1
$\begingroup$

Let me first begin by saying my overall user experience on the Physics Stack Exchange site has been wonderful. According to this it is okay to downvote poorly written questions.

Now in the past I've had an interesting experience where this was cross-posted to the Physics Stack Exchange site and severely downvoted and closed. Then there was also this which is crossposted here again I'm having the similar downvoting experience (note: the overall points I received on the quantum computing Stack Exchange site is still positive and the questions are nearly identical).

Now I am under the impression these are borderline questions (which they may not be) - thus, the cross posting allows me to compare standards. Why is what is "poorly written" for the Physics Stack Exchange site not "poorly written" for the quantum computing Stack Exchange site?

I think it comes down to how to define "poorly written"? I have seen the it is unclear answer too, but because of these comparisons (between quantum computing and physics) I am uncertain why it is unclear? Can I have a concrete answer to this problem I'm facing?

P.S: I only have a sample size of $2$ so I am aware I might be "seeing patterns" but am wary that it isn't good if this pattern persists.

$\endgroup$
16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ “the overall points I received in quantum computing stack-exchange is still positive” That second question is currently at -1 there, so it has been negatively received in both forums. But there is no reason to expect a similar reaction in different forums. $\endgroup$
    – G. Smith
    Oct 31, 2019 at 5:31
  • $\begingroup$ @G.Smith yes I concede but in terms of points I have received it's still positive. There has been some negative reaction (but some positive too). "But there is no reason to expect a similar reaction in different forums" - So is this because it is not a border-line question? $\endgroup$
    – More Anonymous
    Oct 31, 2019 at 5:35
  • $\begingroup$ In what sense is it “still positive”? $\endgroup$
    – G. Smith
    Oct 31, 2019 at 5:36
  • $\begingroup$ I meant that you can’t expect the same reaction in different forums because there are no objective standards for voting and there are different members, with their own subjective opinions about your question’s quality, in each forum. $\endgroup$
    – G. Smith
    Oct 31, 2019 at 5:39
  • $\begingroup$ @G.Smith by the metric of number of points is greater than $-2 \times 2 +5 = 1$ ... "no objective standards for voting and there are different members" this seems like a problem to me. There should be some borderline cases but this can be abused as well then imo :/ $\endgroup$
    – More Anonymous
    Oct 31, 2019 at 5:41
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I haven’t voted your questions up or down, but that one about whether we see light or objects struck me as the kind of thing a typical physicist would consider more philosophical or biological than physical. $\endgroup$
    – G. Smith
    Oct 31, 2019 at 5:42
  • $\begingroup$ I understand now. You’re counting reputation gained or lost, not votes. $\endgroup$
    – G. Smith
    Oct 31, 2019 at 5:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You are complaining that long-time features of SE are bugs. $\endgroup$
    – G. Smith
    Oct 31, 2019 at 5:45
  • $\begingroup$ I'm sure stackexchange is welcome to the "(a)typical physicist" as well :) Perhaps I am "complaining" assuming this the crux of the problem - but if it is a borderline case then I should be able to take some course of action (if it is unjustified)? $\endgroup$
    – More Anonymous
    Oct 31, 2019 at 5:49
  • $\begingroup$ What do you mean by “a borderline case”? $\endgroup$
    – G. Smith
    Oct 31, 2019 at 5:50
  • $\begingroup$ Ah, I did use "borderline case" twice. My bad but in the previous comment "There should be some borderline cases but this can be abused as well then imo" - over there I meant a case where it seems uncertain if it is justified to downvote. I think the purpose of meta is to dispel this uncertainty :) After which if things are in my favor then I should be able to take some action? $\endgroup$
    – More Anonymous
    Oct 31, 2019 at 5:55
  • $\begingroup$ My understanding is that action is taken against members who “serially downvote” multiple questions by another member, under the assumption that they are voting against a person rather than a question. But, as far as I know, the only recourse you have against other kinds of downvoting is to change the kinds of questions you ask so that they are better received. $\endgroup$
    – G. Smith
    Oct 31, 2019 at 6:00
  • $\begingroup$ So, wait, we are negatively incentivized to not ask certain questions? $\endgroup$
    – More Anonymous
    Oct 31, 2019 at 6:08
  • $\begingroup$ Of course. There are various categories of off-topic questions which frequently get downvoted and/or closed. Too many poor questions may get you a temporary question ban. $\endgroup$
    – G. Smith
    Oct 31, 2019 at 6:11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think the answer is yes (i.e., you can get a ban for asking too many questions with negative votes), but I don't know how everything works and I’m not a moderator. You have actually been a member of SE longer than I have. $\endgroup$
    – G. Smith
    Oct 31, 2019 at 6:31

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
5
$\begingroup$

There is no reason to expect the same question to get the same reaction in two different Stack Exchange sites. Different sites have different members with different ideas about what makes a suitable question for their particular site.

Upvoting and downvoting on SE is inherently subjective, not objective, by design. This is a feature, not a bug. Unless multiple posts by you are being “serially downvoted” by someone voting against you rather than your questions, your only recourse to being downvoted too often is to change the kind of questions you are asking so they they are better received by the community.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ I am also curious about StackExchange vs. Stack Exchange. If the company's name is Stack Exchange, which I now realize it is, why does this page say “StackExchange” in the upper-left corner? $\endgroup$
    – G. Smith
    Nov 1, 2019 at 4:52
  • $\begingroup$ Yeah I'm not sure about that. I'm on mobile browser right now and I see a space though. $\endgroup$
    – BioPhysicist
    Nov 1, 2019 at 5:01
  • $\begingroup$ @G.Smith any idea what was the reason this meta post was downvoted? I thought it was well written? $\endgroup$
    – More Anonymous
    Nov 1, 2019 at 15:28
  • $\begingroup$ @MoreAnonymous People sometimes downvote questions on meta sites to express that they disagree with the premise of the question or with the proposed action, if applicable. It probably doesn't mean much. $\endgroup$
    – David Z
    Nov 1, 2019 at 19:45
7
$\begingroup$

My personal opinion is that questions of the style "can you disprove this" or "Can you construct an example (or counterexample) of this or that" are actually open ended bait questions that are asking to start a debate and an argument rather than solicit an answer.

I highly dislike this kind of question. I do not know if I downvoted any of yours (I probably did downvote some given how I dislike this type of question) but similar to Russell's teapot argument I believe the onus is on OP to ask a clear question and not on the users to disprove a claim; I'm not surprised they are not so well received.

$\endgroup$
16
  • $\begingroup$ Wait so it's legit to downvote questions on open problems? Note: I am not sure if my intentions are assumed to be producing "open ended bait questions". Also in this context would you downvote this: physics.stackexchange.com/q/263197/150174 $\endgroup$
    – More Anonymous
    Nov 1, 2019 at 16:16
  • $\begingroup$ I would as a matter of fact. Something like "Am I correct? And if so, why do use the same name (entropy) to mean two different things?" you should be able to verify for yourself and something like "what would be a good way to explain that these two "entropies" are different things to non-scientists " is opinion-based. $\endgroup$
    – ZeroTheHero
    Nov 1, 2019 at 16:17
  • $\begingroup$ I think this is a dangerous use of downvote. Can you point me to the meta which legitimises this use? Also if one can "verify for yourself" why would one even ask the question? $\endgroup$
    – More Anonymous
    Nov 1, 2019 at 16:19
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ I have said all I have to say. I do not need your permission to downvote questions I do not like. For the record the specific linked question I did not downvote. $\endgroup$
    – ZeroTheHero
    Nov 1, 2019 at 16:21
  • $\begingroup$ I mean you are free to disengage from the comment section. We are part of a community which has guidelines and rules. I agree you "not need your permission to downvote questions" but I not sure if it's okay to downvote questions "I do not like" $\endgroup$
    – More Anonymous
    Nov 1, 2019 at 16:22
  • $\begingroup$ Also for the readers I found a relevant meta: meta.stackexchange.com/q/108538/381191 $\endgroup$
    – More Anonymous
    Nov 1, 2019 at 16:26
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I am not a serial downvoter so your link is irrelevant. $\endgroup$
    – ZeroTheHero
    Nov 1, 2019 at 16:26
  • $\begingroup$ I did not claim you were but it was relevant in the context of a user continuously using downvotes in this fashion $\endgroup$
    – More Anonymous
    Nov 1, 2019 at 16:27
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ @MoreAnonymous Not really... Serial downvoting in that context is about targeting users with downvotes constantly. What Zero describes is targeting specific content with downvotes. That's pretty acceptable. Downvoting questions that users feel are a bad fit for the site is a primary quality control mechanism. It's not only acceptable, it's necessary. $\endgroup$
    – JMac
    Nov 1, 2019 at 16:53
  • $\begingroup$ @JMac Yes, there is an answer about that as well within that post I believe $\endgroup$
    – More Anonymous
    Nov 1, 2019 at 16:54
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @MoreAnonymous Huh? The entire post is about people abusing the anti-serial vote script, which is only triggered by targeting users. Which answer are you talking about specifically? (you can click the share button to link to an answer) $\endgroup$
    – JMac
    Nov 1, 2019 at 16:57
  • $\begingroup$ @JMac this one "person, they're really about the content." with this answer meta.stackexchange.com/a/108545/381191 $\endgroup$
    – More Anonymous
    Nov 1, 2019 at 17:49
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @MoreAnonymous That's still about serial downvoting. If you comb through a person's profile downvoting everything low quality, that is bad, even though it's about the content. If you downvote the low quality questions as you organically come across them, due to quality, it's not the same thing. $\endgroup$
    – JMac
    Nov 1, 2019 at 18:41
  • $\begingroup$ @JMac I'm quite tired right now (had a long work day). Maybe I misinterpreted some stuff? Please note I am not disengaging from discussion but only temporally asking for time to rest. $\endgroup$
    – More Anonymous
    Nov 1, 2019 at 18:44
  • $\begingroup$ @JMac I re-read the answer and question and clearly you were right. Would it be okay if I deleted my comments? I feel leaving them like that would be wrong. Especially now that I disagree with them. $\endgroup$
    – More Anonymous
    Nov 2, 2019 at 6:09

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .