Please don't misuse the voting system

Question

This has been in discussion in chat on and off since I first joined up. Random downvotes and upvotes are things that happen. No need to sweat it. It happens, move on.

We've had this discussion before.

I ran into this today:

Stand up against malicious pointless downvoting. Comment people, or dont bother pressing the arrow. — Ender

Note that I'm not trying to single Ender out here; this isn't the first I've seen, just the latest comment that I've noticed.

---

Voting in this manner is a fundamental shift in the quality of the site. You're no longer voting on the post quality, but on actions taken on the post. Upvoting or downvoting to counteract someone else's vote isn't what Arqade and the entire SE network is about.

As for requiring comments, I agree that they're good to have, but are not necessary. Requiring comments (or worse, upvoting because someone downvoted and did not comment) counteracts the entire reasoning behind anonymous voting.

There are several reasons comments are not required:

1. It gives the poster a target. If they don't agree with it, revenge downvoting is a very real possibility.
2. New users rarely read the FAQ. It's not a requirement by any stretch, but everyone gets tired at some point of re-iterating the same thing over and over. It's a way of keeping sane. Downvote if it doesn't meet your level of quality, and keep on going.
3. There are several orders of magnitude more users of the site than there are active members to keep it clean. If every downvote required a comment, either site quality would drop like a rock, or we'd get, "asdklfjdsiofuasdf" on every downvoted question or answer.

This is something that comes up a lot on Meta.SO. Comments are nice, and if you have the energy to help a user fix their question or answer, fantastic. But upvotes and downvotes are anonymous by design. There is no requirement to post a comment, and by voting on anything but the post quality, it's breaking the entire purpose of Arqade.

---

The canonical post for Meta.SO: Encouraging people to explain downvotes.

The first line from the answer: The comments are there for people who want to explain their downvotes.

That sums it up nicely.

---

Screenshot of the conversation. Names have been removed.

Just recently, we got a comment that encapsulates exactly why comments are not, and will never be required:

no need to attempt to rewrite history, you most certainly did NOT say that you did not want a solution "through stats/cheating". You said nothing at all about stats, and you said nothing at all about console commands. But you'd better be downvoting the other two answers since neither of them automate the process either, and you wouldn't want to be an elitist hypocrite pr1ck, would you?

Naming removed and non-linked to (hopefully) anonymize the poster.

This is what happens sometimes when someone tries to explain their reason for a downvote, and the poster refuses to accept their reasoning. Granted, it's an edge case, but it highlights the possibilities inherent with being constructive. Sometimes, it's just not worth it.

Answer 1

As I explained in my answer here, blindly upvoting/downvoting is bad. In fact, here is a simple visual guide to help you know if you are voting correctly:

Pretty easy checklist, right? If you are voting based on anything other than the content of the question, you're doing it wrong.

But wait! There's more!

The areas in green also indicate areas which you can improve upon! If at all possible, instead of downvoting, please consider editing the question to make it better. Yes, sometimes the question is unsalvageable, but many times all it needs is a gentle massage.

If you can't tell how to improve the question, consider leaving a comment, but as you said this is in no way required.

Answer 2

The premise is mistaken: this is not a shift in the quality of the site. People have always voted based on their own personal, irrational reasons. The sentiment is noble, but never fear: the system has always suffered this abuse, and yet it has continued to work.

See the variety of reasons for voting that people express in these MSO answers:

• What do votes mean?
• Why do you cast downvotes on answers?
• How should down voting be used?
• Why should I upvote a question?
• What purpose does downvoting questions serve?

… and lots others I couldn't find with an easy search.

---

That said, I entirely agree that downvotes don't obligate a comment. I don't think it's a fight worth fighting though: so long as the site doesn't require downvotes to have a comment (which it never will), the majority will continue to happily ignore other users who insist downvotes need comments.

Answer 3

Well, I have been corrected and\or shown that my opinion isn't apparently shared by the majority, but I'll put it here anyway.

I dislike the idea of anonymous downvoting (here-after ANDV). I hear your explanations, and agree they make sense, and even agree the concept of ANDV works well within the sites scope of organizing its content. I just don't like it. I feel we could do more, and be more, by reducing how much of our voting is anonymous. If everyone in a community is anonymous, it isn't much of a community, and we have a strong community. I really don't see any reason to make it any weaker, and I feel ANDV does. It doesn't teach very well, and downvoting SHOULD teach in my opinion. I personally am always trying to learn to do better, and I'm sure many other users are as well. ANDV directly hinders this mission.

I would also like to mention that I was somehow misunderstood at first, and this entire post was created on the premise of that misunderstanding. I do not in any way support sympathy upvote or downvotes, and agree that would break the site. My original comment mentioned by fbueckert was simply speaking out against anonymous downvotes, and had nothing to do with sympathy upvotes or downvotes.

Answer 4

tl:dr

Downvotes send a negative message, and a negative message without an explanation in many cases damages our ability to recruit quality new users. Downvoting is a necessary community tool to react truly bad content. Proactively preventing future bad content by educating new users with comments is an under-used approach which is often a better investment in the long run.

Because it's not just one...

I think a lot of folks trivialize the affect of downvotes, because "what's the problem with one downvote". In fact, I think there is no problem with one. The problem is that one downvote often attracts more. Humans are negative creatures, and particularly on this site I think some folks revel in piling onto to an already heavily downvoted question - especially if that user has the nerve to ask in Meta or chat about why the question was downvoted. For someone with thousands of rep, 5 or 10 downvotes are trivial. For new users though, it basically says "go away". We got together and decided we don't want you here.

To your points

It gives the poster a target.

For what? Downvotes? What's the big deal with... but anyway. There is a built in Stack system to reverse serial revenge downvotes, so unless you have really little rep there isn't much affect one person can have (good or bad). If you are going to post in Meta and talk in chat on this site, your identity and stance on topics is known. You can't hide from the internet, unless you just want to silently vote and do nothing else on the site. Also, I don't think it is necessary to explain your downvote so much as it is necessary to engage the asker and suggest improvements.

...everyone gets tired at some point of re-iterating the same thing over and over. It's a way of keeping sane.

I really don't understand this line of reasoning. If you are getting tired of editing or voting on questions - take a break. Educating askers on the rules of the site, and making improvements to questions, is everyone's responsibility. Giving "blind" negative feedback to a user doesn't really streamline the process either - given that Meta/Chat debates, or more bad questions from the user often ensue.

There are several orders of magnitude more users of the site than there are active members to keep it clean.

I don't buy this either. I've seen very active users come and go, and I myself participate more or less at different times. I've never seen that make any difference in the amount of "spam comments" or similar phenomena that result from insufficient community moderation. If the total loss of an active editor doesn't make a ripple, why would the delays associated with explaining our policies to users? Moreover, if you ever want to recruit new reviewers, you need to be recruiting good users who understand our policies, and why they exist.

A few other points

• Unless a question is insanely stupid or offensive it does not need more than 1 or 2 downvotes (ie -2 total score) IMHO. When you pile on to such a question you are sending a message, and you should consider carefully whether that is the message you want to send.
• A question with zero or one upvote (ie +1 total score), is not obscuring other "better" content in pretty much any of the site filtered views. If you see a terrible question that is +10, that's worth downvoting, and even campaigning against with like minded users. However, that is an extremely rare case. As such, if you can't be bothered to write a comment to improve a question, you can save yourself the left mouse RSS and just avoid voting all together. The net effect is similar, without the negative feedback to the asker.
• Downvoting, like close voting, does not intrinsically help users understand what they are doing wrong. Again, if you feel the user is malicious or obstinate, go for it. If you think they just don't understand our policies, be a positive ambassador of the site and reach out to them, even if you decide to downvote.
• We are always in need of quality new users. New users bring new ideas, new game knowledge, and new manpower. Unexplained negative feedback, especially in large doses, is a perfect way to scare off new users.