-7
$\begingroup$

This topic was discussed many times before but I hope to inspect it a bit differently.

I think it would be awesome if everybody knew why a question was down-voted. That way everyone could see the situation from others' perspective and realize the shortcomings better -if there are any. It would also help to see if the down-voter is just being a jerk or not, by keeping the anonymity intact of course.

Without any feedback it puts me into confusion trying to understand what specific part of the question was problematic. Was it due to misconception on physics, word selection, site rules, clarity of the question, wrong sign and so on.

I really do understand the site is trying to keep a threshold on the quality of questions and trying to prevent the place turning into a [you fill it], but using no-feedback-downvotes, especially an avalanche of them, is not the best way to achieve that in my opinion. It is using fear to drive the crowd in the end. What good would it do to hear "you did bad" again and again without being told the reason. It would only make people more hesitant. Many users might be used to this type of treatment from their families / friends and might be thinking this is the right way to do it, but after some thinking this is not the way I want to be guided or to guide anyone. A compassionate teacher is what I prefer and they would tell me kindly what I did wrong, instead of abandoning me with an obscure frown / bad mark.

To me it looks like a clear feedback mechanism will regulate the site much faster than the moderation is trying to do and this is why I suggest the feedback feature.

$\endgroup$
11
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ This topic has indeed been discussed many times. $\endgroup$
    – SuperCiocia Mod
    Sep 30 at 3:49
  • 5
  • $\begingroup$ @SuperCiocia What is your opinion from the point of view specific to this question? $\endgroup$
    – Xfce4
    Sep 30 at 4:16
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ It's always the same answer. This site is not peer-reviewed. Users can keep their anonimity. A downvote from a rando would be a statistical error compared to a downvote from an expert in the field - but you wouldn't know who's who. $\endgroup$
    – SuperCiocia Mod
    Sep 30 at 4:29
  • $\begingroup$ @SuperCiocia The anonymous feedbacks can be rated by the community. And that rating would be reflected to owner of the feedback after some time. Although it looks resource consuming I really think such a system would be more efficient in the long term. $\endgroup$
    – Xfce4
    Sep 30 at 5:11
  • $\begingroup$ Even if we came up with a reasonable anonymous feedback system, it would not be implemented. It will take another company or group of people to do that. $\endgroup$ Sep 30 at 8:12
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Assuming such a mechanism were made, then what? Do we vote on the reason given to see if the users think it was valid? What if the reason provided itself gets downvoted? Do you allow those to be anonymous or do you get a chain of explanations that each needs to be explained and can itself be given votes? Or do we engage in still more comments discussing the reason? At some point along the way there has to be an action that doesn't draw a further chain of follow-on actions. It seems to me your suggestion, if implemented, only moves the lump in the carpet somewhere else. $\endgroup$
    – Brick
    Sep 30 at 17:02
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Brick The most important thing while discussing is to understand the other side. Otherwise we discuss with our own aspects. The main reason I suggested feedbacks is not to label the downvoter as right or wrong. This interpretation is about you. The main benefit to me is to understand the other side, i.e. the specific reason they down-voted, as well as to gain insight about alternative views. Only after that it is a matter of if they were right or wrong, and it is left to the community to decide. The first/basic layer of feedback does not make the second/more advanced one unnecessary. $\endgroup$
    – Xfce4
    Sep 30 at 20:20
  • $\begingroup$ @Brick As the second advantage, I really think that new users and visitor will be able to understand the site rules and regulations much faster in a more natural, supporting, confident way. $\endgroup$
    – Xfce4
    Sep 30 at 20:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I just downvoted. I’m sorry to say asking again will not change the consensus, but simply yet again start an endless debate. $\endgroup$ Sep 30 at 23:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Does this (number of downvotes) answer your question? ;) physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/13632/… $\endgroup$ Oct 4 at 12:20
3
$\begingroup$

If I may: you seem to have some misconception about what the site is about. To quote from the tour page:

This site is all about getting answers. It's not a discussion forum. There's no chit-chat.

Please look at the first sentence of the quote: it’s about getting answers. It’s not about being a compassionate teacher.

Now look at the second sentence. It’s not about turning every vote into a discussion or debate.

The vast majority of users come to this and other sites as a resource. A lot of them aren’t even members. When I need a resource for a class, a trick for Mathematica or LaTeX, I come here or go there because I find good answers, as do thousands of others. I don’t care if the answer that works best for me has been upvoted, downvoted, the most upvoted, the most downvoted, accepted or rejected. I do not care if the poster has a lot or a little reputation; I do not care if the answers come from posters with a lot or a little reputation. I’m just glad some took time to provide his or her insight into the particular question, and if I find it useful I use it.

Elsewhere on the tour:

Our goal is to have the best answers to every question, so if you see questions or answers that can be improved, you can edit them.

People downvotes for their own reasons. They upvote for their own reasons as well. Presumably it is to rank answers and questions according to their judgements as per above. Just live with it and be happy.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ You can get all the answers from books and articles if you read carefully. So why was this site built in the first place? It is not mandatory for your school teacher to be kind, understanding, compassionate or funny either, but why do you enjoy it when he is? My purpose with this suggestion is to increase clear communication and understanding among people so that 'everyone' interacting with this site can thrive better. What is you purpose for rejecting it? Do not come with quoted sentences written by other people like you. They might not have figured out the best while writing them. $\endgroup$
    – Xfce4
    Oct 1 at 0:49
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ You can get all the answers from books and articles if you read carefully. Not really, at least not for really interesting questions. If you can find it in a book, why ask here? why was this site built in the first place?. Go back to the statement on the tour: “This site is all about getting answers. It’s not a discussion forum.”; the format has thus far worked very well because contributors are immensely respectful of others, stick to the mission and refrain from entering pointless debates $\endgroup$ Oct 1 at 4:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ As to your “Do not come with quoted sentences written by other people like you”: we’ve never met so who are these people like me? $\endgroup$ Oct 1 at 4:17
  • $\begingroup$ By people like you I mean people who are not above or under you. As you can make mistakes, they can make mistakes too. As you are not always the most efficient, they are not always the most efficient. Do not expect every statement to include all the details. There is much more into those statements than seen. It is up to you to deduce those hidden meanings, combining with your humanity and self knowledge. $\endgroup$
    – Xfce4
    Oct 1 at 18:55
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @Xfce4 The tour is written by the company that owns SE, so their opinion does matter more than ours. Your complaint is no different than going to a magic show and saying that having more or different audience participation would make their illusion better. Maybe they take your comment or maybe they don't, but it's their illusion. SE has repeatedly declined to make this sort of change, so it's not just those few words. Here the "illusion" of community consensus is part of their product, but they ultimately own it and either don't agree with you or don't want to invest the money to change it. $\endgroup$
    – Brick
    Oct 4 at 19:42

You must log in to answer this question.

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