Downvoters Always Have Sucky YTMNDs Of Their Own
Created on: September 10th, 2006
Downvoters always have lousy YTMNDs of their own. It's like they're trying to spread their pox to others.
Sponsorships:
| user | amount | user | amount |
|---|---|---|---|
| No one has sponsored this site ( ._.) | |||
| Sponsor this site! | Total: $0.00 | Active: $0.00 | |
Vote metrics:
| rating | total votes | favorites | comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| (3.62) | 55 | 0 | 61 |
View metrics:
| today | yesterday | this week | this month | all time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,172 |
Inbound links:
| views | url |
|---|---|
| 46 | https://www.bing.com |
| 5 | http://www.google.com.hk |
| 5 | http://216.18.188.175:80 |
| 2 | https://www.google.com/ |
| 1 | http://ytmnsfw.com/keywords/downvoting |
HAY GUYZ LUK ANUTHR DOWNVOTR! Seriously, we know there are downvoters and we know they suck, please don't bother making sites about them unless one bothers you specifically, even then only if it's a constant thing, such as "eekers" 1-starring all my sites with the comment "1'd for having no sense of morality for another human being."
aw get over it. downvoting something doesn't mean they only like things they make, it just means they didn't like that one. SO WHAT. I only 'downvote' something when i don't like it. when i do i 'upvote', but this whole 'up' and 'down' thing is retarded. it's not like you call Roger Ebert a Downvoter if he gives a thumbs down for a movie. he just don't like it. and yeah, this is just pandering. it's not like it affects anything, ANYTHING AT ALL.
A peson's YTMND's do not justify or grant them merit on holding opinions to other YTMND's. There is no point proven here. YTMND is not a "my d!ck is bigger than yours" competition. There is little to no basis in judging the character of a YTMND'er from their own YTMND's. Material not approved by the majority general audience does not make it "bad" nor "good," nor does it shape the validity of their opinions. Realize how the voting system works and you'll see what the votes really represent. Also, believe it or not, downvoters are important to the YTMND society. That's the beauty of free voting; everyone's opinion is just as valid as the next persons, no matter how much one disagrees with another's opinion, or how "in the minority" an opinion may be.
But kenjidan, the difference is people vote based on their actual opinions. "Wow, this is amazing, 5" or "dude, seriously, this sucks, 1". A downvoter is just "1 *next* 1 *next* 1 *next* 1 *next*". They are not a valid representation of anything nor should their "opinions", for lack of a better word, be worth anything. In addition, phalluses.
Ah alright. If you're referring to "downvoter' as in, people who could literally be replaced by a spam-script to auto 1 all ytmnd's, then yeah, that doesn't contribute at all and just causes a widespread outlier in the score averages. However, I think the label of "downvoter" is too often misplaced. For example, the current poster-child of downvoting is sexymofo. Yeah, he has an extremely high amount of 1's. However I don't believe he is a downvoter (by the said definition.) His voting habits have shown that he in fact does have an opinion. and just that his tastes tend to approve exclusively with artsy aphex-twin'y stuff. He is obviously taking the time to watch and rate MANY YTMNDs, consciously.
But even from this standpoint, there's still the perspective of how one can show valid reasoning for someone downvoting. Say, there is a person who ones everything. What if in that person's opinion, all the votes he made, he really believed they all sucked. Who has the right to say that the votes that person made were not helpful? If they represented an honest opinion, then it stands. The only way to differentiate is if the voter himself declares "I'm downvoting because I'm a douchebag that downvotes blindly like a robot." But of course, that can be thwarted by a person voting bilndly, then saying his votes stem from honest opinions. Herein, we can see the dilemma of accurately separating valid from invalid votes.
And following the definition, what about upvoters? I haven't heard anyone complain about them, but when it comes to preserving an accurate voting system, they're just as bad as the downvoters. I think the best way to help the situation, is to keep people on one account so that each opinion, blind or not, has only one vote.
Also I don't count people like faust as downvoters. They 5 good sites and 1 bad ones. It just makes them a split voter. I usually only vote on sites I like anyway, so most of my votes are 5. The lame downvoters are the people who actively search for either good sites or sites that they hate and then downvote all of them. Also e-vengers.
Yes, that's who this site is targeting. "anime = insta1" "durrrr j00 fail" "i'm 1ing you due to reasons other than the specific ytmnd in question" "your site took my first place when you search for 'Star Trek'" "f*ck you", all those people. To them I say learn to make quality before you attempt to judge it, and if you 1 this site for my stance against them, you are just as bad.
Bold
Italic
Underline
Code
User Link
Site Link