Thank you for the clarification. It's all the same system. The different reporting options, including the downvote, correspond to different amounts of negative points. It seems counterintuitive to think that a newly-added option with the least amount of point impact would be the tool someone would use to bury content. If they wanted to do that, they could have done it more effectively by using the other options that deduct 10X the points of a downvote. That's never even been abused, and nobody seems fearful that it might be in the future. There is no reason to think a downvote would be abused more than the other more harsh options. And abuse is not a concern anyway since I review every single flag!

I suspect the fear is that because you previously mentioned having the community be more self-managing, that a downvote might not get the same level of scrutiny and might eventually be automated, which could ultimately allow a team of people with a grudge, or working for a competitor, to delberately downvote content to make it less visible. But as you say if you're monitoring all of them, then the risk is largely nullified.

With downvotes, it wouldn't even have to be a grudge. It's used liberally on other sites where you just choose from something that's visible and easy to visually associating with a downvote (like a thumbs down or a down-facing arrow).

If a user is being problematic, people here are not shy to block or call out verbally.

I have no problem with the report and block functions. I think they're important and I'm happy that they are easy to find on posts and media. My concerns are purely about the downvote and the effect it may have on visual media if the presentation of it ever changes to be something as easy as the hearts are now without linking to any pages.

A lot of people won't read this thread and may not know that their downvote will have a potentially bigger affect than influence the picture's place in trending photos or give a non-verbal eye roll to a forum post.

Yeah the goal is automation, in the same way that Wammer of the Day and Top Download are. We don't have ganging up and fraud there. Yall remember the last time that happened, with Jessie et al. It's just not a thing for people to regularly be trying to game my system. All the flags flow through me and I see them all. If I see some asshole messing around I just ban them and that's it.

What I'm doing here with the addition of the milder downvote is giving UMD more ways to put the finger on the pulse on the community. The negative weighting from it is very low and I'll be adjusting thresholds over the months and years. Again, it's only even been clicked a few times since I added the damn thing!

We've never had a plague of fraud here, and we won't. That's a problem for the big corporate sites, not our home.

Yeah I agree on the brigading, the site just isn't big enough (yet!). That may be one of those things to deal with later when the time comes because it could be years if ever at all.

Some of the defense of adding this to content is rather contradictory. You say that hardly anyone uses the reporting system, so it won't have a significant effect, but then in the opening post you say you want more people to use it. I imagine people don't use the reporting function so much at the moment because they see it as being to report significant rule-breaking, and presumably they have to justify why they reported it, making malicious use harder, as it should be. If more people use it, and it becomes a habit to downvote anything you don't really like, and there is no requirement to justify why you downvoted, it will have an effect.


Well, 1) how do you know the users legit don't like it? Will you be messaging every user who enters a downvotes to interrogate them as to why they downvoted? But 2) even if they are "legit" dislikes, I would disagree with that statement. WAM is already a niche fetish with hundreds of sub-niches, and many are very attached to their particular take on it. Sure, there are certain very popular interpretations, but I always liked that there are all these different versions. It makes the community more interesting. Often it's the really niche sub-fetishes that those who are really into them are willing to pay more for content featuring, but also have things others have a really strong dislike for - think about feet, savoury mess, BDSM scenarios, or fully clothed vs naked. Same for models - some people are very vocal about not liking say, women larger than a size 8 (Australian dress sizes, don't know what that translates as), but others specifically seek out content with models of larger body types, hence why so many porn sites have a BBW category.

If you're only into bearded men in tutus taking pies full of beans to the beard but not the rest of the face, you can probably find that. But, without needing any kind of conspiracy, it's quite easy to see that a couple of people who are offended by savoury mess will give that a downvote, a couple of people who only like pies fully to the face will give it a downvote, someone who doesn't like crossdressers will give it a downvote, someone who would have preferred it was a blue tutu to a pink one will give it a downvote, and two people who don't understand how the gender filtering works and don't like seeing male content will give it a downvote.

None of that would need to be malicious. They would all be "legit" dislikes. They'll think "oh, it's just a downvote, I'm just expressing my opinion". Before they would have just moved on, or, if they were dicks, posted a troll comment which could then be flagged and potentially see them gagged. But instead, the content has already reached the threshold to be taken down, so when the cashed-up messy beard lover logs in the next day, they can't buy their ideal WAM clip and bugger off, never to be seen again.

And this will affect new producers more than established ones - for instance, I'm sure there are some who take exception to the fact that Violet is not waxed from head to toe, or doesn't show her face, or doesn't always get completed covered in super thick substances, or gets naked, or masturbates, etc., but she has a big enough following now to counteract any downvotes. But a new user who doesn't conform to ideal body types? Or can't afford a huge amount of mess yet? If they post a couple of videos that offend the sensibilities of enough users (again, without needing any kind of conspiracy) and find their content just gets taken down within a day or two because those who do like their particular take on the fetish haven't found them yet (not everyone is on UMD 24/7), well, they're not likely to stick around. I think that would be sad. And because the producer doesn't see the reports, they won't know how to improve - maybe the dislike was just the lighting, or that they didn't look at the camera, or something like that.

To me, having automatic thresholds for taking content down because of alleged rule-breaking makes sense - it protects the site, even if it turns out not to be breaking any rules and comes back up. But automatically taking it down because a few people who don't like something say so before a few people who do like it had a chance to even see it makes no sense unless you want to make content much more homogenous and suppress diversity of models, mess, scenarios, and users. That won't help grow the community.

If it isn't tied to taking content down, I can see it makes some sense to have the downvote to look at trends. If certain types of content get a lot of downvotes, maybe that means a new filter needs to be made available - if you'd implemented this before the gender filtering, all the lovely all-male, trans and other non-binary stuff would likely have been downvoted way before any compensating positive interactions could counteract that. Maybe content that over a year has a ratio of downvotes to positive interaction higher than a certain threshold should not be kept up for as long so as to save space/money. But I think there should be at least a minimum time that content is up before downvotes have any effect.

I'll just ask everyone to relax and let me do this system. We have real problems that we face, but fears of me allowing bullies to gang up on people or game the system are unfounded. This is not Twitter where we just let gangs like that run around. Hey, if you even want to know exactly how many people have downloaded stuff, or any other metrics, just ask. Now everybody stop being so fearful!

I still have my concerns, but it looks like we have no choice but to see how this will play out.

We won't be passively just waiting for something to play out. This is a system that I am constantly watching, constantly programming, and constantly tweaking. Your concerns are heard, but they're only relevant to other types of social networks that would be vulnerable to such attacks. We are not. Other options have been on the list for over a decade and they have not been abused, and even if they were, I'm on top of it!

Again, we have 99 problems, but abuse of the ratings system ain't one!

I'm a wordy bastard, so I probably buried my own point, so to emphasise:


So to re-emphasise - my concern is NOT with trolls etc. - I'm sure you are on top of that, and I'm sure you're correct that the pool isn't big enough for them to swim unnoticed.

My concern is that *legitimate* use of this feature on content, i.e. people genuinely not liking it for their own entirely subjective reasons (which they are entitled to have) will now, due to the nature of statistics and demographics, disproportionately affect the visibility of more marginalised model body types, new producers, and niche interpretations of WAM, because more people have strong enough dislikes of those.


To me, this threshold is way, way too low for content. If you want to mitigate the negative effects I've pointed out, it should be something like 100, to give time for those who like the content to counteract the downvotes. Otherwise, despite the difference in weighting, you are empowering early negative reactions over later positive reactions. Better yet, give it no weighting, but use it for stats to develop future features like other filters.

There is no need for malicious intent or coordination for a clip to easily get multiple downvotes very quickly, because some things that people really love, others really hate and will react accordingly if they have the means like a downvote, where previously 99% would just move on.

Yup, it was developed with this in mind, and is sort of the point. The downvote is just a weak "thumbs down," meant to help keep the finger on the pulse of the community. I want people to use it as an extra data point. If more people start using it, then that's actually good because I'll just turn down its weight and it'll be a more accurate metric since it's averaging more input. That's how the whole ratings system has always been developed... to fit our community like a glove.


You can't determine that without knowing how many votes are actually coming in. We're only averaging 1 downvote like every other day, so it's highly unlikely that one item would get 8 downvotes If it did, then I would automatically see that and determine if it should have happened or not. Easily reversed and recalculated if need be.

But then again if something got a whole 8 downvotes, there's no way it wouldn't also have been flagged Spam or something a couple of times, which would get it yanked real quick anyway. The point of the ratings system is to gauge a mix of community reaction, weight it, and see if action should be taken, negative or positive. I see literally every single downvote that goes through, so I'm on top of it. Also, you can always ask me about how things are ranked weighted if you want.

That might be true at the moment, but won't be in future. Imagine now a 21 y/o verson of me comes along, just a punter not a producer, signs up and starts getting active. I'd be furiously downvotiong every post I encountered with anyone in low-rise jeans in it, because I think they are hideous and should be exterminated without mercy. Wouldn't be meant maliciously, just expressing a (very strong) personal opinion on clothing choices. Would it really be fair for that (and everyone else's personal dislikes) to influence content visibility? That's the bit several of us are worrying about. It's hard enough to get things noticed without having random downvotes based on nothing more than individual preferences suppressing things out of sight.

Having even a weak "thumbs down" for fetish content introduces unnecessary negativity, especially if it is tied to content visibility, and, if it catches on, will narrow rather than broaden the community. It makes sense on technical advice forums, not really anywhere else. Measuring likes helps you keep a finger on the pulse of the community and the way different tastes work together or can at least tolerate each other. Measuring dislikes just emphasises divisions.


So you want more people to use it, but you don't expect people to? The reason I suggest a ridiculously high number is precisely because you seem to be trying to encourage more use of the system, so current usage is not a reliable indicator of future usage.

If visibility of content is to be tied to it at all, it makes sense to make the threshold so high it would be almost impossible to reach before you've had time to monitor and see the uptake, then lower it if you really feel it's necessary, rather than accidentally piss off, say, a whole bunch of messy feet fans because 8 people who really hate feet (not hard to find) happened to log on while you were asleep and downvoted a video with lots of foot action.


So why give totally subjective dislikes any weight at all when there are already perfectly good options for reporting those things?

Now, if likes and dislikes were tied to the individual user so that certain content was hidden from them and others promoted, that would make sense, but likely require way more resources than you have available.

If it "catches on" then I will be here adjusting the knobs accordingly. This cannot run away because I'm always watching. And thumbs down can't introduce any more negativity than the other available options that are each 10x more weighted! I'll also remind you that nobody sees the downvotes unless content was actually affected, so no there's no chilling effect.


Not any more than the existing downvote options. The ratings system has been running for around 20 years now. I've been making changes like these the entire time in response to user activity. This is how it works.


I hope for more people to use it and engage in it so we have another metric. But your fears of the runaway downvote just can't happen because the weights and thresholds will always be adjusted so it's all proportional.


The threshold is low right now because usage of the system is low. If/when we get more intense usage, the threshold for deleting would be increased, and the weight of individual votes would be decreased. These are the knobs that I turn. I don't know why you think I'd let things get out of hand while sitting here watching over it


These are all settings that I'm constantly working on, in response to how the community rates / votes / loves / flags. If the auto-action is too aggressive then I'll simply adjust it.


If this happens then the threshold can be turned up, plus I'd investigate if the people were in cahoots at all, in which case they'd be banned from the ratings system. No piece of content has ever had 8 negative votes though!


They're not perfectly good because each of them deducts a ton of points and we needed a lightweight option that's not really a "report" per se.

I'd say to just sit back and relax. This site has a unique set of problems, mob rule not being one of them. All your particular concerns were considered even before any changes were made. Again, if you ever want to inbox me (or ask publicly) about how many downvotes are *actually* coming in as compared to where our thresholds are set, I'm happy to discuss that. If you think about the actual numbers, you'll see that these fears are unfounded. I know... I work here. Fear / uncertainty / doubt are not necessary when you have someone willing to deep dive with you on the specifics

All this discussion over an adaptaion of the report system/dislike option. If I don't care for something, I usually just pass on. I am not going to criticise a post of someone who is indulging in their WAM fetish even if it is not to my taste. Unless of course it is offensive or illegal which is mostly covered by the report button anyway.

The downvote was built to cover the ground between "just pass on" and "it's offensive or illegal," and the weighting reflects that. Some people are more active in the community and will help us understand when something leaves a bad taste in their mouth. We haven't had a single downvote in days, so I guess that means everybody loves everything

this is good to know....so strange I was about to post a forum about producers not being so competitive for us to see and behind the scenes. icky vibe.
so? this is helpful because the first thing I thought of was either producers downvoting or producers getting their loyal customers to downvote another producers video.
Its good to know that you will be watching them and taking all of that into account! That makess me feel better.
It will either do okay? Not really be a big deal or be a shit show. We never know until we try!

thanks mm! good looking out

For me it is the naming what leads me to confusion. In my head a "downvote" is something I would use when I don't agree with something, as the opposite of the heart button. But that does not necessarily translates to me wanting it removed from the platform.

In my opinion calling it something like "inappropriate/out of place/improper" would make the intended use easier to understand.

Either way, I don't think the name is too important when there is a description below.

Quite frankly, I am finding this entire thread hard to masturbate to....