Timeline for We seem to be over-eager to downvote
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 5, 2015 at 6:36 | comment | added | 299792458 | @annav - I agree. My post didn't address that. I focused more on questions like the example quoted in response to Floris, where Ron's answer was more than sufficient, and duplication was either laziness on the part of OP, or the game. Thanks :) | |
| May 5, 2015 at 6:32 | comment | added | anna v | I have found a few times that enthusiastic duplication points to posts that may have similar content in the main question but the answers are inadequate, not upvoted for example. One should look at the content of the answers of the duplicate before calling it. Otherwise a loop of badly answered questions is created for the searchers. Once I went and answered the two year old question to set some balance. | |
| May 3, 2015 at 6:21 | comment | added | 299792458 | Also, just stumbled onto an example - without wanting to sound cranky, what do you think is cooking here, @Floris? The search bar would have got OP where he wanted, if he/she had bothered. We probably won't make any fuss out of it, considering that OP is new on Physics.SE, but this can also possibly be an example of a game post that I've talked about above :) | |
| May 3, 2015 at 5:59 | comment | added | 299792458 | @Floris - Yes sir, but that research effort is still aimed at gaming the system! (Am I wrong?) It would have been fair if the OP came up with a question on his own, then did this research effort, came across the original, and then behave in the manner I've indicated in the first paragraph. But here, the intention is totally different, and that doesn't seem right to me. | |
| May 3, 2015 at 3:55 | comment | added | Floris | I would say that with your method of gaming the system you did quite a bit of research effort - certainly more than many other users... | |
| Apr 30, 2015 at 1:13 | comment | added | jkeuhlen | I don't really agree that duplicates should never have a positive score. I've found plenty of duplicate questions (on all SE sites, not just physics) that have plenty of (well deserved in my mind) up votes. Yes there was another question two years ago that got answered, but that answer was lacking and no where near the caliber of the answer on the 'duplicate'. Sometimes, newer users will come along and answer a question in a much better (or more thorough at least) way. These 'duplicate' questions add good content to the site and I think they definitely deserve a positive score. | |
| Apr 29, 2015 at 15:24 | history | answered | 299792458 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |