Timeline for What are downvotes on a Meta Question supposed to mean?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
25 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:31 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 15:32 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.gaming.stackexchange.com/ with https://gaming.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 15:32 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.gaming.stackexchange.com/ with https://gaming.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 15:32 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.gaming.stackexchange.com/ with https://gaming.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Apr 23, 2014 at 13:47 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration
|
|
| Apr 23, 2014 at 8:48 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Migration of MSO links to MSE links
|
|
| Sep 5, 2013 at 20:59 | comment | added | Batophobia | @OrigamiRobot While it may be referencing a meta asking about the actual site voting, the hover-text is the same. If you want to make a separate argument for Meta questions, then the text should be updated to at least point users in a proper direction. | |
| Apr 5, 2013 at 12:14 | comment | added | user9983 | @EBongo It's not that we're campaigning against those positions, it's just a moot position to begin with. The ones who would agree to join your "coalition" are the ones who already vote responsibly. Everyone who votes for silly reasons will continue to do so. | |
| Apr 5, 2013 at 10:56 | comment | added | EBongo | @fbueckert Any good political organization has an attention-getting name to rally behind. However, I know you're well aware that I'm campaigning for common sense, a general positive attitude, and new user outreach. Anyone that wants to campaign against those positions does not seem to be advocating very rational behaviors to me. That said, just because you ideologically identify with a political party does not mean you have to straight ticket vote (though I'm sure they like it when you do). | |
| Apr 5, 2013 at 4:49 | comment | added | Frank | The fact that you classify those that don't vote as you do as insane amuses me. | |
| Apr 5, 2013 at 4:19 | comment | added | galacticninja | Upvoted for fighting the good fight. | |
| Apr 5, 2013 at 2:33 | comment | added | EBongo | @Sterno I'll also continue my Lennon reference. Perhaps I'm crazy enough to think that we can combine our votes and form a coalition of the sane. If enough people use their votes the way they are supposed to, the fact that a few didn't wouldn't matter. I hope some day you'll join us... and the world will live as one... | |
| Apr 5, 2013 at 2:27 | comment | added | EBongo | @Sterno Well, yes and no. For the record I upvoted your question about when to move forward since I found it "useful and clear". Your second example to me proves site policies do matter - because badp deleted those closed questions before the community could vote to reopen them - which I would have campaigned for, and it seems you would have to. Why did badp do this? Site policy, decided on Meta. That sequence of events stemmed from a Meta question that certainly "mattered". Clearly other questions with strong backing get less traction, but sometimes... | |
| Apr 4, 2013 at 19:40 | comment | added | Sterno | @EBongo I've come to realize that meta votes don't matter anyway, other than to take the temperature on an issue. You can raise some topic on meta, get a large majority support on your answer, and when it comes time to implement whatever it is on the main site, that won't mean a thing. It really comes down to whoever casts the close and reopen votes. Here's another case where people can argue all day, but only the close/reopen votes will end up mattering. | |
| Apr 4, 2013 at 14:07 | comment | added | user9983 | They are meaningless in the sense that you cannot concretely derive their meaning. People obviously have some intention when they cast votes, but that doesn't mean anything if they don't voice that intention. | |
| Apr 4, 2013 at 12:49 | comment | added | EBongo | Like I mention above, I like the edits to your answer. I refuse to believe that voting is meaningless in aggregate - since it is the foundation we build all site policies on. I do accept that any one vote can be meaningless - but that's why this question is titled "What are downvotes on a Meta question supposed to mean?" - not "Does every downvote on a Meta question mean exactly the same thing?" . I agree that the answer to the latter is pretty obvious - No. | |
| Apr 4, 2013 at 4:10 | comment | added | user9983 | The answer you quote is about voting on SO, not meta. In the end, voting is even meaningless on the main site because there is no forced policy. You literally can't standardize it. Assuming good faith is the only thing you can do. | |
| Apr 4, 2013 at 0:58 | comment | added | EBongo | So I get that people don't agree with my answer (see - I can tell that from the voting). Can anyone respond to the points of a) Voting without meaning devalues voting altogether b) We "standardize" on other site policies involving anonymous or semi-anonymous "good faith" behaviors c) Stack has a definition of a downvote and I've quoted it. | |
| Apr 3, 2013 at 20:19 | comment | added | user9983 | I only upvoted these comments because I can't downvote them. | |
| Apr 3, 2013 at 17:34 | comment | added | Sterno | Downvoted again because other people did and I like to follow what my peers do. | |
| Apr 3, 2013 at 17:34 | comment | added | Sterno | Changed to upvote because it's a Wednesday and I just had some carrot cake. | |
| Apr 3, 2013 at 17:33 | comment | added | Sterno | Downvoted because your avatar reminds me of Zalgo text. | |
| Apr 3, 2013 at 15:50 | comment | added | user11502 | Trying to enforce voting behavior when the whole thing is anonymous anyhow is an impossible task, and one I don't feel that there is any reason for. People are always going to assume there are vendettas against people or whatever, because drama is more interesting than someone just not agreeing with a thing. There is good reason for vote anonymity and trying to standardize it and make rules and force people to behave your way doesn't make sense. | |
| Apr 3, 2013 at 12:38 | comment | added | Invader Skoodge | Good luck "standardizing" any kind of group behavior. | |
| Apr 3, 2013 at 11:24 | history | answered | EBongo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |