Why did Moz remove thumbs down from blog posts?
-
Good point Patrick. Adding another layer, typically these rogue accounts may have just a few MozPoints and are newly created. If a user has been w/moz for let's say one year and have a couple hundred points, they may typically be more prone for spammy comments.
-
Little-known fact: We actually do have a way of monitoring the thumb activity of accounts, and regularly send emails to folks who are abusing the system. I'd say we ban 5-10 accounts every day that are blatantly violating our community guidelines. It's a bit laborious to manually review things like that, and we're super-careful not to go any farther than addressing spam/abuse, but it's one of the ways we're able to keep the comment threads productive.
-
Thats awesome to know Trevor! That's exactly what I was referencing above - good to know you guys are on top of it!
Without giving too much away, what are other elements to a Moz profile do you monitor? I'd imagine comment spam is a major one. Does activity or dormancy come into play at all?
-
This is good to know Trevor; thanks for sharing. I think it would be great of you guys published some guidelines for how to use the thumbs-up / thumbs-down feature, and just to encourage more folks using it. I'm sometimes amazed at the great stuff I learn from comments and wonder why I'm the only one that seems to appreciate it.
PS - I checked to see what guidelines are published before stating this. Your "answering questions" help link is broken.
-
Yes.
If something seems like it'd be a clue to a spammy account, we look at it. Irrelevant comments (especially those with links to irrelevant sites) are an easy sign. An irrelevant comment with a link from an account that was created that same day (and has the bare minimum profile fields filled) is a pretty good sign that account isn't going to be a productive member of the community. And yep -- if we're on the fence about intent, we'll definitely look at whether the account has been used in recent history (as well as other things), too. We usually opt for the benefit of the doubt... lots of people either misunderstand the point, or make an honest mistake.
-
Thanks for the kind words, Donna!
The guidelines would be quite simple, I think. If something resonates with you, give it a thumbs-up. If a comment evokes a negative reaction, go ahead and thumb it down. If we get more prescriptive than that, I think we risk losing the usefulness of the system.
One thing we've done on the blog with the design change is added the thumb/comment buttons to the sticky module on the right side, so you can thumb a post up without scrolling back to the top or down to the bottom. If you've got any other suggestions for the future, we'd love to hear 'em -- I'm right with you, often blown away by the quality of comment threads. It's one of my favorite things about the blog!
-
I'd just say publish "Â If something resonates with you, give it a thumbs-up. If a comment evokes a negative reaction, go ahead and thumb it down." where it's visible and influential. You want as many visitors as possible to see those guidelines and they won't if they're just published here.
-
Interesting idea. Maybe we can have a little tooltip for the thumbs somewhere. Will have to noodle on it.
Thanks again!
-
I like the idea! Very often I was asking myself why a particular blog post got 6 thumbs down when I thought it was brilliant. Criticism should always be constructive.
-
Entirely agreed. Thanks!
-
I gave you a thumbs up
-
Haha! So meta...
-
Totally agree with this move. Thumbs down is too easy, not specific, and too anonymous. If a reader really has constructive feedback then they should be prepared to post a comment.
-
Bingo. So glad you agree.
-
I don't think that removing the thumbdown is a bad idea. A negative thumb should have some sort of comment associated, in order to be critique.
I was worried that the thumbs down was removed all together, but thankfully only on blog posts! -
I have no problem whatsoever with the removal of the thumbs down and think it's a good move for all the aforementioned reasons.
Another thing that I think could be improved is the star rating system attributed to users. I have always assumed star ratings denote a scoring system that follows something similar to 1 star=poor, 2 stars=below average, 3 stars=average, and so forth. I think, when applied to a users contribution and experience, the star rating system is confusing and misleading. If I see someone who is, say, 2 stars out of 5, I automatically assume their ability to respond to a question as "below average", when in reality it may simply mean they are new to the forum or only post sporadically.
If I could suggest an alternative system, I would instead like to see one similar to the Whirlpool forums where you are given a user title that correlates to your participation and experience levels.
Just a thought
-
I agree 100%, Paul -- thanks for the idea. The Q&A section is due for an update before too long, and I think that's a great change for us to keep in mind.
-
I'm happy for this change because I think one thumbs down would lead to more. For instance, let's say I make what I think is an important (but possibly controversial) comment. Â It gets 1 or 2 thumbs down then another then another then another just because people like to pile on. Then, because I got 7 thumbs down, maybe I'm angry. And I take it out on the rest of the comment stream by downing every other comment just so we're "even." Â It happens - I am 100% sure of that.
Now, let's say you want to encourage discussion. What does thumbs down do? It makes everyone yes-men & women. Let's just agree, maybe someone will like my comment. Big whoop. lol  I'd rather make the honest critique rather than tell someone what they want to hear.  When I first came back to Moz after a few months off, I almost immediately got 5 very quick thumbs down. It was a reminder that the system in place suggested that I was supposed to just agree with everything everyone says.
Let's put it this way - one of the most discussed, necessary posts on Moz last year had more thumbs down than any I've ever seen on Moz. Yet, it was a necessary conversation no matter which side of the debate you fall on. Negative commentary doesn't have to be a bad thing. I think Moz should encourage more posts like Josh B's, not fewer. If people are less "afraid" to post controversial things for fear of being knocked back, that is good for Moz.
-
Which I think falls in line with what others, including myself, were saying earlier.
- Guidelines need to be published. e.g. A thumbs down is not a bad thing, it's a sign of disagreement.
- Comments need to be encouraged. We all don't have to agree, but we do need to explain ourselves so others can decide which side of the fence they fall upon and contribute to the conversation. Disagreements are healthy so long as they're civil, open and honest. That's how a community grows and evolves.
- Guess you'd also have to reflect whatever policy you come up with in the attribution of Mozpoints as well.
Glad you came back. I think you've made a lot meaningful contributions to the site.
-
Do this, go to the homepage and look at the number of comments that posts in the Moz Blog receive. What do you see? 40? 60? 80? Something with a lot of activity might get over 100?
Now, go into the post and examine those comments. Many of them are fan posts. Some of them are comments by people who "don't get it" (sometimes I am in that group).
The genuine engagement is often 1/2 or less of the total comments at most, by my count.
When I compare that to what I believe the stature of Moz is in the search industry and the number of people who visit the blog, those are low numbers. Really low numbers. In my opinion.
In an industry where there is so much uncertainty and so much data, I would think that the engagement and debate would be a lot higher, and the amount of diverse opinion would be a lot higher.
Why is that? We could list a hundred reasons or more.  Competitive industry and don't want clients or boss seeing secrets being revealed. Lack of time. Earning money is more important and don't want boss or clients seeing time being spent. Hesitant to disagree with the poster because of Moz fans. Hesitant to disagree with poster because he/she is world famous. They think TAGFEE means you gotta love everything. Not motivated to do the research and writing required to present a good argument that contradicts world famous expert and a big tribe of fans. Don't want to come back several times to engage in protracted debate.  (And many people spend an hour typing a big, researched, passionate comment, only to see it disappear when the "post response" button is pressed.) I could go on. I understand why the engagement isn't higher.
So, I think that in addition to comments, the Moz Blog needs a way that people can quickly give feedback. Make it quick and you will get more. Expect people to write and you will find that people hate writing. They really hate writing. Everybody knows that you gotta pull teeth to get content, right?
Many of us are online merchants and we daily receive one to five star feedback from our customers along with one or two sentences. Lots of customers do that because it is quick and easy. As merchants we often make business decisions based upon their very brief input. I think that can happen at Moz.  Yes, you will have trolls, haters, idiots and people who "didn't get it" responding. If those comments are attributed to member names then the reader and the poster will have some ability to place value on them.
So I would encourage Moz to find a way to get this quick feedback from the many busy people who visit and I think that will help the participation rate and give feedback that is more meaningful than a simple up/down vote.
-
12848
-
05662
-
15166
-
03102
-
02191
-
02270
-
03219
-
05592