Timeline for We seem to be over-eager to downvote
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:40 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| May 7, 2015 at 13:09 | comment | added | Lucy Meadow | oh I'm sorry I missed that. I logged out before you wrote it and I'm just back now. If you remember and have a moment to do it would you tell me the next time you're going to a chat | |
| May 5, 2015 at 7:07 | comment | added | John Rennie | @LucyMeadow: You could ask in the Physics Chat. There's a chat session today (05/05/15) at 16:00 UTC. Anything goes in the Physics chat, except of course for gratuitous obscenity and the twin paradox. | |
| May 4, 2015 at 11:10 | comment | added | Lucy Meadow | Science does this a lot in recent history. The big Bang was feared by one camp mainly because it seemed religious. Rare Earth Theory was ignored when it's a an excellent argument. | |
| May 4, 2015 at 11:10 | comment | added | Lucy Meadow | All the attempts to explain it have failed. And possibles currently talked about, go back to the 2000's when the chances of the effect occurring randomly was somewhere in the 1% range. Since then several independent alignments have been found, the odds now of random are millions and millions to one. Why aren't people talking more? I mean, I know why...it's the history and religious dogma. But that's like saying they own it and their made stationary Earth thing is the only possible explanation. | |
| May 4, 2015 at 11:05 | comment | added | Lucy Meadow | hi John Rennie thank you for saying that just in case I was a bit uptight about negative marks :o) It's thoughtful. Yeah looking at those ideas I upchucked they look a bit rubbish to me as well. The only part of this I do feel could benefit from some kind of innovation is a sense in which people are averse to speculative answers, where questions are themselves. like I've got a question about the CMB anisotropy cosmically aligned ecliptic thingy. I really want to talk about it and others also. It's been around now since the 1990's, that's 20 years. | |
| Apr 30, 2015 at 20:09 | comment | added | Emilio Pisanty |
Regarding your third proposal, this is already well covered by the timestamps and edit histories. On occasion an answer will look out of place w.r.t. the question, in which case one can see the revision history (clicking on the edited... timestamp on the question) to see the version at the time the question was written. It is slightly clunky in those cases, but it keeps the system simple for the vast majority of posts, which do not need anything like that.
|
|
| Apr 30, 2015 at 17:10 | comment | added | John Rennie | For what it's worth, I do feel the downvoting of your question was harsh, and I suspect the downvotes were mainly from people who hadn't encountered the Gullstrand-Painlevé metric and therefore didn't realise what you were referring to. Actually I think this is a good example of people reaching for the downvote trigger without first stopping to think whether it was warranted. However the fallacy that black holes suck matter in is so widespread that I can see why your question got a knee jerk reaction. In that respect you were just a bit unlucky. | |
| Apr 30, 2015 at 17:03 | comment | added | John Rennie | Hi Lucy, remember that downvotes here in the Meta just express disagreement not cricism. So the (at the time of writing) two downvotes this answer has attracted just means two people disagree with the sentiments expressed in it. And actually I disagree as well, though I haven't downvoted. The voting system is an essential part of the site and generally works well, and I don't think the changes you suggest would help. My point is just that I think we are sometimes a bit trigger happy, as you suggest in your opening few paragraphs. | |
| Apr 30, 2015 at 6:11 | comment | added | ACuriousMind Mod | Changing the way downvoting works has been discussed on Meta Stack Exchange many times, this isn't the place to discuss that, this is about whether or not the users on this SE tend to be downvote too much. | |
| Apr 29, 2015 at 23:51 | comment | added | Lucy Meadow | For some reason the final paragraph didn't make it from Word to the Stack input field. Sorry for that :o) and I paste it below. | |
| Apr 29, 2015 at 23:17 | history | answered | Lucy Meadow | CC BY-SA 3.0 |