13
\$\begingroup\$

EE.SE.com users are often atwitter when a downvote lands in their vicinity. Sometimes the sting of rejection felt by authors whose question or answer was dealt a -1 is publicly visible in the form of emotional comments and edits. Other times this feedback is transparent, the user seeing only quality questions and answers, as the author and community have corrected any mistakes, deleted the out of date comments, and rescinded the downvotes.

The questions "are downvotes a bad thing?" and "should I take it personally?" are rhetorical. The answers are implied and obvious, but still need to be said as a friendly reminder towards those flinching from rebuke.

||||||
\$\endgroup\$
  • 6
    \$\begingroup\$ must...resist...urge to downvote this post! \$\endgroup\$ – Kevin Vermeer Apr 30 '12 at 1:01
  • \$\begingroup\$ My friend wrote a cool blog entry on being down voted on SO. \$\endgroup\$ – Dean May 4 '12 at 23:42
  • \$\begingroup\$ It's interesting to see that some personally directed responses in comments have been removed (I'm not referring to my ones) - whether by the posters or by admins I know not. I an see why people may wish to fine tune the presentation and make discourse seem more logical and harmonious post priori - but it does rather skew any attempt to see how such discussions evolve. FWIW :-). All good fun, I'm sure. The general way the results of this question have rippled outwards seem indicative that'all is not well in the garden". Shakespeare's "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" seems apposite. \$\endgroup\$ – Russell McMahon Jun 9 '12 at 18:24
  • \$\begingroup\$ Only one downvote for this, so I guess it was me. Kortuk may wish to thump me again for that, I don't know? I liked the issue being raised, but considered the compulsory 'straw man' within the question made it too biased. viz the categorisation of user questions as rhetorical as part of this question, the implication that 'agreeable to one' comments are somehow quality ones. The concept of people actually rescinding downvotes when a 'post' is 'corrected' is a novel one - I've not seen it happen - even when purely technical points raised were addressed; nor any appreciation for reworked answer \$\endgroup\$ – Russell McMahon Jun 9 '12 at 18:31
  • \$\begingroup\$ @RussellMcMahon, I have seen them reversed for that reason very often, but often after such a technical discourse the users remove their comments, or if a moderator finds them later they will be removed, they are the noise of the site. I have removed many comments on this post that had decayed into bickering and were only inflaming emotions. On the note of the downvote of the question, you think I would thump you for not agreeing with a post on meta? That is what meta is for. If you have some confusion as to the source of your suspension please contact me in chat. \$\endgroup\$ – Kortuk Jun 11 '12 at 7:20
  • \$\begingroup\$ I suggest chat because the rapid back and forth of a "real" conversation in chat often resolves these issues much faster. If you would like the chat to be publicly access, publicly viewable or private is your option also. \$\endgroup\$ – Kortuk Jun 11 '12 at 7:21
  • \$\begingroup\$ The reason for a downvote is to say you have disagreed, the simplest way to remove a downvote @RussellMcMahon when there is a technical inaccuracy is when someone makes a major error, receives downvotes and then deletes their post. This instantly removes all of the downvotes from affecting rep, both the writer and the voter but recover their rep. I would say that most of the time someone receives a downvote for a poor answer though they are not a regular member, we only have a few higher rep members whom regularly receive downvotes. Stevenvh and Olin don't really, they just hate every one. \$\endgroup\$ – Kortuk Jun 11 '12 at 7:23
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Kortuk - I don't have any confusion re the source of suspension. I follow what happened and what people thought people thought and throught people thought people thought and ... :-) well enough. I just think that the whole process was bizarre and broken and demonstrates alack of proper tools. The willingness to use improper tools in the absence of proper ones is not at all surprising but a bit sad. \$\endgroup\$ – Russell McMahon Jun 11 '12 at 23:17
  • \$\begingroup\$ @RussellMcMahon, I am a bit confused by your statement as to me thumping you again. It made me think there was confusion \$\endgroup\$ – Kortuk Jun 11 '12 at 23:22
  • \$\begingroup\$ Is this question about downvotes in the main site or meta? I was under the impression from other SE sites that downvotes in meta mean people disagree with you, not necessarily that the quality of the post was bad \$\endgroup\$ – Atav32 Jun 15 '12 at 20:03
  • \$\begingroup\$ They comment on downvotes on the main site, @BBz. \$\endgroup\$ – tyblu Jun 15 '12 at 22:55
10
\$\begingroup\$

Downvotes are neither bad nor a personal attack. The top answer to Could we please be a bit nicer to the n00bs? put it best:

  • The up/down vote system is not just about rep, it is the quality control mechanism for Stack Overflow.

... the up/down vote system is the core of how we get the "good stuff" up and the "bad stuff" down. It is not designed to be a personal attack against the users in question.

Users must have 125 rep to downvote, and the reputation privilege is described to be cast on questions and answers that "are least useful... egregiously sloppy, no-effort-expended post, or an answer that is clearly and perhaps dangerously incorrect," but, really, they're used for whatever we want. Other motivators are listed in Why do you cast downvotes on answers?

Whatever the reason, don't take it personally. Similar to your behaviour in a discussion, it makes no sense to get upset when someone disagrees with, finds a flaw in, or offers an alternative to your argument.* This is something we all learn growing up socially. Those that don't abide are communally pegged as immature idiots, even if they were right.

xkcd: Duty Calls (http://xkcd.com/386/)

Voting is anonymous, meant to encourage more votes, especially downvotes with it's emotional blast radius. Shog9♦, in an answer to Feature request: @Downvoter sends a notification to all downvoters for your post, defends downvote anonymity, why we should STFU about votes/rep, and how to better ask for suggestions:

I've thought more about this, and frankly... I don't like the idea of leaving a comment for down-voters at all, with or without notification. Down-voting isn't supposed to open a dialog - new users are encouraged to comment when down-voting, but it's not mandatory - and if they don't feel the need, that's just fine.

Furthermore, I've seen too many instances where a "Why the downvote?" comment poisons further discussion, turning comments into a debate over whether the vote was merited - this is noise, as comments are supposed to be relevant to the content of the post itself. In most cases - and especially when comments have already been posted prior to the request - I flag or delete these downvoter-addressed comments.

It's easy to feel frustrated, when you put substantial effort into a post only to see it down-voted without explanation. But this is an attitude that must be discouraged rather than justified. Remember: voting is primarily a means of communicating with other readers and with the system itself; comments should be reserved for providing auxiliary information, suggestions, and constructive criticism to the author. They're two separate mediums, and need to stay that way.

Now, if you notice your post being down-voted and honestly want advice on improving it - regardless of whether or not that advice comes from the same users who down-voted it - by all means, ask for suggestions! Just stay focused on the content, not the voting or other users:

Good

Can anyone suggest improvements or corrections to this?

Bad

@Downvoter, please leave a comment. Rawr!

Stupid anonymous down-voting cowards!

Why the downvotes???

TL;DR
Downvoting is required to bury bad questions and answers and reveal good ones, but receiving a downvote doesn't necessarily mean anything. Other people vote for different reasons, and a few votes here and there don't matter, so don't sweat it.


*It makes sense when this discussion has real consequences, like getting or not getting the new Transformers toy with your Happy Meal, but that's besides the point.)

||||||
\$\endgroup\$
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ You say "downvoting isn't supposed to be a dialog". That's precisely the point, it should be. Also the why the downvote comments are because no reason is provided for a seemingly undeserved downvote. If you don't like those comments, then you should be against anonymous downvoting since that is their root cause. Allowing people to be treated unfairly and then tell them to STFU, is rude, unproductive, and will never work anyway. \$\endgroup\$ – Olin Lathrop May 3 '12 at 13:41
  • \$\begingroup\$ @OlinLathrop, the SE system in general has never liked comments but has grown to deal with them. The votes are there to give a general rating of posts and allow users to sort more productively. They are not supposed to be an open dialog, they are supposed to be a measure of community trust. I try to always leave feedback if I think the feedback will be accepted but it does not mean I have to. \$\endgroup\$ – Kortuk Jun 5 '12 at 17:22
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Seeing how comments about negligible downvotes (in the range of +20/-1) turn into huge discussions, I start thinking if it might be a good idea that comments asking "Why the downvote?" or "Who downvoted?" should cost 500 rep. Y'all, we're engineers. 1 down out of 20 up is equal to 5% - a tolerance we mostly don't even care about when designing. Of course, the idea of making such comments cost rep is ridiculous, so I just ask everyone to take it easy. \$\endgroup\$ – zebonaut Jun 13 '12 at 20:31
5
\$\begingroup\$

I agree with some of the things tyblu said, but strongly disagree with the current system of anonymous downvotes. The purpose of voting is essentially a peer review process of each post. The best "papers" bubble to the top. Usually this is accomplished by more or less upvotes. When something is outright wrong, misleading, gibberish, or excessivly sloppy, downvotes are appropriate. That's all good.

However, there is no upside to anonymous downvoting. If someone thinks a post is wrong, they should be held to the same standard as the person they are disagreeing with. The judgement that the original statement is wrong could itself be wrong, but there is no way for others to judge who is right if one side never presents their argument. Peer review is a good process, and this site would be better if it is applied to all technical statements and judgements since any of them can be right or wrong.

There is also the issue of revenge downvotes. I have seen a few cases where I'm pretty sure that's what was going on, although of course can't prove it. Anonymity breeds vandalism. That's true everywhere, not just on line or on this site. It is in these kinds of cases where we usually see the "why the downvote?" comments. Trying to tell people not to ask why there was a downvote when they truly can't see what it wrong with a post is unrealistic, not in the interest of the best technical content bubbling to the top, and also just plain unfair to the post author. Not allowing downvotes to be anonymous fixes this problem two ways. First the revenge downvotes will go away. Second, if there is a genuine disagreement it's out in the open where it can be discussed and hopefully resolved. At the very least people who don't feel competent to judge can see what the issue is about and what the arguments for and against are.

Anonymous downvotes clearly have a downside, so what is the upside? The only argument I have heard so far is that it encourages people to vote. That seems pretty weak. Think about who exactly open downvoting would discourage in what circumstances. Of course it will discourage vandals, and hopefully everyone can see that would be a good thing. Otherwise it sortof sets a bar as to how sure you are and whether you think you can defend your position before putting a big rubber stamp "WRONG" on someone's answer. That sounds like a good thing too. If you're not reasonably confident you can defend your point, then it probably should more of a question than a outright downvote. Some may decide to downvote only when they are sortof sure. That's OK too since you can reverse your downvote if after subsequent discussion you decide the original was right after all.

I admit be having been lazy and not left a comment in all cases of downvotes to answers. Usually that has been when the answer was such a mess or so sloppy or largely gibberish that there wasn't even a technical point to debate. Whenever there was a technical object that someone else hadn't already brought up I have left a comment. There have been a few cases where the answer was corrected and then I removed the downvote. I think that's how the system is supposed to work.

While I'm on the soapbox, I'll mention another larger point that's been bothering me for a while and again in tyblu's post. Too often I've heard the attitude that it's all about the content and those writing answers don't matter or should "suck it up" when something doesn't go right for them. This is not only just plain unfair, but also not in the interest of this site. Yes, the ultimate aim is to have good content. One way it helps to get that is by treating those right that provide that content. To get more and better content, you want to make those that provide it feel welcome and rewarded for their efforts. That includes providing a perceived fair system, which includes having the right to rebut arguments that you may feel are erroneous and to be free of vandalism.

It's time we gave open downvotes a trial. We've been trying the reverse and it hasn't been working.

||||||
\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ I agree about the downside of anonymous votes: I tried to find similar questions in Meta Stack Overflow, where I think the discussion should belong. But apparently there is no question about this very topic, and it may be a good idea to open one. \$\endgroup\$ – clabacchio May 1 '12 at 11:36
  • \$\begingroup\$ meta.stackexchange.com/questions/130913/… \$\endgroup\$ – clabacchio May 1 '12 at 11:43
  • \$\begingroup\$ Apparently it's been largely discussed and decided that anonymous downvoting is the right way ;) \$\endgroup\$ – clabacchio May 1 '12 at 14:28
  • \$\begingroup\$ I link to a few on that topic, @clabacchio \$\endgroup\$ – tyblu May 3 '12 at 3:56
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Upvoted for "If someone thinks a post is wrong, they should be held to the same standard as the person they are disagreeing with." \$\endgroup\$ – JRobert May 27 '12 at 17:14
  • \$\begingroup\$ @OlinLathrop, an answer on this question shows why a downvote being public can be an issue. When someone gave a downvote with a reason the user, one of our highest rep users, responded by a downvote on a question that user had only edited to make the discussion more heated. \$\endgroup\$ – Kortuk Jun 6 '12 at 13:48
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Kortuk: So you found a single example of a heated exchange. That still pales in comparison to the many more vandalous, revengeful, or just mysterious downvotes we have now. The more this is all in the open, the less it will happen, and the easier it is to see who did what and deal with it when it does happen. Can't we give it a trial for a month or two and see how it works? \$\endgroup\$ – Olin Lathrop Jun 6 '12 at 14:58
  • \$\begingroup\$ @OlinLathrop, Not a heated exchange, a flat revenge downvote with a witch hunt mentality. The idea that a downvoter can leave an anonymous reason(which is visible only to you) for why they have given the downvote seems like a great solution to me. Again though, I dont actually often see a downvote that did not seem reasonable. \$\endgroup\$ – Kortuk Jun 6 '12 at 15:13
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Kortuk: Why should the reason be visible only to the poster, especially if it is still anonymous? Everyone should be able to see the objection and judge it accordingly. \$\endgroup\$ – Olin Lathrop Jun 7 '12 at 14:20
  • \$\begingroup\$ @OlinLathrop, Maybe rep requirement to see. I feel users should upvote your question for technical accuracy, upvoting because a user downvoted is counterproductive to the system, those qualified to judge should judge and vote on accordingly and allow it to naturally sort. \$\endgroup\$ – Kortuk Jun 7 '12 at 14:31
5
\$\begingroup\$

My idea, like I wrote in the question on Meta.SO, is that this system works well in ranking the answers and the questions, but is not enough protected against incorrect behavior, such as random up/downvoting.

This site is great in sorting the content by popularity and the voting system is what makes it great. So from the content side, it works very well.

But IMHO, a website should also provide the best possible experience to users, and this include also the guys who see their question/answer downvote without an apparent reason, or a stupid question being much more popular than their serious and accurately researched one.

So I think that something is possible to make this experience better, and may arise from the voting system itself.

||||||
\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Maybe just an option when you downvote to select from some private feedback to the user, something like, i downvoted because I felt there was a technical inaccuracy or maybe because there was a communication issue. \$\endgroup\$ – Kortuk Jun 5 '12 at 17:24
3
\$\begingroup\$

I have read the arguments in favour of, and against anonymous downvoting and it seems to me that the real problem is that contributors are frustrated by not knowing why their answers have been downvoted rather than not knowing who downvoted them since it leaves those contributors with no basis on which to improve their answers.

It would be of great help if a reason is required to downvote an answer, the most common reasons being :-

  1. Technical inaccuracy
  2. Answer poorly written/hard to understand
  3. Failure to address OP's question

(... and answers occasionally suffer from all of the above). I know that such a system would detract from the simplicity of the site but in view of the very strong opinions being voiced, maybe it should be given some thought (I am sure others must have suggested this already).

In any case, I think that it is polite to post a constructive and respectful comment to give the contributor the opportunity to reflect on their answer before downvoting.

One more point - Not all downvotes are equal!. I suspect that answers which get a downvote as the first vote (and therefore get an early negative vote-count) will be less likely to be upvoted and indeed less likely to be read in future, making improvement futile. The obvious course of action would be for the contributor to delete the answer and re-post an edited version but this would distort the voting system. But maybe this is not important.

||||||
\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ The point that they make in the global meta is that the downvote has the same (in fact, technically smaller) weight of an upvote, so it shouldn't be more complicated. Then it would need also a justification for an upvote. \$\endgroup\$ – clabacchio Jun 6 '12 at 13:24
  • \$\begingroup\$ I do not think it should be required, but instead an option. If the user wants to they can leave feedback. \$\endgroup\$ – Kortuk Jun 6 '12 at 18:23
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Kortuk: but then it's the same of a comment \$\endgroup\$ – clabacchio Jun 7 '12 at 12:35
  • \$\begingroup\$ @clabacchio, Make the selection anonymous so that the user does not have to fear reprimand. Sorry, that is what I meant. \$\endgroup\$ – Kortuk Jun 7 '12 at 12:37
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Kortuk: ooh, ok :) or maybe a CW comment (o.o) \$\endgroup\$ – clabacchio Jun 7 '12 at 12:38
0
\$\begingroup\$

As I said in several comments, I would vote to have non-anonymous up/downvoting. We are all grown ups, and I don't see why should prefer hiding the identity of our actions.

Not only it would eliminate revenge downvoting, but it would also reduce not upvoting when you see clearly that you should. And the latter one happens every day. When we see a correct, complete, and beautiful answer, everyone that sees it (and has the right knowledge) should upvote it. But that is not the case.

Non-anonymous voting would make the reputation system more fair and reliable.

||||||
\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ I think non-anonymous downvoting is a bad idea, but anonymous upvoting is an even worse idea. This idea is only exceeded in craziness by the idea that views should be non-anonymous. Consider, for a moment, that a question like What's the difference between a microcontroller and a microprocessor? has 10000 views and 60 upvotes. Are all but 60 of our users clueless about the difference, and don't like the answers? Should this answer have a list of 60 voters? \$\endgroup\$ – Kevin Vermeer May 3 '12 at 21:31
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I also don't see the need to have open upvotes. Upvotes aren't a problem. Somebody is saying well explained. There is no need for further discussion and the author of the post certainly isn't going to object or feel there is something that you need to explain. \$\endgroup\$ – Olin Lathrop May 3 '12 at 21:53
  • \$\begingroup\$ @KevinVermeer Come on, don't use words like craziness. I'm sure you're not crazy enough to think I'm crazy. And of course not all 9940 viewers know that those are good answers, but some of them do know it, but still don't upvote. If A, B and C answer a question, A's answer is very good (and B and C know it), but gets 0 upvotes, it is clear that B and C did not behave ethically. I don't care about who, really. I care about the indirect effect of open everything "forcing" people to behave more ethically. BTW, why did someone -1 this? :) Should I downvote all opinions I don't agree with? \$\endgroup\$ – Telaclavo May 4 '12 at 12:40
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Telaclavo - Sorry, didn't mean to offend. In response, you only get 40 votes per day, so I don't think it's an ethical violation to not upvote something. Also, people downvoted this because on Meta, votes are different and are often used to indicate agreement or disagreement. Don't worry, it has no impact on your rep. \$\endgroup\$ – Kevin Vermeer May 4 '12 at 12:46
  • \$\begingroup\$ I'm one of the 9940 who didn't vote on the microprocessor/microcontroller answer, because I knew the difference. There was nothing new for me in that answer. \$\endgroup\$ – stevenvh Jun 5 '12 at 15:20
0
\$\begingroup\$

I often enough DO consider downvotes that I receive are a bad thing and I often enough do take them personally. If a person says who they are and why they downvoted I'm much happier - even if I disagree with them - as I more often than not do :-). I note that in instances where I recognise a valid point has been made and I modify my response accordingly, that the downvote is seldom if ever removed.

I have learned a few things from downvotes on occasion - but no more than I would have learned from a comment.

I don't mind anonymous upvoting, and I arguably am less concerned than some whether I get upvotes or not (I'm getting increasingly choosy over what I answer - I could always easily enough answer a few more questions on any given day if I really wanted more). My main concern with upvotes is when I get few or none for an answer which I seriously consider is technically good while others which I consider far less good or just plain wrong get voted on for some obscure reason. [That sounds arrogant I know :-) - I think I'm reasonably capable of assessing technical merit in most cases - which also sounds arrogant, but I believe is reasonably soundly based, (which sounds ... :-) )]


But I'd like to see downvotes made identifiable as they seem to be very poorly managed at present. I've seen a number of what seem to be revenge downvotes, a number of what seem to be random driveby shooting downvotes, and have received a number of downvotes (anonymous or other) for reasons that I consider are invalid enough that eg I would be confident of winning my point if it was argued openly in a debate or in a small claims court.


Here I got -1 overall for an answer which WAS somewhat off beam in places but had some very good positive comment. Whatever.

Here I got +2 / -1 - with the downvote from Kevin Vermeer (whos reasoning was invalid :-)). I went back and read my answer and his answer again and his comment - which he had the decency to make public. So I've just downvoted his +2 accepted answer to add some heat to this discussion. I think my downvoting his answer is reasonable in this case in part because of his REASON for downvoting mine - which means his must be measured against similar standards. I think he and I can stand some occasional mutual downvoting :-) - but this should help make the discussion more relevant.

@Kevin Vermeer ? - comment

||||||
\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Um. I'd like to either up or down vote your answer, but you've gone back and forth so much that I can't decide. I agree with some of your points and disagree with others. So... +0. Yay! \$\endgroup\$ – Shalom Craimer Jun 21 '12 at 8:00
  • \$\begingroup\$ @scraimer vote on the answer based on the information in the answer, dont let a meta post discussing it change your view of technical accuracy and value of an answer. Either it helps you or it does not, or it is meh. \$\endgroup\$ – Kortuk Jun 29 '12 at 17:13
0
\$\begingroup\$

My only beef with downvotes is that they sometimes are not done with respect. There have been times where I've taken 30 or 45 minutes to write an answer, and have gotten a "-1" with a snarky comment. (rarely on this site; more often on StackOverflow) When that happens, it makes me think "Why bother?"

The advice I would give to anyone considering a downvote (and I admit, I forget this myself sometimes) is to look at the effort someone has put into their answer, and try to form your comments in light of appreciating that effort.

||||||
\$\endgroup\$
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ There is a fine line here. Effort does not equal quality. I agree you should treat people with respect, especially if they have put effort in to what they have done. So it is acceptable to downvote even if there was effort put in, but not acceptable to give snarky comments. \$\endgroup\$ – Kellenjb May 29 '12 at 1:50
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Kellenjb: exactly! \$\endgroup\$ – Jason S May 29 '12 at 3:01
  • \$\begingroup\$ -1 <insert snarky comment here>. \$\endgroup\$ – Olin Lathrop May 29 '12 at 14:14
  • \$\begingroup\$ Seriously though, I agree with Kellenjb in that quality is what counts. For example, we have seen some long rambling off-target answers from a particular user here who is now in the cooler for a second time. A few look like they took some effort to write, but gibberish is still gibberish, so -1 anyway. \$\endgroup\$ – Olin Lathrop May 29 '12 at 14:17
  • \$\begingroup\$ Please let us know @JasonS when you have gotten a snarky comment. This has started becoming an issue for us it seems and people take offense to it. It is okay to disagree with an answer, it is not okay to be rude to someone. There is a flag for comments that is specifically for rude comments. \$\endgroup\$ – Kortuk May 29 '12 at 16:11
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ And why would two people downvote this considered an non-abusive reply? \$\endgroup\$ – Russell McMahon Jun 8 '12 at 4:20
  • \$\begingroup\$ Olin: gee, thanks. We just differ on this, and it's another aspect of StackExchange that makes me just want to use my time on other things in life instead. \$\endgroup\$ – Jason S Jun 8 '12 at 12:08
  • \$\begingroup\$ @JasonS, Sorry to hear that :( \$\endgroup\$ – Kortuk Jun 8 '12 at 18:23
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Russell: Here on meta votes indicate agreement or disagreement. They don't mean that you are a complete moron, that you smell bad, and various things about your mother, like they do on the main site. I downvoted this answer because I disagree with Jason's point of view, nothing more. \$\endgroup\$ – Olin Lathrop Jun 9 '12 at 17:20
-5
\$\begingroup\$

OK - the downvoting moron is back.
I avoided (more or less) saying that just now on a comment but whoever downvoted my latest question is a destructive mindless idiot bent on wrecking things for others and a drain on the comnmunity.

This answer was anonymously downvoted:

Solar Powered Trash Compactor (Chicago Big Belly)

Does the person have prestige, moderation rights or fantastic academic ability? I don't know and it doesn't matter.

IF they provided a reasoned comment and downvoted the answer then I and others can see what they think is wrong./ As it is they have taken the best answer by far (and that is my judgement and it is sound)(he said :-) ) which already has been overlooked by users for all the reasons that users overlook things and his -1 vote makes it even less visible.

Stand up and be counted. Stop being a coward and hiding your destructive actions. Be a man (or woman as the case may be) and explain your "logic" and reasons. Otherwise you are just a useless sniper apparently intent on causing damage to all.

OK: Does that address the current biased leading question* well enough?

:-)


Leading / biased:

Would this be allowed for long on a technical question?
This masterpiece of Kevin's is laden with putdowns, assumed answers and speaking from a position of power. Anyone who objects to negative votes for any reason is obviously, from this, a misguided miscreant with no intelligence, lack of judgement and body odor. No?


He says:

EE.SE.com users are often atwitter
when a downvote lands
in their vicinity. Sometimes the sting of rejection felt by authors whose question or answer was dealt a -1 is publicly visible in the form of emotional comments and edits.

Other times this feedback is transparent, the user seeing only quality questions and answers, --> Walker

as the author and community have corrected any mistakes, deleted the out of date comments, and rescinded the downvotes.

The questions "are downvotes a bad thing?" and "should I take it personally?" are rhetorical.
The answers are implied and obvious,
but still need to be said as a friendly reminder towards those flinching from rebuke.

||||||
\$\endgroup\$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .