Why allow people to vote zero?

Not an earth-shattering problem, but it's something that has always bothered me so I'll speak up. I get that the voting is subjective and just a fun little thing to do, but if there's a legitimate argument for a zero vote, I'd love to hear it. There's no legit reason to give a zero except to be juvenile and disrespectful. Why allow it? There has to be a lowest number, but no one is a "zero."

Well because its a free country people can vote how they please. Thats what seperates us from the "commies". Generally the haters are offset by the fans anyway so it evens out.

I think what HalfKorean means is that the zero vote doesn't serve any purpose, because it can't reflect an objective judgment. And I agree completely. However, I choose to care about how many appreciate my pics, and ignore the haters who simply can't overcome the thought that they're not God and can't mandate that all females look the way they preferred. Constructive criticism, of course, is another matter.

I've also noticed at least one "Commander Zero" type, who runs through giving everybody a big fat zero.  Never figured out the reason for this, unless they're just getting a power trip from it.

Me? Well, I figure that if the thumbnail image is good enough to click on, then the gal is worth at least a 5.  I can't imagine giving less than that, unless something really bizarre got posted (most of my votes are usually in the 7 or 8 range).

But yes, what's the alternative?  I suppose we could abolish the zero, and make "1" the lowest score, but I don't think that really addresses the problem . . .

Why would anyone think that someone who gives a rating of 'zero' is a "hater?"  That's rather silly. I don't give many ratings of one or zero. The ones I do give tend to go to FBBs who have really overdone the 'juice' and look like guys in the face; often guys with large chest implants that don't look right either.

The muscle is real nice, which is why this web site exists. But retention of being feminine is equally important. And yes, when considering what the upload rules are, giving a rating of zero or one IS an objective judgement.

By the way, after I received the notification "New feature: You can now see the average rating users have given on the members list, and on profile pages.", I browsed the "Ratings Given" and "Average Rating Given" columns, and I noticed there are several «haters» in the list. One example: user "hardy" has given 8032 ratings with an average rating as low as 0.55.

Must be the "Commander Zero" guy I was talking about.  ;D

Yeah, that's one of the purposes of that new feature, to expose the chronically negative types. The mods and I were brainstorming ways to combat 0-bombing, and this is one thing we came up with.

That new feature is amazing, thank you for implementing it!
Hardy truly seems to be "Commander Zero"... but what about linlin? 79533 ratings, average of 2.03 - 79533 ratings?! How is this even possible? Must be a bot or a guy with big problems. The internet is full of interesting people!

Now we know their names.... An applaud for this novel solution.

It's real simple ...  The "Zeros" are to combat this type of equally retarded voting:

perfectbmw
Newbie
Email: hidden
Images uploaded: 0
Images favorited: 290
Average Rating Received: N/A
Number of Ratings Given: 171
Average Rating Given: 9.76
Time Registered: Jul 07, 2011, 2:13 pm
Last Activity: Mar 04, 2012, 3:39 pm
perfectbmw has commented on 32 images.

here's another:  (just sayin')

"luv fem muscle"
Email: hidden
Images uploaded: 0
Images favorited: 2672
Average Rating Received: N/A
Number of Ratings Given: 2417
Average Rating Given: 9.79
Time Registered: Aug 02, 2009, 3:49 pm
Last Activity: Mar 04, 2012, 4:36 pm

Maybe they just like what they are seeing. Why would that make their ratings "retarded?" Or maybe you yourself have a problem.

Just for the record, and under a different user name, I've rated over 10,000 pictures on the site with an average rating of 8.3. That includes the "0" and "1" bombs I've given to the manly looking FBBs.

I agree, Chief Ouray. A guy who hates everything he sees in a place, yet keep coming back only to play a dumb prank on people, now that's retarded. I don't like to criticize others, but I've got to say that the defense in the post above yours sounds truly stupid.

I've never let that those "captain zeroes" get to me because after all, the only loss in this affair is their own time spent for such a pointless hobby, but it is a sad day when being courteous and positive is something to be laughed upon.

To the Chief-  I can actually respect your 8.3 average rating.  Although much higher than I would assess all of the girls/all of the images, etc., at least you use some discretion in your voting.

To Sthenolagnia-  Ok, let's try this ... If one votes 16,000 times (which I've shared with you below by another member), and the average is "9.99", then what possible meaning does a "10" have?.  Frankly, it is an insult those very few, special girls who deserve a "10".  Again, "10" means perfect, the very, very best.  Some girls are a 9.7, some an 8.1 and yes, some might only be a 5.4.  <<<  OH THE HUMANITY!  How is voting on 16,000 images and rating virtually every one of them a "10", courteous or positive?  Seriously, is every movie you've ever seen, a "10"?, every TV Show you've ever seen, a "10"?, every book, every car, etc., etc. I think not.

Your thoughts?

I'm sorry, this IS retarded.
   V  V  V  V  V  V  V  V  

iona
Sr. Member
Email: hidden
Images uploaded: 195
Images favorited: 3745
Average Rating Received: 8.6
Number of Ratings Given: 16892
Average Rating Given: 9.99
Time Registered: Jun 04, 2011, 12:34 pm
Last Activity: Mar 23, 2012, 9:54 am

Once again, my opinion, not yours.

Hi masuimi,

I appreciate your effort to have a frank and rational discussion. First, let's examine the two members that you cited as examples above:

Number of Ratings Given: 171
Average Rating Given: 9.76

Number of Ratings Given: 2417
Average Rating Given: 9.79

We have what, 80 thousand plus images on the main site? Is it strange that a guy found 171 or even 2417 pics that he really likes? What rule or common sense dictates that the guy has to open the pics that do not capture his interest and deserve a low rate in his opinion?

Everyone of us can only see a certain amount of the images on the main site, I suppose; some, may be out of curiosity or a sense of "justice" open pics that they think are worth 1, 2 or 5, 6 points and judge accordingly. Some care only about pics that he/she thinks are excellent. Others may think that giving high scores is a good way to encourage posters with good taste. All of those are good reasons, which show positive attitude and benign intent toward the site and other users.

In life, it is more common for strangers to exchange thanks and compliments than criticism. When said criticism has no point, then the practice becomes even less common and abnormal in a civilized society. What could possibly be the motivation of a guy who opens some 20 thousand images and rate 0? Surely that is not an objective judgment, or if it is, then why keep coming back to a site where you find only contemptible stuffs? What does it say about a man who takes time to open so many images that he so hate, and fail to find a nice thing to say about almost anyone, except that he is excessively preoccupied with with hatred?

Your reasoning reminds me of Mr Hyde, who gets so pissed off when he sees courteous behavior. He probably thought that his rudeness and aggressiveness was balancing society against the courtesy and sanity of others too.

To make my point clear, I do not object to constructive criticism in the form of low rates. I object to the practice of sabotaging the high rates that several images get from the consensus opinion, which they deserve. But above all, I object to the way one would defend such actions by attacking others who show much better judgment and mental health, if I may say so.   

You have become tiresome.  Vote however you'd like.
I'll do the same.

If you do not allow to vote 0, the next number -1- will be the lowest rate.
Then you can restart this top topic for the -1- votes.

Whatever you do, there will be a lowest vote and people who really dislike a pic for one reason or another will give the lowest vote, people who really like a pic will give the highest rate. Voting is very subjective.

If a girl has a rate of 0.xx after 20 votes, that says there are many members who dislike the picture and there has still been no member who really likes the picture enough to give it a vote of 7 or 8...

wut?

There will always be a lowest number, but nobody deserves a zero. At least not anybody who has already been voted in through the moderation process. A zero vote is an ego vote. It's just an attempt to bring down a score and make your vote more important than anyone else's, and for what reason? If you don't like a picture, move on and find one that you do. 

Stop trying to censor people. Just let them vote the way they want.

I believe a way to hide this would be appropriate, unless a users ratings were overly positive (9.5+) or negative (1.5 or less)

That way, guys who have an 8 average or so can decide if they want others to know or not, and we still out the people who just seem to slap 10s and 0s everywhere and don't take into account if they LIKE anything about the picture, or just the name. Like another poster said, an average rating of 9.99 is just as worthless as a 0.55.

Simple answer that I could say is 'because there are people who like to click on zero and vote" :D. It actually gives the freedom for the voters to show their expression. Had there been no zero, there would be no math now. So don't undervalue the zero  >:D

funny, I remember in math class a debate about whether zero is a number or not.

i think it is and a valid entry

The front page of new images is a sea of red - clearly someone has taken the trouble to zero rate at least 20 pictures in a single sitting, one after the other.  Oddly, the physiques are a mixed bag so you'd think at least one or two would appeal.