[–] Chad88 [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I also was thinking it'd be cool if there were different types of downvotes (and upvotes) so you could flag comments for a logical fallacy using the same general idea, but that's obviously less practical.

[–] brandon816 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

This will never work as-is. The only clean way to display this is to simply have the arrows there and display the type of vote on hover. This would cut out users without a mouse ( blind using keyboard only, mobile, etc ), as well as anyone who's too lazy to do that.

However, other comment sites have made use of a reactions bar, which would fit in a lot more with what you are talking about here. Just bolt on a dropdown for extra stuff, with options that are more meaningful than basic emotions ( e.g. #fakenews, #oldnews, #justplainincorrect, #fuckingspammer, etc ). It won't affect any existing systems, so it should be easier to add.

[–] Chad88 [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Yeah I won't try to deny the idea is similar to facebook's reactions, that's why I didn't put this in the OP since I think a simple "bullshit" flag would suffice for posts.

Again though, just because websites do shitty, lazy things doesn't mean it's the only way. You can have clickable dropdowns too. I didn't specify any particular design because I figured putt would know best if this were to actually be implemented.

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

While harmless as a premise, I suspect a feature like this would result in virtually every single submissions getting flaired as "Fake" by at least once person, in which case every post on Voat's front page would have a "Fake" flair. Obviously we could judge based on how many "fake" reports something received whether or not something is probably fake or not, so it would still have value, but it would get abused.

You could do something like the following to make it slightly more functional: Whenever a submission receives a "fake" report (through the already existing report button, perhaps) the bar to the left of every post would get one "green" unit (in the same way upvotes get blue and downvotes get purple "units", the the length of each bar depends on the total number of votes. So a post with one upvote, one downvote, and one fake report would be one third blue, one third purple, and one third green). Users could hover over this bar to get the total number of votes and fake reports.

Only after ten fake reports are received would the submissions receive a "Fake" flair. It would do nothing but flair the post -- it would not hide it or anything, just a flair. Therefore users would still have to judge on their own the veracity of a source or claim. But a consensus that a submissions is fake would serve to motivate people to look more closely at a submission, which in my opinion is always a good thing.

Then again, it might be easier to wait for the Votes feature to launch, and then, rather than adding an entirely new feature, Putt could add an option to Referendum Votes so that users have the option to start a Vote and decide whether or not a post is fake or not. Same principle, but it would operate through (soon to be) existing foundations. However, such a Vote would have to process quicker than normal Votes, since the only point is to flair the post while it is still on the front page.

Alternatively, we can leave things the way they are. Instead of training people to believe any post that isn't flaired as Fake, we should just expect our users to be intelligent enough to question every source and claim. Better to have an intelligent and responsible userbase than to depend on features to do our thinking for us.

[–] Chad88 [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

That is way more complicated than necessary, in fact I don't really understand why you think it needs to be like that. If you just displaying another number (the total number of bs callers), it's no more abusable than votes are. There's no reason to over-complicate this because it's not a censorship tool, it's not even meant to say that a post is bullshit, only a warning that amounts to nothing more than "x other voaters think this post is bullshit". What you do with that should still be up to you, but obviously if x was abnormally high many would logically be inclined to look into it.

Instead of training people to believe any post that isn't flaired as Fake, we should just expect our users to be intelligent enough to question every source and claim. Better to have an intelligent and responsible userbase than to depend on features to do our thinking for us.

This is very naive. I'm not even going to fault the users, it simply does not make sense to fact check everything you vote on, it's a waste of time to expect all users to be double-checking everything themselves. Even if it were possible, that redundancy simply wouldn't be intelligent. The issue in my eyes is that while there are plenty of people who fact-check, but their only options are to comment and downvote which are futile most of the time. The efficiency gain of this feature is that it incentivizes fact-checking, particularly when other users have indicated that they are skeptical. It would hold the site to a higher standard.

Remember, we have the truth and we seek the truth so we have no reason to not have tools for identifying bullshit.

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

"x other voaters think this post is bullshit"

People often use downvotes for this purpose. So reliably, in fact, that if I see a highly upvoted post without a single downvote, I assume it's legitimate before I even read it (although I still read it). Whereas if I see a highly upvoted post with as many as 5 downvotes, the first thing I do is try to determine how it might not be legitimate.

This is very naive. I'm not even going to fault the users, it simply does not make sense to fact check everything you vote on, it's a waste of time to expect all users to be double-checking everything themselves.

So we're better off trusting the judgment of the one or two people who do look into it? No, I am an advocate of personal responsibility, and those who refuse to show responsibility reap what they sow.

Even if it were possible

In what way is it impossible? Improbable, sure, but it remains entirely possible for those deciding to upvote or downvote something to look into what they're voting on, even briefly, beforehand.

The issue in my eyes is that while there are plenty of people who fact-check, but their only options are to comment and downvote which are futile most of the time.

They can also comment, and most of those who identify a post as fake do comment. That's another thing I look for if I'm curious about something's legitimacy.

The efficiency gain of this feature is that it incentivizes fact-checking, particularly when other users have indicated that they are skeptical. It would hold the site to a higher standard.

I already agreed that your suggestion is purely visual, and so there isn't really any issue with it, except for possible difficulties in implementing it, and for arguments of redundancy (with comments and downvotes, the feature could easily be considered redundant).

Remember, we have the truth and we seek the truth so we have no reason to not have tools for identifying bullshit.

My mind is my tool for identifying bullshit. I like to think everyone else here possesses the same tool.

[–] Diggernicks 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago 

No. Extremely gay and niggerish idea. Get back to reddit.

[–] Chad88 [S] 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Not an argument.

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

No. You are basically promising just the tip. Fuck off back to facebook.