Downvotes suck. I get it, they are made up internet points coming from strangers (or bots) that you know nothing about, and you shouldn’t let that get you down. Still, putting in a few minutes of effort to share your opinion and engage with the community just to see a downvote is disheartening.

Based on the patterns of downvotes I see on a post, it seems like there is usually one or two people downvoting everything they wouldn’t personally say themselves. Extrapolating from this, I presume there is a population of users that contribute more downvotes than anything.

Personally, I don’t think the platform should allow any user to spend more time tearing things down than building other things up. Only allowing downvotes after so many upvotes would help stop trolls and could help generate more engagement via upvotes.

Edit:

The upvote/downvote count would be a global count including posts and comments, not a post specific count. This solution does not prevent downvoting, it merely adds friction to those who predominantly leave negative feedback by ensuring their positive feedback elsewhere. Sure, some would go on to upvote unsavory things, but others would attempt to further engage with their interests, and some would simply lurk.

If any good faith user approached the limitation, they would likely be better served by curating their feed.

  • Hegar@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Only allowing downvotes after so many upvotes would help stop trolls and could help generate more engagement via upvotes.

    I strongly doubt this. I suspect it would make downvotes seem like something you ‘earned’ the right to spend, leading to more downvoting.

    • YIj54yALOJxEsY20eU@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      I considered this and definitely think it would apply. Though, I guess I think it would still point us in a net positive direction.

      • Hegar@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        still point us in a net positive direction.

        🥁🥁🔔

        I just don’t really think there’s a need to regulate something that has no effect or impact.

        If I get a couple down votes 🤷 someone disagrees, or is an idiot. If I get more than a couple it’s a good opportunity to think about how I could be clearer or how I might be out of step with popular opinion.

        • YIj54yALOJxEsY20eU@lemm.eeOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          Lol oops.

          To be fair you just said it has no effect, but then said getting downvotes makes you consider the comment. I think we can describe that as at least a little bit of effect.

          • Hegar@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            Yeah fair point. Maybe I mean meaningful effect, or mechanical effect. Like it doesn’t do anything to my post and I can completely ignore it without any ill effects.