I'm still updating our community ratings system for the site to be more automatically responsive to flags from the community. The severity of the penalty against the piece of content and the person who posted it has always depended on which subject you select when flagging something. After some threshold, the content will be auto-deleted.

So to the Reporting page I've added a new "mild" flag option called a Downvote. It only subtracts a small number of points from the item and the person, compared to say an "Illegal" flag. Hopefully I can get people to use it for situations that are maybe a little off-putting or where the vibe is off but don't really call for moderator scrutiny or action. It's like a thumbs-down, but I didn't want to put thumbs-down icons all over UMD, so it's there on the Report menu for now.

As my ultimate goal is to have the community largely self-govern itself through applied consensus, the more people that use the reporting system, the better it'll work.

Peace yall!

I wonder how this is going to play out

But I really like the open source ideal

A welcome addition. One of the huge strengths of Reddit is the downvote button. It pushes posts by trolls, foreign agents, shitposters, and general dickheads way down the thread and gives viewers a heads up so they can avoid zero-value posts. Glad to see something like that adopted here. I wish Twitter would do the same.

I don't want the perfect to be the enemy of the good, and this seems like a workable solution.

I understand any system designed by humans can be exploited by humans, so I wouldn't be surprised if there were to be the occasional organized campaign to mass downvote a particularly controversial opinion, regardless of any merits the opinion may have.

To each his own. I think Reddit blows-- everyone thinks the same, makes it pretty vanilla and boring. Not like I am going to stop coming to the UMD because of this though, but my guess is there will be some bumps along the way.

I always see every single flag, so this can't happen.

I would argue that sometimes the opposite is also true on Reddit where you have campaigns by trolls or astroturfers to downvote certain opinions or perspectives by demographics they don't want to have a loud voice, so I am a little skeptical of it being implemented. If it doesn't affect the visibility of a post, then I'm fine with it. If a post is so vitriolic and bigoted to warrant so many reports or downvotes, the poster being allowed to continue posting should be considered as has been with other users.

Would this just be for text-based posts like comments and forums threads? Or would this apply to media too?

At its best, it does that. But the same is true on reddit when a non-trolling, non-bigoted opinion is voiced in a bigoted subreddit, for example. Or in particular threads where people are really touchy about stuff outside of the norm. Sometimes people just downvote rather than discuss a non-harmful different opinion. In order for this to work the way it's meant to, it would rely on UMD users to use, but not abuse, the option. I definitely want to see some of the vitriolic, hateful comments we-'ve gotten on here downvoted to the point of repeat offenders being banned, but I don't want to see UMD become a "popularity contest" like reddit can sometimes be due to the point system (especially not if content can be downvoted also). I will say that this option could help us crack down on actual harmful different opinions, like some that have been expressed on some serious topics recently.

It's already been implemented here for many years. You've seen forum posts get buried by the community (and potentially auto-deleted) and that same thing is just being extended to other types of media. There are security checks to make sure nobody can flag a thing more than once, and I review every. single. flag that ever comes through. We aren't a huge site like Reddit that has so many flaggers that they have to rely on some heuristics or AI to stop campaigns like that. Here, the worst content might get only like 4 flags


Sometimes users, especially new users, make mistakes. Sometimes they upload the wrong type of content. Sometimes people have a bad day and step out of line. It's not always straightup vitriol or bigotry. Hell, you've been flagged plenty, and I've even been flagged!


Right now it applies to the forum and images and a couple other places, but I'm working to extend it to all content across the site.


It is a points system but the downvote option deducts far fewer points than reporting for anything else. The idea is that if a lot of people downvote something then that would still warrant burying or deleting the content.

Even with a lot of transparency or trust in site management, actions initiated based on community consensus rather than mods and admins usually go over way better.


The site doesn't exactly make enough to hire a staff to do these things. So I have to rely on the community policing itself to a large extent. I always preach keeping the vibe fun but make no mistake: That's very much for practical reasons too. The happier and more connected people are, the less workload on me and the mods in the long run. Same thing when I advocate to have the hard public discussions so that everybody *develops* an understanding of *why* a thing had to happen. When we are all involved, that keeps the skepticism down and the peace up, and in the relative quiet I can concentrate on other things that need to be done.


The forum auto-gag / auto-delete feature was in place then. The community could have gotten rid of those posts. But people generally prefer to write responses to what they disagree with than taking a second to hit the Report link. It not only notifies me so I can actually do something about it, but it can auto-bury or delete the thread in the meantime. The point of this thread was to increase engagement with the reporting system.

If it's video content being flagged/downvoted, would it have to be a disproportionate amount of downvotes to purchases it being removed? Some people may just be flagging or downvoting content because the content creator didn't respond to their DM or weren't receptive to their explicitly-worded DM. Others may downvote content they weren't planning on buying in the first place just because something about it "offends" them. Some may download (EDIT: *downvote*, I mean) content they feel is overpriced.
For example: I'm assuming if the top download of the day was being downvoted, it would have to be a disproportionate amount for any action to be taken on it.

I understand that these are extreme scenarios and that it likely wouldn't play out that way, just thinking of all possibilities here. Thank you taking the time to answer, Messmaster.

LOL this thread got a downvote.


Actually yes. The last thing I want is for content that makes money to get some sort of carve-out from the rules. But the existing ratings system to which I'm adding the downvote works on an overall score for each piece of media. Clicks, loves, ratings, and sales all contribute to a positive score while downvotes and other reports (and age) bring it down. It tries to gauge everybody's input and put a number on it for various uses (not just burying--for trending content, WOTD, etc). But remember: From the first flag, I'm reviewing it and it could get removed anyway.


You're right. The spite-vote is real. All this has to be taken into account when turning the knobs and setting the thresholds, and it's why the downvote is so relatively weak. But remember that I review all flags including downvotes, and if I see somebody abusing it, they can be banned from the reporting system altogether.

Interesting, but implementation makes sense and I think is manageable due to the amount of traffic it sounds like the site gets. In my opinion it's a definite downside to Reddit because it acts against people saying something contrary to what the majority seem to think. Maybe with a more content-based site rather than political junk it'll work more as intended.

Honestly, due to its somewhat hidden location, most people will not even know it exists and even fewer will actually leverage it. I think this is a potentially good idea, but the implementation effectively renders it useless.

You mean the little "report" links? I wouldn't call it useless as people use it all day, but you're not completely wrong about it being not so in your face. That's by design because the link is next to every single piece of content around the site, and I thought the sheer ubiquity of it would make it obvious that it's available.

I've been trying to think of a way to make it more clear what it can do, without putting some big huge annoying button all over the place. I thought about replacing it with a thumbs-down icon or frowny face, but next to every piece of content wouldn't be a good vibe and would actually precipitate more negativity. Maybe a better word than "report" to convey that you can downvote, report, comment, block, and filter. Go back to "Flag?" Maybe an ! icon with circle around it.... I dunno, always a work in progress and it'll get better

Yeah finally!!! Now we can downvote people who makes stupid posts and stupid jokes.

(backs away slowly)

Personally, I'm not a huge fan of downvotes on content. Someone may flag it if they believe it breaks the site rules.

If someone likes it, they may heart it, if they don't they may move on. There are already filters for gender, hardcore/softcore, AND a user has the ability to block a content creator that offends them with their visuals so as to MINIMIZE exposure to what they already don't like.

>There is already the top user, picture, and download along with other most popular sections for users to find what the community has upvoted or interacted with the most. The rest is based on if someone paid for an ad spot or what order their content was uploaded in. I'd prefer to keep it that way so people get the same opportunity to be found regardless of if their content is popular or not. But if there is a alot of dislikes for their content even though it's within the site rules, it may be discouraging and not fair to them.

>I agree with WAMoptimist that users will get really petty about this for not getting inbox responses. I think it will be difficult for admin to police all the downvotes and determine if it was warranted or not. I feel this may cause a lot of unnecessary drama.

>UMD contains a mixture of amateurs who don't sell, professionals, and amateurs who sell. For some users, they share content in the good faith that the rules about body shaming comments will not come their way or that it can be reported. I worry that knowing their content could be downvoted may discourage some people who want to post here as even without a comment, it's opening them to negative judgment.

>eople already use the forums to detail and gatekeep their favorite types of WAM, favorite body types, and also go off about their least favorite renditions of the two. I doubt many of those people are fans of the people who fall into their 'dislike' category, but they weren't going to buy or bother looking for that stuff anyway.

Do they get to slam content to make it less likely to get exposure just because they take personal offense or want to influence what gets posted here - not based on a content creators' personal likes or what sells for someone - but based on downvotes? Some users whose opinions are completely valid in their likes and dislikes are disproportionately loud in the forums and it doesn't always line up with the top-voted content or top downloads. But with the dislike on content, they can now potentially influence what is trending or even top-voted content.

>There are people who really find extreme content and bdsm content to be inherently exploitative and harmful to women and may go on a bit of a crusade to protect women because we can't make decisions for ourselves about what we like or consent to be in. I feel some dullard made the same argument to Mastercard because a lot of that shit they police is completely fine.

There are people who are offended by tattoos or body hair. I'd rather they just block content they don't want to see rather than downvote something because it's not to their taste or they feel they are doing it to save women.

>Those are my main concerns of downvotes being applied to pictures and video content

>Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

I hope this works the way you intend it to. But I am also waiting to see how many people decide they can become the self-appointed Thought Police and use it as a tool to try and silence/punish any opinions that might go against them trying to "make the better choices" for the rest of us on matters like political opinions/beliefs, etc. that honestly don't have anything to do (typically) with the subject of the site. Guess we'll all see, but i am concerned that it will put a chill on a number of posters (myself included) if it becomes weaponized by one "side" to try and silence the other. Hope I wind up wrong about it, though.

Not a fan of this idea. The induction of the downvote will ultimately only reinforce any notion that this forum is indeed a circlejerk. Very rarely does the downvote actually do anything to signify the validity of what is being said, in almost any instantiation. More often than not, it's used as brutally lazy way to express disagreement or underlying frustrations- the self righteous will use the number against you as proof of their own superiority. You can surely expect any drama involving a beloved producer and a critic to favor the producer 100% of the time.

You will probably drive out "publically" unpopular opinions with this method, but that always leads to confusion. (Emporers new clothes situation).

But really, it doesn't stop the "trolling" or "fix the vibe". No. Overweight, unsightly, and transgender models/productions among other groups will be probably be downvoted, not by most of the community but by enough to make an impact on the mental health of those individuals. Surely most of them are perfectly capable of ignoring the negative value, but it does send a particular message to the less inspired. I of course don't believe they should be down voted, but i don't have any illusions about how the anonymous crowds tend to behave when so little effort is required to express resentment.

However you intend it to be used, surely the community will adopt their own use case. This community does not need it. The umd has neither the size nor the content suitable for the function. We have the heart function which is all we need- showing love, not resentment or disagreement.

I share the same concerns as Violet and zuphasta. Despite reassurances and what I'm sure are the best intentions from Messmaster, I'm not a fan of the downvoting idea (especially not as it's spread to content) and don't really see it helping. Regardless of how it is intended to be used, the only people I can see actively using it wouldn't be using it for noble reasons...which leads me to still doubt its necessity. Also, as Violet said, I see people (who weren't going to buy content from producers that don't interest them anyway) downvoting certain content that doesn't fit into their checkboxes for their preferred WAM, considering the number of threads or comments made where people bemoan the state of current content compared to the past. I feel like it would make your jobs harder having to play the Thought Police on every downvote to determine what the user's true intent was as well. If it potentially adds more stress to everyone (content creators, people whose favorite content creators get downvoted for matters not pertaining to any wrongdoing, admins for having to keep track of it), I really don't think it's a worthwhile change.

I downvoted this, I also hearted it. Now waiting to see if the unresolved conflict will cause the universe to reboot.

On a more serious note I share Violet's concerns, that people will downvote stuff they personally don't like in an attempt to reduce its visibility not just to themselves but to everyone else as well, in an attempt to skew the market, or for personal grudges, or religious/moral crusading.

Rut roh. I think you may have opened a hole in the Space/Time/Pie continuum.

That's what we want. If something looks like it breaks the rules, it helps me if they report it. The downvote is not for rule breaking, but if someone was a little rude, or if you just don't like something, then downvote it. The negative points are so low that it will take a lot of downvotes to trigger anything.

The reporting screen already had choices like Illegal, Harrassment, Spam, etc. If anybody selects those, it deducts so many points that 3 flags may bury / delete the item. I wanted to add a less severe option that people could use in less dire circumstances to express like a thumbs-down. So the Downvote only deducts a small number of points. Right now it would take around 8 downvotes to trigger a delete. I don't think we've ever had something get 8 of any kind of flag! With added community participation, over the years I'll be adjusting the thresholds and algos to better respond to the flags that are coming in.


I agree with the "just don't click on it then" philosophy, to a point. But people generally don't want to report something as e.g. harassment when it was only like a tone-deaf joke. But if it rubbed 10 people the wrong way and they downvoted it, then maybe it really should be buried. That's the idea behind the downvote.


They don't see the downvotes, so there should be no chilling effect. They can only see the loves. That's by design. If their stuff is ever removed, I also see that, and I can reverse the decision if I need to. And anybody can always appeal the decision!


Pettiness and spiteful actions definitely happen, but not nearly at the level you're probably thinking. I feel that I've got a very good grasp of what level of it exists here and I try to adjust the knobs accordingly.


I'm not sure why you'd think this


Let me take a second and flip the script. You can look at this as enabling dishonest people to game the system, or you can look at it as giving more power to you and the rest of the community to vote in a quasi-democratic way to influence the content of this site. Everyone has always known that their content can get reported, and that hasn't stopped them from posting. The addition of literally the most mild of all the reporting options certainly shouldn't make them run away!


That's the point If somebody is getting their stuff downvoted that much, then their stuff probably shouldn't be trending. If your fear is people ganging up and bullying, then rest assured that this will not happen. A copy of every flag goes to my personal inbox and in other admin areas even mods can't see. I can un-delete any content, gag any offender, reverse any decision, erase any fraudulent vote, recalculate any rank, etc etc etc.


You really don't need to fear being bullied like this. This is still a very private web site that is personally looked after. You're not going to have gangs and bullies and bots and cliques teaming up to drive you off. The downvote is weak and the threshold is high so that we can average out the outliers while finally enabling the community to let UMD know when they just don't like something.


It was great, thank you for having it!

Also, to everyone else, it seems that the main fear is of being bullied and buried by people who disagree with you. Since the introduction of the downvote, only THREE people have used it besides mods, and one was on this thread Everybody chill, this is not a thing to worry about

So-...

I can work on a video and upload it for sale, and potentially have no control over whether or not it gets deleted?

Will I have to maintain new standards or something, or is it more about community posts and stuff that wouldn't affect something I may have spent time and money to produce?

I could have a video taken down for not meeting a "vibe check"? Even if has been my only tiny source of income- It's no longer up to me whether or not I'll even be able to sell things?

Your video already could get deleted after getting flagged as Illegal or something and I review it. The Downvote is another such flag. Auto-delete doesn't apply to videos and downloads yet, but even when it does, it would take a LOT of downvotes to get it auto-hidden, and even then it's easily put back after review if needed.

right on

For those worried about trolls using the downvote inappropriately, look at it this way too:
Doing so flags MM, which creates more visible metrics; including seeing if someone is just going around downvoting everything and being a general cunt.

That's a good thing. Now MM can see that and take whatever measures needed to address it when needed.

I really just don't understand why this isn't more visible. Here, in this thread, we all know of its existence, but a year from now, a new user who has never reported anything won't even be aware that this is an option. Why not make this more visible as a separate button next to the Report button?

I'm thinking of like a small thumbs-down button to replace the "report" link. But it goes to the same reporting page, so it's only really a matter of verbiage vs icon like I was saying

That sounds like a great implementation!