Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Some clarifications about the Downvote

Hi everyone, ✌️

Thank you very much for your feedback in relation to the Downvote. 👎
We totally understand that many/most of you are not happy with it.

However, based on the feedback we're reading, I'd like to clarify some points:

1) If your posts/replies frequently have many good reactions, and sometimes you get 1 or 2 downvotes, out of MANY good reactions, [b]you really shouldn't have to worry[/b]. 👍

2) If there is a user that has been downvoting you in many posts, [b]that user will eventually start seeing less contents from you[/b]. 📉

3) You don't have to worry [b]if a user tries to use multiple accounts to downvote you. Either the system knows about it already, or will know in the future[/b], and that will only go wrong on that user, [u]and never affect you[/u]. 🚩
Only a few users have attempted this so far, and we've sent notifications to those users. The targeted users [u]were not affected[/u] by the fake downvotes.

4) A comment or post will only be pushed down [b]if the amount of downvotes surpass the amount of good reactions[/b] (and only if a [u]minimum[/u] of downvotes was reached, for that to happen). You [u]don't have to worry[/u] about the visibility of your contents being impacted [u]just because of 1 or 2 downvotes, when you got several good reactions[/u] too. 📊

5) Even if a post of yours got more downvotes than good reactions, [b]it doesn't mean that your audience will be impacted on other stories/questions that you post in the future[/b]. It only affects the post that got downvoted. 📚

5) The downvote does have a slight impact on your account reputation, but [b]that impact is VERY negligible[/b]. If you [u]maintain a much higher amount of good reactions, versus the amount of downvotes[/u], [b]your account will NEVER suffer any consequences[/b]. Only accounts who have more downvotes than good reactions are the ones that will be really impacted. 😊

[b]In summary:[/b] You don't have to worry if you get a few downvotes here and there. Only if the amount of downvotes surpasses the amount of good reactions (very rare cases), you would be affected. [b]Only troublemakers will be affected by the downvote.[/b]

I want to apologize again for not being clear in my original post when it was announced.

---

Thank you for your support and we hope you continue to stay with us.

We are constantly listening to your suggestions, so please keep giving them to us, as they are very important to the future of Similar Worlds.

Very kind regards, 🧡
- The SW Team

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

SW-User

If you see that the majority hates it, why can't it be removed.
It doesn't feel like we're being listened to at all...

ExtremeNext · 31-35

@SW-User but they are listening it says so on every post 😁

SweetNSassy · F

@SW-User the dictators and pain in my ass

OogieBoogie · F

@SW-User I know.

It's so wrong.

If they are so confident... Let us vote on it 😏

SW-User

@OogieBoogie He keeps saying they can't disclose the algorithm.
What's it for? That's the answer we need.
So, who's making him do this?

OogieBoogie · F

@ExtremeNext Yes... They are so kind to give us sometbjbg we down voted ones before.

What an irony.

PirateMonkeyCabinet · 36-40, M

@SW-User Just a slight technical perspective on that, despite my opinion about this all, I do understand that they can't disclose the minute details of the algorithm. It's almost impossible to make an algorithm that can't be gamed. If people knew the exact details (or enough of it) they would have a much easier time finding ways to circumvent it.

Simply put, the security of the algorithm hinges on people not knowing it.

That said, all it takes is someone that's petty enough, but also has patience, a bit of craftiness and is capable of thinking a few steps ahead. It can most certainly be broken and that would render it effectively useless for their purpose.

Problem with whatever algorithm they employ here is that the algorithm isn't a mind reader. It can make guesses, but unless they are the smartest algorithm-makers in the world those guesses will in my opinion be vague at best. They'll have to straddle a balance between being too lenient to catch malicious downvoting, or for it to give too many false positives flagging valid downvotes as malicious/suspicious. And in my opinion I would say there is enough overlap between the realms of valid votes that can seem suspicious, and abusive votes that can fly under the radar for it to actually be fair and efficient.

I just overall think this is a very bad decision on their part.

SW-User

@PirateMonkeyCabinet That makes sense; impossible for the system to detect exact numbers.
Especially if alt accounts have a VPN, a good one.

SW-User

@PirateMonkeyCabinet you're so smart!! ❤️😎

SW-User

@SW-User I was thinking the same thing, but was too overwhelmed by this to find the right words. It makes better sense now. It'll give a rough estimate on how many, but false reports they'd have to figure out the percentage, trace the IP address to track which account and alt accounts are downvoting.

PirateMonkeyCabinet · 36-40, M

@SW-User Thank you! 😊🤗

@SW-User Even with tracing the IP and alts and the whole deal, I am certain there will still be more than enough potential loopholes that are almost impossible to detect. The big problem really is the inability to accurately discern the intent of a downvote. A simple example...

...but first, I do need to add a disclaimer in case the staff want to nitpick and try to claim I'm spreading falsehoods and whatnot: [b][i]To staff: This is obviously an oversimplification as I have no intention of writing a 120-page technical document on algorithms. Numbers chosen are obviously examples and not to be treated as claims to the actual numbers SW operates with.[/i][/b] There, done with that.

Let's say you and 10 friends are online. You hate some user, you see their post which is a very valid post, but you just really hate them. You tell your 10 friends to do it. They all do so within 15 minutes. Obviously this is malicious downvoting and does not reflect on the actual quality of the post.

Ok, so let's say you don't hate anybody. You and your 10 friends are online. You see a post where the content itself rubs you the wrong way and you want to see less of it, so you downvote it. You don't tell any of your friends, but they have a similar mindset so they - completely independent of each other - also downvote it within 15 minutes. Obviously this is valid downvoting (according to how I interpret admin intentions).

Both examples have the same parameters: 11 downvotes, all the same people, all within a 15 minute timeframe. The only real difference is the intention. Naturally the real algorithm would use more datapoints than that to try and determine what is and isn't malicious but as I said earlier, it can't read minds. There are bound to be both those that slip past unnoticed and ones that get erroneously flagged as suspicious/malicious.

Peapod · 61-69, F

@PirateMonkeyCabinet [quote]Let's say you and 10 friends are online. You hate some user, you see their post which is a very valid post, but you just really hate them. You tell your 10 friends to do it.[/quote]

Actually most people probably wouldn't even need tell their friends to downvote. Friends often have similar views (and similar dislikes) and some groups of people would likely jump all over this negative feature accordingly.

OogieBoogie · F

@PirateMonkeyCabinet and you're not even mentioning the trolls who find being negative funny.
I just posted a question about this... No bias.
Asking if a thumbs up was worth less than a thumbs down... And received one, 😂

If one can't even ask a question without being downvoted... Then heaven forbid when I post an opinion. 🤣

PirateMonkeyCabinet · 36-40, M

@Peapod @OogieBoogie Absolutely. There's a plethora of scenarios I didn't mention, even some that probably lives in the grey areas. Just figured the two I chose were good enough representations for two simple scenarios where one is malicious and one isn't, but that isn't easily distinguishable to the machine.

@OogieBoogie In regards to the downvote post, in an attempt to be fair, I know of at least one person who said something along the lines that even though they disagreed with the downvote function they were tired of hearing about it and would be downvoting all threads they saw about the subject in the hopes they'd see less of them. While there certainly trolls out there who downvote just for the heck of it, it could very well be that one person.

Still though, I think it's a fair example of the non-technical effects of the button. The way one person uses or perceives the downvote button is very different from how someone else does. There is no clear difference between "I despise this post", "I think it'll be funny to mess with this post" and "I just don't want to see as much of this type of content".

OogieBoogie · F

@PirateMonkeyCabinet exactly.

And here lies an algorithm they can't track... The human element of diversity.

But why suddenly give opinions algorithmic weight.

The whole point of A chat room is the freedom to communicate.

This one action works against that porpoise.(effing auto correct😂)

If admin believes our opinions are worthy of weight, then let us vote on this.

Peapod · 61-69, F

[quote]And here lies an algorithm they can't track... The human element of diversity.[/quote]
[quote]The whole point of A chat room is the freedom to communicate.[/quote]
[quote]If admin believes our opinions are worthy of weight, then let us vote on this.[/quote]

@OogieBoogie These three points here are exactly the best arguments against this feature yet. Well said!