-2
$\begingroup$

I know this issue raised a lot, anyway this is just a suggestion, because I think it is very un encouraging to be down voted for nothing, especially if after that multiple up voting happens (for the same question), it's seems to be a strange behavior of the community, and this makes voting similar to Facebook, the concept I believe far away of it's targeted purpose here.

I understand that writing down the reasons for down voting for each silly/illogical question is not an interesting approach, thus why we not add simply a drop down menu of famous reasons of down voting so one can has some idea for the reason of community action? and in the same time preserve the golden rule that voting should be anonymous..

P.S As suggested Ron in comments, this may be applied for up voting too.

$\endgroup$
8
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ This is an interesting idea, but I think upvoting should have a similar explanation--- does it mean "I checked independently as far as is in my power, and as far as I can see, everything said here is correct" (as it should in the Platonic ideal upvote) or simply "most things here sound right given stuff I've heard before" (as it usually does, I am guilty of this too). The problem on the site is not just improper downvoting, but improper upvoting too. Generally, the two effects tend to cancel out on physics.stackexchange (not on others), leaving only proper votes. $\endgroup$
    – Ron Maimon
    Dec 2 '12 at 20:45
  • $\begingroup$ Yes Ron I agree with you, but hoping that Votes will equilibrate at some fair point (like prices at the market) seems to me not a very trustful mechanism. $\endgroup$
    – TMS
    Dec 2 '12 at 20:57
  • $\begingroup$ @RonMaimon so true that things can be wrongly upvoted too, see for example this ... $\endgroup$
    – Dilaton
    Dec 2 '12 at 21:52
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Dilaton: That answer isn't terrible--- it's just pointing out that we plenty of open problems, and that high energy physics can degenerate into baseless speculation. Although I disagree with Peter Shor about the likelihood of string theory getting evidence in accelerators (I think we will find SUSY or else find a Higgs sector with a new interaction with some sort of composite Higgs), it is not false to say that theories have not been confirmed by data to date. It's not a clear political attack at all, it's an opinion about what's good to study, and it doesn't need downvotes in my opinion. $\endgroup$
    – Ron Maimon
    Dec 3 '12 at 7:40
  • $\begingroup$ @Ron I agree that the answer is no longer that terrible as it was in its first version, so I have removed my downvote. But I still strongly disagree with Peter Shor's too narrow minded and incomplete interpretation of the scientific method and his negative opinion about the scientific integrity of Prof. Strassler as expressed in the comments below his answer. This answer is the specific issue I had in mind when asking my other meta question. $\endgroup$
    – Dilaton
    Dec 3 '12 at 10:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Dilaton There are far worse things upvoted I could dredge up. $\endgroup$
    – user10851
    Dec 5 '12 at 3:00
  • $\begingroup$ It's hard to tell if the anonymous downvotes on this post are disagreements with the suggestion or a count of the number of trolls who frequent meta. If the latter, I've seen far more creative trolling on facebook that they could learn from. $\endgroup$
    – user10851
    Dec 5 '12 at 3:03
  • $\begingroup$ Related: meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/1372/2451 and meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/1474/2451 $\endgroup$
    – Qmechanic Mod
    Apr 21 '13 at 19:28
4
$\begingroup$

There's already a popup notification reminding people to leave comments. Given that that doesn't exist, I kind of doubt that having a menu of possible reasons would help that much, and more importantly I don't think downvote reasons can be classified that well.

In any case, this is not something we can do on the site itself, it's something that the SE team would have to implement, so this is probably better proposed (if it hasn't already been) on MSO.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Yea I'm aware of the popup, I meant this menu will be required for down voting, and if the idea is acceptable I can then put it at MSO I think, and regarding classification, in general I agree that this will be hard, but for precise science like physics and Math, I think it is possible. $\endgroup$
    – TMS
    Dec 2 '12 at 20:40
  • $\begingroup$ @tms some people take offense when they're downvoted and so retaliate in a childish way, which is why people prefer to remain anonymous. $\endgroup$ Dec 2 '12 at 20:42
  • $\begingroup$ @Physiks lover: off course, but I'm not talking about that here! $\endgroup$
    – TMS
    Dec 2 '12 at 20:45
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Also I don't think requiring any additional action for downvoting is a good idea. It's a necessary part of maintaining the site and we don't want to make it harder than it is. $\endgroup$
    – David Z
    Dec 2 '12 at 20:47
  • $\begingroup$ @David: yes currently it seems to me that this is the only con of the idea. $\endgroup$
    – TMS
    Dec 2 '12 at 20:58
4
$\begingroup$

If you want, you can use this script and load it with comments relevant to downvoting.

SE has made it pretty clear that they aren't going to add any more obstacles to the process of downvoting. It's for the better--one should feel as free to downvote as possible, otherwise less people will downvote. And downvotes are integral to SE's sorting mechanism.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ I don't know why we should name it obstetrical, anyway can you give a reference where they made their decision? $\endgroup$
    – TMS
    Dec 2 '12 at 22:51
  • $\begingroup$ @TMS: (1) It's an obstacle--it takes longer to downvote, and your vote no longer remains anonymous. It will make less people downvote. (2) One source: meta.stackexchange.com/a/2373/178438. I can't find any others at the moment, but they're there. The main reason that downvotes don't force comments is the loss of anonymity--votes are anonymous, this is The Golden Rule. Even mods can't see votes, only patterns(and that too in very special cases). $\endgroup$ Dec 2 '12 at 23:01
  • $\begingroup$ That's clear, and nobody here asking to not make the procedure anonymous, pointing out the reason from some menu should not uncover him, and as Ron said this can be done for up voting too. $\endgroup$
    – TMS
    Dec 2 '12 at 23:07
  • $\begingroup$ @TMS: Hmm, true... It still is an "obstacle" since it makes voting a little bit harder. Btw, people generally don't "downvote for nothing"-- there's a rep penalty to downvoting answers. (Not for questions, though). My suggestion:If you get downvoted and can't fathom why, ignore it. If you get downvoted multiple times on a post, ask in chat or something, someone will probably tell you what was wrong. $\endgroup$ Dec 2 '12 at 23:16
  • $\begingroup$ Yes I doing that usually, anyway I suggested this not only for me, because I down voted questions then felled bad to not explaining for them why I did that, maybe other sharing the same with me. $\endgroup$
    – TMS
    Dec 2 '12 at 23:21

You must log in to answer this question.

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