0
6

[–] HST 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Maybe just upvote more shit? Its not really a punishment as much as it is a safeguard against people mass downvoating with new accounts

0
6

[–] Talc [S] 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Maybe just upvote more shit

but that's exactly what I'm doing, upvoting literally SHIT instead of good content because there's more spam than good content. Good content should get upvotes, banaal crap should get few to no votes and spam and troll behaviour should get downvotes. In the last few days I've upvoted endless absolute shit which did not deserve a vote just because of this ratio.

Its not really a punishment

it stops me from voting how I see fit simply because I chose to downvote stolen advertising. I would not face the same restriction if I'd chosen to act like a spammers helper and upvote all the spam instead. it's a punishment regardless of if it was intended as one.

safeguard against people mass downvoating with new accounts

well aware of that, been here since before whoaverse banned its first spammer, have watched the system grow into what it is today. Cancelling out downvotes given to spammers after the spammer's useracct or domain is banned would not interfere with the necessary function of this safeguard in any way, it would simply undo some of the collateral damage being caused by the safeguard.

0
2

[–] The_Prophets_Profit 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

This doesn't make sense to me. You have a set amount of downvoats, it's not a punishment when you use them all. It's like drinking an 18 pack of beer and then shouting into the sky "Lord, why must you punish me for drinking all my beer!? Now I have to go get more beer! Woe is me!"

0
0

[–] HST 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Downvoating spam isnt as important as you think it is.

0
2

[–] piratse 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

That's asking a lot on the backend. I also disagree about not enough stuff to UV. Go UV comments. There are plenty. There is no way you can UV all the comments worth it and not have enough to DV spam.

0
2

[–] Morbo 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Comment upvoats don't change your voating ratio for submissions. There are two independent ratios for posts and comments. OP is needing more post upvoats to keep squashing spam posts but he hits the 50/50 limit just like I have in the past. We're forced to uproar shit that we normally wouldn't just to help kill the spam. It's unfair to hamper the vigilant spam patrol in /v/all/new while the spammers have no limits imposed on them. We need Putt to relax or remove this limit so spam can be managed especially on System subs.

1
-1

[–] Talc [S] 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

That's asking a lot on the backend.

I thought it might. On the other hand it doesn't need to be a real-time thing, could be batched weekly and run when the load is lowest along with the bans themselves.

I also disagree about not enough stuff to UV.

You can disagree all you like but you're arguing against simple facts, between the porn spam streaming spam and excrement output from other miscellaneous Australian and Indian seo operatives the spam on all/new keeps creeping to around 50% of the page, it's difficult to downvote the spam and keep the ratio happy even by upvoting absolutely everything which is not spam regardless of quality or content.

Go UV comments

does not address the problem with the voting ratio on submissions which is where the real problem lies. I can upvote every comment on the site and still not be allowed to downvote a spam submission when some asshole decides to steal an ad.

0
0

[–] prairie 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Shouldn't users report spam rather than voat on it?

0
1

[–] Talc [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

just reporting it does nothing for days / weeks before the domain gets banned. Spammers already using throwaway domains so they are using a new domain before the old one is even banned, they effectively sidestepped the system for the cost of one domain per week (and some of those are on sale-or-return so the financial cost is zero). This leaves most of the spam sat in all/new and undermoderated subs for long enough to encourage the spammers to keep trying. In an ideal world users would report on it AND downvote it, under the current system downvoting spam probably does more to discourage spammers than reporting it.

0
0

[–] GoldShekelSteinBerg 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I'm downvoating spam all the time in v/all/new, why is it bad to have downvoats?

0
0

[–] BohMoon 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I gave up on the upvote/downvote thing! Just glad I don't have to deal with a fucking moderator and just happy to read the content here.

1
-1

[–] MightyYetGentle1488 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

the restrictions shouldnt exist to begin with, it only benefits the spammers and SRS users and admins are entirely aware of this

0
0

[–] Talc [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I can see good reasons for the restrictions to exist, having been on the wrong end of a downvote botfarm myself. I just thought I'd spotted a way to back out some of the collateral damage at a later date, reducing the impact of the restrictions on users who are doing what should be seen as a "good thing".

3
-3

[–] PlebeianCuck 3 points -3 points (+0|-3) ago 

Only fagets wish for the world to change to suit them rather than adapting themselves to the world.

1
-1

[–] prairie 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

So you'd rather that fagets shape the world you have to then adapt to?

0
0

[–] PlebeianCuck 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

You are doing a fine job yourself