interesting - I had not thought about recognising a downvoter's writing style in his downvote comment.

While it is possible that this could be recognised, I personally don't view this as a reason to avoid this solution.  

a) it is possible to write the downvote comment in a manner such as to disguise one's style

b) with thousands of members, it is impossible to be sure, even if you suspect you recognise a person's style: I don't think it will be easy at all to know who the downvoter is

c) people are already sometimes trying to guess who the downvoter is, and retaliating by downvoting on the suspect's posts, even though there is a good chance they are attacking someone who had nothing to do with the downvote.  With the proposed system, they instead can simply appeal the downvote, and if it was abusive, they can be certain the right person will receive a penalty.  

d) with this system, if the post author thinks she knows the downvoter from their comment style, and then abusively downvotes them, she herself will be appealed and penalised.

 

MineYourMind posted:
 
 

All one would need to do to recognize a post author is to follow the Discovery Recent feed.

I like the idea of being able to appeal a downvote.

Aren't we talking about downvote comment authors?

Post authors are not anonymous.

All we would have to do is not list downvote comment activity in the Activity Feed.  Downvotes and upvotes are already absent from that feed, so I'm assuming it will remain that way.

So there should be no problem on that level?

MineYourMind posted:
Malkazoid posted:
MineYourMind posted:
 
 

All one would need to do to recognize a post author is to follow the Discovery Recent feed.

I like the idea of being able to appeal a downvote.

Aren't we talking about downvote comment authors?

Post authors are not anonymous.

All we would have to do is not list downvote comment activity in the Activity Feed.  Downvotes and upvotes are already absent from that feed, so I'm assuming it will remain that way.

So there should be no problem on that level?

I'm talking about both the downvoter and the author of the content being downvoted.

Results can be biased in both directions.

If any Tribunal member has a circle of friends and they will, this will be an issue.

I see.

I don't think we should worry too much about bias in favour of the post author.  That's something that can come up in every single decision of the Tribunal on niches and niche appeals.  The niche owners, and niche suggesters, are not anonymous in this procedure.

Having a 15 Tribunal members (which I believe is how many we will be electing), makes it unlikely that too many of them will be biased in favour of any given Narrator enough to change too many outcomes.

We should also remember that the theoretically biased Tribunal member won't know who the downvoter was - he may be deciding to penalise someone he likes even more than the poster that he likes...  

Most importantly though, no judicial system can completely rule out the potential for bias in a judge or jury.  So I don't think this level of consideration should influence our designs too much.  The decisions of our Tribunal members are transparent, and they can be held accountable.

 

A downvote (or other views, like "disagree" or "low quality") is just a viewpoint that needs to be explained.

Otherwise, it is not fair; and in this case it invites the suspicion that there is no good reason for it. 

For a good reason could be easily defended, but a bad reason not.

In this latter case, there should be no vote in the first place!

For grown-ups should take responsability for their views and certainly not hide behind anonymity.

 

Besides, who needs the unexplained (!) views of others to make a decision about the quality of an article?

Only people who cannot think for themselves and come to their own view about an article; or who let themselves be easily influenced.

This should not be supported.

Adding a required comment section for downvotes can only have a positive outcome and is a relatively simple way to help curb the abuse.  Giving a BS reason for the DV when you are just using the DV for malicious purposes should be an obvious indicator of intent.   However, if you are truly DVing for low content, giving a reason to the post author is now a form of constructive criticism and the poster can learn from the comment.

As to the AUP violations DV, there is already a very reasonable system written in the AUP, but it's not being used.  It's called the Community Content Review Queue and you can find it here: spec.narrative.org/docs/reputation

I wrote this post about finding it and explaining it:

https://www.narrative.org/post...content-review-queue

Why keep trying to reinvent that wheel, when all we have to do is get it rolling?

blueeyes8960 posted:

Adding a required comment section for downvotes can only have a positive outcome and is a relatively simple way to help curb the abuse.  Giving a BS reason for the DV when you are just using the DV for malicious purposes should be an obvious indicator of intent.   However, if you are truly DVing for low content, giving a reason to the post author is now a form of constructive criticism and the poster can learn from the comment.

As to the AUP violations DV, there is already a very reasonable system written in the AUP, but it's not being used.  It's called the Community Content Review Queue and you can find it here: spec.narrative.org/docs/reputation

I wrote this post about finding it and explaining it:

https://www.narrative.org/post...content-review-queue

Why keep trying to reinvent that wheel, when all we have to do is get it rolling?

100% agreement.

The Downvote Reason comment brings transparency that we need, because currently the Narrative Team is claiming abuse is not happening.  MANY Community members, old and new, disagree.  It is extremely unhealthy for the platform to remain in a state of growing distrust of what the Team is telling us, and the only way to really resolve this is providing a means for the Community members to judge for themselves.  From the moment the Downvote Reason field is implemented, the evidence of good or bad faith of downvotes will be transparent, while still protecting the anonymity of downvoters.

Narrative claims to want to be transparent.  Why not about this?

And as @blueeyes8960 underlines - this vehicle of constructive criticism, if the downvote is in good faith, is a HUGE benefit.  So many people shy away from providing constructive criticism precisely because they fear it will be taken the wrong way, and result in revenge downvotes. Literally every single Narrator I know who used to want to provide helpful suggestions, now don't do it half the time because of this.  This results in an environment where newcomers to Narrative are left not understanding where they went wrong.  We are squandering the good Community spirit by allowing this barrier to helping each other.

With this barrier lifted, Narrators can improve their craft, resulting in improved content quality.

blueeyes8960 posted:

As to the AUP violations DV, there is already a very reasonable system written in the AUP, but it's not being used.  It's called the Community Content Review Queue and you can find it here: spec.narrative.org/docs/reputation

I wrote this post about finding it and explaining it:

https://www.narrative.org/post...content-review-queue

Why keep trying to reinvent that wheel, when all we have to do is get it rolling?

I don't believe this exists.

Even if it IS implemented, my suggestion to add a field is still critical.  In order for members to determine if there is a violate, the person flagging the post needs to provide an explanation or evidence.  For example, if the content is stolen, the 'flagger' could provide a link to the original source.

 

Robert Nicholson posted:
blueeyes8960 posted:

As to the AUP violations DV, there is already a very reasonable system written in the AUP, but it's not being used.  It's called the Community Content Review Queue and you can find it here: spec.narrative.org/docs/reputation

I wrote this post about finding it and explaining it:

https://www.narrative.org/post...content-review-queue

Why keep trying to reinvent that wheel, when all we have to do is get it rolling?

I don't believe this exists.

Even if it IS implemented, my suggestion to add a field is still critical.  In order for members to determine if there is a violate, the person flagging the post needs to provide an explanation or evidence.  For example, if the content is stolen, the 'flagger' could provide a link to the original source.

 

For AUP violations, I read a staff member saying they intend to do this.  It just isn’t there yet.  Hopefully we’ll see this soon as it is not a huge development burden.  

For the ‘low quality’ downvote, I have seen no pronouncement from the Team, and it would help restore faith to hear this is on its way.

Robert Nicholson posted:

I've down-voted many posts for AUP violations (copyright violations).

Sometimes it's hard to see the original source.  The violator may have cut sections from several different articles.  They may have slightly changed the wording to frustrate searches.  They may have stolen an image and altered it.

I think it would make life MUCH easier for the Tribunal if I could include an explanation of the violation, along with links to the original source(s).

 

I agree and think that there should be some way to challenge down votes so that only the challenged down votes are flagged for  review.

Suggestion Implemented

This action was taken by David Dreezer.
If you feel this has not been implemented properly or have some feedback about it, please click here.
×
×
×
×
×