I've noticed recently that fully valid questions have downvotes on them. That's fine, people can disagree with a question's intent/formatting/validity on the site. But they seem to be completely valid questions by our site's standards.

My thought is that after say, 3-5 downvotes in a day/given time period, perhaps the system should not allow that downvote without a comment as to why. I'm not suggesting that every downvote be paired with a required comment, but if a user/s is serially downvoting, then perhaps the system ought to force them to post why they believe the downvote is needed. This will probably just lead to people posted a keysmash for the downvote reason and moving on, but that doesn't mean we should do nothing/shouldn't talk about it.

Progress towards better questions and answers will never be made unless we figure out the reasoning behind those votes. I understand that this is not likely to be a popular suggestion, but it's also very discouraging for newer users to get downvoted immediately; this isn't a community for existing users and veterans, it's a Q&A for all.

  • 2
    Serial voting is already dealt with by Stack Exchange. For more info, see this meta – Batophobia Jan 6 at 19:38
  • 2
    I suppose "serial voting" isn't quite the right phrasing. I know that SE already deals with bot-like voting methods or malicious targeting. What I'm suggesting is a way for people to have to justify WHY they're downvoting. Things won't ever change for our question/answer system if we just downvote without saying why. Obviously there's not an easy way to enforce a justification system, but IMO at least something should be attempted. – Kaizerwolf Jan 6 at 19:43
  • Please see this question on Meta.SE for an explanation of why your question was downvoted. – murgatroid99 Jan 6 at 20:15
  • 4
    Welp, I knew I couldn't possibly have been the first one to bring this up. Granted, the automated system to detect duplicate/similar questions never suggested a meta post from another site. Maybe that's another discussion we need to have? Regardless, it makes sense I suppose. We can place stock in what downvotes MEAN on this site, but the simple fact that they go against how most other "downvote" systems work on other sites, it gets confusing. – Kaizerwolf Jan 6 at 20:23
  • 2
    Does this answer your question? Why don't we require users to comment their reasons for down-voting? – Joachim Jan 8 at 16:10

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .