Blog Catalog Discussion: Ouch! Voted Down!

MadameX on 'Ouch! Voted Down!'

MadameX — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 19:35:28 -0500

I think I would only vote a blog down if I found something offensive about it--stolen content or continually putting other people/bloggers down or something like that. That's the only reason I give something a thumbs down on stumble--or rampant misinformation. Otherwise, like a couple of you have already said, I'd just ignore it if I didn't like it.

clioandme on 'Ouch! Voted Down!'

clioandme — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 18:30:59 -0500

Given all the talk of leveraging Stumble, Digg, etc. for traffic here, I would be surprised if a site like that were not being used in a similar way. And given its look, I would almost expect it. So you got some exposure. Great. Forget about the rest.

ender on 'Ouch! Voted Down!'

ender — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 18:17:55 -0500

but what if someone worked hard at something and it just flat out stinks? what if it's not factual; it's lifted from another site (but there was still a lot of work that went into finding those words) ...

there is good in letting people know honest criticism. there is good in encouraging people to do better.

there is no good in destructive voting for no reason ... and little good in a voting system which doesn't tell people why a thumbs up or a thumbs down.

but there is no good in NOT telling people that they need improvement, either...
there is little room for growth without community opinion.

daisythecurlycat on 'Ouch! Voted Down!'

daisythecurlycat — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 17:31:44 -0500

I would probably do the same thing: Vote a thumbs up if I liked a blog, and just not vote for one I didn't like. Giving someone's hard work a thumbs down just seems mean.

EavesdropWriter on 'Ouch! Voted Down!'

EavesdropWriter — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 16:16:42 -0500

Hi stoneman, no I'm not sure. I used it to describe a system I thought was meant to measure a viewer's like or dislike of the blog content or layout, not as a tool for leveraging another blog by voting one down arbitrarily. I'm making an assumption here that it happened to my blog. Maybe the voter really did hate it. But, I'm going off a comment posted by one of Blog Interviewer's administrators who said people do vote to sabotage scores.

"Integrity" in my context, means being unimpaired or sincere. What do you think? Would you have used another noun or, more rightly, have just blown it off and not taken it so seriously!

clioandme on 'Ouch! Voted Down!'

clioandme — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 16:01:01 -0500

"Integrity"? Are you sure you're using the right word?

ender on 'Ouch! Voted Down!'

ender — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 15:32:28 -0500

eh, it happens. and if you really don't like a blog, you probably ought to vote it down ... i mean, that's what the down vote is for, right?

but, i know what you mean. there's a site called: hotornotdesigns.com on which i am regularly rated a 1 out of 10. i think i'm even on the worst designs list over there.

odd, since i generally speaking get compliments on my blog's design. eh, such is the "public" life.

nusuni on 'Ouch! Voted Down!'

nusuni — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 14:54:45 -0500

That's alright, nobody can be 100% popular.

EavesdropWriter on 'Ouch! Voted Down!'

EavesdropWriter — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 19:35:28 -0500

I have an interview posted at Blog Interviewer where visitors can vote your blog up or down. The site offers some kind of prize structure for the highest votes in a month. The leader is sort of untouchable at 160 some votes. I was enjoying my modest but happy total when today...a THUMBS DOWN!

I guess I would just not vote a blog up if I didn't like it. Reading through comments I found some bloggers actually vote blogs down on purpose to lessen the score! Sabotage lives! Anyone else been fooled by the integrity of the voting system over there?

http://bloginterviewer.com