Let's make all downvotes public
One of the aggrevations Elsewhere were all the vandal and retribution downvotes. They never took the problem seriously. Now it's happening here. Andy was the latest target, twice, recently. I've also had this happen to me on other Codidact sites, like Outdoors.
All downvotes should be public
I have long felt this was the best way to address the problem and make votes honest, long before Codidact existed. I proposed this when Codidact was forming, but got the same tired arguments in response. Maybe this wouldn't fit with more touchy-feely sites, but we're engineers here. This would be a great place to give it a try.
Rebuttal to common excuses against open downvotes:
- People will be afraid to say what they really mean.
If you don't have enough conviction in your judgement that something is wrong, then it's not worth listening to in the first place. If this discourages some borderline downvotes, OK. Downvotes aren't for when you think it might be wrong. They are for when you're reasonably sure something is wrong, and are prepared to defend your point.
- It will lead to retribution wars.
No, it won't. With everything out in the open, everyone, including the mods, can see who's acting like a child. Users with throw-away accounts aren't going to care, but we already have that problem. Everyone else is going to be restrained by wanting to maintain a positive reputation (not the numerical kind).
Of course I can't prove any of this, but neither can those who claim there will be retribution wars. Nobody knows for sure since it hasn't been tried. So let's try it and settle this issue. This EE site would be a great test case.
The advantages of public downvotes are:
- More thought behind each vote.
Since you are publicly saying "This is wrong, here is why...", you are putting your reputation on the line with each downvote. People are going to be more careful in claiming something is wrong.
- Downvotes won't feel like insults.
Right now, anyone can say "You're wrong", then run away and hide. That's sometimes used to mean, or feels like it means, You're an idiot.
However, "I'm Joe Shmo, and you're wrong because ..." is no insult. It's a statement of fact that can be objectively evaluated. As engineers, we consider it a favor when someone points out a mistake because that gives us a chance to make the design better, and maybe learn something.
- Downvoter's misconceptions can be addressed.
The person claiming something is wrong can actually be wrong themselves. We've all done that, and we've all had it done to us. The best remedy is openness. An open discussion let's the crowd-mind pick apart and probably resolve the argument.
- Vandals can't hide.
This is of course the big one. Vandals enjoy poking at the system and watching what happens. They know what they are doing is against the rules. They feel comfortable breaking the rules because they are anonymous.
Put another way, vadalism requires anonymity. When we take that away, vadalism will stop. Anyone downvoting for disingenuous reasons will be visible to everyone, including mods that can do something about it.
Proposed mechanism
Upvotes will continue to work as they do now. There doesn't seem to be a problem to solve here.
For the first downvote to a post, a special kind of downvote comment is created. The title is automatically generated, something like "Downvote: username". The user then must fill in some minimum characters in the comment body. This is intended to explain the reason for the downvote.
On subsequent downvotes, the user is given a choice to "sign on" to an existing downvote comment, or create a new one. We don't need five separate comments all saying "Diode D2 is backwards". Instead, we'd have five user names shown on a single comment.
This also makes it easier to clean up the comment and downvotes if the error is addressed. If the OP fixes the diode, for example, he can reply to the single comment and all five downvoters automatically get notified.
When a user retracts a downvote, their name is removed from the comment. When a mod deletes a downvote comment, all the downvotes are automatically retracted.
It's time to do something
I realize this will take some coding effort. Unfortunately web coding is not in my skillset, so I can't help with that. But I'm happy to work with this as a mod. There will probably be some kinks to work out once we get some actual results, and it will require additional mod vigilance.
Most of the arguments against doing this are theoretical. There will always be nay-sayers against trying anything new. However, we won't know whether something really works until we try it. This EE site is about the best test case there could be. I believe strongly that it will work well, and other sites will want this mechanism too. However, even if it fails miserably, we'll at least know that. Remember that the problems this is intended to solve are quite real. Let's not have hypothetical scenarios get in the way of evaluating solutions.
What should happen to existing downvotes once the functionality goes live?
Good question. I'd leave it up to the implementers if some ways are harder than others. Code probably needs to be run as a pass over the database once. It would be good to burden the volunteers doing the work as little as possible.
If all solutions were the same work, I'd prefer a single comment be generated for all existing downvotes to a post. This would have the "Downvote: user, user ..." title, with an empty body or a body indicating conversion from the old system.
Anyone who downvoted for the right reason (genuine belief that the post is wrong, badly written, or misleading) shouldn't have a problem being exposed. Those that downvoted for disingenuous reasons might not like it, but then they were the ones doing something wrong in the first place.
I just checked, and I have cast 27 downvotes (out of 325 total votes) on this site. I probably already left a comment for most of those downvotes. I would have no problem standing up and explaining any of them.
Per-category?
Another good point. I don't see a reason not to track who did all downvotes. However, votes have different meanings in different categories. On meta they can mean disagreement. Receiving downvotes on meta shouldn't effect your rep. But, if someone disagrees with an opinion on meta, they should be prepared to explain what they disagree with.
I have proposed to fix a threshold of 100 pts to have the rights to downvote, which solves partially the problem of mass …
3y ago
I have finally downvoted the post of Andy "Very short answer - get rid of downvotes on answers" despite it is rather clo …
3y ago
> People will be afraid to say what they really mean. > If you don't have enough conviction in your judgement that some …
3y ago
It seems to me like the goal of the proposed change is to fight vandalism. I am pretty certain that no online forum has …
3y ago
I've upvoted the post of Olin because I think this is obviously better than the current situation. Nevertheless, this do …
3y ago
Very short answer - get rid of downvotes on answers; just don't allow them In fact, wouldn't it be a better policy to …
3y ago
6 answers
You are accessing this answer with a direct link, so it's being shown above all other answers regardless of its score. You can return to the normal view.
I've upvoted the post of Olin because I think this is obviously better than the current situation. Nevertheless, this does not completely solve the problem of trolls using multiple accounts. I think a minimum of 100 pts to get the rights to downvote would solve it completely, in addition to the suggestion of Olin (which is a good thing by itself anyway).
Answer to Kranulis: it's OK to downvote an answer because you think the answer is rude or condescending etc. Just say it! Also, not everyone is a native English speaker, or speaks the same English, and different persons think something is condescending while other persons think it is not. The best way would be to indicate that in a comment, and give the possibility to update the answer. But if you prefer donwvoting for that, that would not be a big problem, again.
The problem, dear Kranulis, is when a user creates several accounts, and use them to downvote and impose his views. That's disgusting. For example, I know most of the avatars of a certain troll in this site; that would be a big surprise for him if I come to reveal them all.
I have proposed to fix a threshold of 100 pts to have the rights to downvote, which solves partially the problem of massive downvotes by trolls creating new accounts. This suggestion seems to have receiveid a positive reaction.
Nevertheless, I would like to point out that the original suggestion of Olin is a real improvement for this site, which would make a big difference with SE for example. Downvote should be made public anyway, without connection to the problem of the imposters. There are persons with a relatively high reputation who downvote answers for wrong reasons, other for good reasons but without giving a chance to the person who answered to update his question. That should not be the case for a site of quality that aims to reach a respectable level.
0 comment threads
People will be afraid to say what they really mean. If you don't have enough conviction in your judgement that something is wrong, then it's not worth listening to in the first place. If this discourages some borderline downvotes, OK. Downvotes aren't for when you think it might be wrong. They are for when you're reasonably sure something is wrong, and are prepared to defend your point.
Or maybe I just don't want to sit through some 10+ comments of voting drama whenever someone who can't deal with criticism gets down-voted. Or read it when I browse through answers.
It is not constructive to start some "who downvoted" tantrum and it will not likely change the vote situation for the better either. The only thing achieved with public votes is no doubt an effective drama generator.
It will no doubt distract from the actual content of the posts.
And it reeks of social media. "John likes this!" I don't care!
It will lead to retribution wars. No, it won't.
Yes it will. I have had several stalkers harassing me on SE even with hidden voting. And then I mean actual, creepy stalkers, not just revenge-voters as happened here recently, I've had at least 10+ of those. Several such situations started with me explaining why I down/close voted something, so I can only see public votes making such occurrences far more frequent and severe.
With everything out in the open, everyone, including the mods, can see who's acting like a child.
People who continuously and passionately demand to know who down-voted their imaginary internet points don't come across as particularly mature either.
It seems to me like the goal of the proposed change is to fight vandalism. I am pretty certain that no online forum has found a way to stop trolls, simply because trolling is one of the ways people interact with people.
I also do not see such a critical need for it. You specifically mention the latest downvoted answer from Andy, and your experience on Outdoors. I actually went on that site to see what the problem there was, and it honestly seemed to me like the users there just did not agree with your viewpoint and let their downvotes reflect that. I would hardly call that "targeting".
Looking at the past posts here on EE Codidact, I cannot say that I see many questions or answers that are downvoted undeservedly. So, I cannot see a good basis for a suggestion that would require not only a change to the site rules, but also some development time.
As a final thought: downvotes are just that, downvotes. There will always be people that disagree with you, in personal and professional life. Making it harder for people to express that disagreement does not make it actually go away, but rather masks it, which is detrimental to the quality of discussion.
I have finally downvoted the post of Andy "Very short answer - get rid of downvotes on answers" despite it is rather close, in some respects, to my own views. Let me clarify myself. I've never said that downvotes are a bad thing by themselves (to be clarified below), but that downvoting without indicating the reason IS A BAD THING.
On the contrary, I think that downvoting is a good tool to improve the quality of the answers (and questions), and I completely agree with the comment of manassehkatz. Moreover, Codidact (like SE) IS WORKING ON THE UPVOTE-DOWNVOTE principle, and that's its uttermost particularity. If you dislikes downvotes so much, don't come to this site. You cannot denature so much the whole system: this site is competitive in essence. And yes, downvotes can be used to stimulate persons, even if it is a bit displeasing to receive critics.
Again, downvotes are here to improve the quality of the content, and that's why they should be made open. Also, a downvoter should be sufficiently mature and modest to recognize his mistakes, after a possible discussion with the person who answered.
0 comment threads
Very short answer - get rid of downvotes on answers; just don't allow them
In fact, wouldn't it be a better policy to award upvotes to people who point out errors. That would encourage folk to want to help people fix crappy answers without the discontent that downvotes bring. OK, it may be a tricky one to implement but, it's worth considering after all didn't Kennedy say. “We choose to go to the Moon and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Just saying.
My SE experience on answer downvoting - How do we want folk to actually behave?
I'm mentioning this because it might point to a user behaviour model that is preferable: -
- We should encourage people to behave in a similar way to me (more further down)
- Or, in a way that we all, by consensus (or compromise), agree on
Of course, my tactics on answer-downvoting may not be agreeable to everyone nevertheless, I think it's important to agree on what conduct is preferable (the goal) so that any changes we make are focussed on achieving that goal.
What do I do (what are my tactics behind answer-downvotes)
Firstly, I hardly ever downvote answers - I read a lot of answers every day (in SE) and, when I see an answer that is wrong, I leave a comment. I don't downvote that answer because I think that a strongly worded comment is sufficient to do the trick. The trick being: stop other readers believing that a particular answer has any merit. Sometimes, maybe once per month, a particular answer is sooooo bad that I do downvote it. But, more often than not it gets flagged for moderator intervention.
In other words, there is hardly ever a good reason to down vote an answer IMHO. Maybe downvoting answers should not be allowed period?
Can anyone come up with a good reason to downvote an answer rather than leave a strongly worded comment or flag for deletion/intervention?
Some potentially plausible reasons why people downvote an answer
I'm mentioning this because SE is notorious for answer downvotes for the most trivial of reasons: -
- Only a partial answer is given
- No links to what is being asserted
I've received downvotes for both the reasons above and it really annoys me.
If I leave a partial answer i.e. the OP has asked two questions (in their allotted space) and I've only answered one of them, I'm still providing good information yet, a few of the great unwashed reading my answer will target me and downvote. I'm quite persistent at getting to the bottom of these things so, I do find out the reasons in the end.
Hence, why I say partial answers are not a good reason to make a downvote.
I've also been targeted by some who think I should provide more links to back-up what I say. Again, this is a very poor reason to give down votes.
What are we trying to stop happening?
This is the core question as I see it and this is what should be focussed on. I think that downvoting an answer is a poor way to do things. If an answer is bad, leave a comment and flag for deletion or intervention.
I would also like to quote Olin: -
As engineers, we consider it a favor when someone points out a mistake because that gives us a chance to make the design better, and maybe learn something.
The above I totally agree with - if we screw up then, as engineers we should be overjoyed to have that little bit of wrongness lodged in our brains corrected for the rest of time. Sensible engineers know this but, do we really need downvotes on answers to achieve that?
Please note that this is about answer-downvoting AND NOT question-downvoting. There are dozens of reasons why a question might be validly downvoted (different subject).
5 comment threads