Lemmy NSFW

I disagree that blocking users or communities covers everything. Upvotes are for good content, neutral (no action) is for most posts that you just scroll past, but downvotes are for 5 second clips without sound that technically don't break any rules of the community. But maybe other people might disagree, and that's good, in that case they can upvote and the net value of the post is clear. If not, the OP gets a clear signal that the number of downvotes is higher than the number of upvotes and they can fuck right off with those posts.

Especially if they also post other, high quality content, you can't expect me to just block the user who has done nothing wrong, or report their post that breaks no rules.

Or do you expect me to upvote literally everythingI scroll past (except the posts I would have downvoted)? I'll gladly do that if I can autmate it, otherwise ain't nobody got time fo that shit.

I fully understand why you guys did this and it is certainly a solution to the problem above.

That being said, I really do not like this change.

I would go into detail about the reasons why, but I feel like this topic has been hashed out a few times before. So everyone should know why people are for and against this change.

(I am only posting this comment because the other way to show disapproval has now been removed.)

I absolutely fuckin hate this. It's almost the equivalent of YouTube removing the dislike button.

I am leaving this account behind because of this change, which is incredibly frustrating to have to do, since I had many saved posts and I already had been blocking the communities I don't like to see rather than downvoting their posts, so I have to redo all of this on a new instance.

Downvotes are an integral part of a voting system, and are especially critical in low population environments like this. I don't care how many "likes" a post has, what matters is the up/down ratio. Now lemmynsfw has lost that.

"downvoting posts discourages these posters who are actually passionate/interested in the topic of the community from posting again. Additionally, when posts are downvoted like that it can bury them, preventing them from being viewed by others almost at all."

Isn't that literally the point of down voting? To discourage posting that doesn't fit the community so that it isn't seen by as many people... ESPECIALLY since the focus on this instance is NSFW then more discouragement of posts that don't fit should be the goal so that users subscribed to those communities surface the appropriate things they want to see. You've removed users' agency to shape their communities and caused waaaaaay more work for moderators.

This also takes away our ability to down vote posts across the entire federation it appears?!

Sounds like we're only allowed to upvote and anything whatsoever that gets posted is considered valid content? So... basically just a shitty Instagram for nudes?

Thanks for keeping us in the loop! While I agree that downvoting can be problematic for smaller nicher communities, I'm not a fan of removing the downvote button. I think a better option would be to remind users (in a post like this) that they can block communities whose content they don't want to see on their client

Welp, guess the bot content and spam-posting will always rise to the top now :/

get’s [sic] a lot of downvotes by people who simply don’t like that particular post.

That's literally the point of the downvote system. To downvote posts you don't like, or you feel are out of place.

Additionally we are seeing posts with more downvotes than a community has subscribers, meaning people are downvoting content they don’t even want to see in the first place.

This seems to be the real issue you're trying to fight. It seems like only permitting downvotes on communities that the user has been a part of for greater than 1/2/7/30/pick-a-number days would be the proper solution. If people in a community are downvoting a post, then it means they don't think that post is worth sharing. No admin, moderator, community owner, etc. should be able to change that.

I am strongly against removing downvotes.

I just want to go on record saying I do not like this change, though I do understand the good intention behind it.

It seems there was a simple and elegant solution discussed earlier in this thread - only allow downvotes of you are subscribed to the community where the post is. I know this would need to be implemented by the lemmy devs; is there someplace we can request or vote on such features? A whole tagging system may be nice, but it's overkill for this problem.

Meanwhile, genuine question, how do I hide posts that I have already seen that I would have downvoted? I have already joined a bunch of communities, and I only look at my Subscribed feed. I have lemmy set to not show me posts I've already voted on. Thus, my feed is always kept fresh, and when I log in I just see what's new in those communities to which I've subscribed.

So, now I see a post that I feel doesn't live up to the standards of a particular community. It doesn't break any rules per se, and it's not report-worthy, it's just not a good post. Normally I'd downvote and move on, and I'd never see it again. So now what do I do to ensure I don't see it every time I log in? Lemmy doesn't have a 'hide' or 'mark seen' feature (another good feature we should have), and I don't want to upvote the post because it's a bad post. I also don't want to block the poster, because their next post might be great! What do I do here?

I hate to make this post any longer, but I'll just provide an example. Within the last couple days, I saw the same post uploaded to both gonewild and to adorableporn. I upvoted the gonewild post and downvoted the adorableporn post, because at the end of the day it was a pretty average nude picture, perfectly reasonable for gonewild. But not, IMO, anything that could be called adorable. That, to me, seems like specifically the kind of situation that calls for a 'downvote and move on' response. So now how do I hide that post without blocking that user, who is otherwise posting good content?

I ran a forum with 30k active users before saying F that. One thing I learned during that adventure is that you can't force people to behave the way you want. It doesn't matter what you type, the up/down votes will mean exactly what the user wants. Trying to force conformity or censoring their contributions (down votes) will only end in frustration and lower user count.

tldr: Your team is behaving like it's their first moderating experience.