2
$\begingroup$

This question already has an answer here:

I am not proposing to change the software or criticizing the current policy. I always wanted to ask this question since a joined, since it is a glaring asymmetry.

Having raised over a thousand useful flags now, and consequently having read thousands of comments, I have noticed that (probably as a consequence) many of them are pointless or completely wrong, but nevertheless they always influence the reader (especially when the poster has a substantial reputation) and the only way to contrast them is to wait for a comment that refutes them and upvote the latter. When a posters is embarassed he can always delete it, and make the response incomprehensible, but, if nobody notices it (or is not able to refute it), it remains there forever.

I am sure that everybody is aware of this phenomenon, to some extent. I'd like to know what is the rationale of this decision, what are the arguments that can be/ are brought to prefer/justify this option. Any ideas?

$\endgroup$

marked as duplicate by Kyle Kanos, tpg2114, dmckee Jan 28 '15 at 17:30

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Related meta.stackexchange.com/q/3615 $\endgroup$ – Gowtham Jan 28 '15 at 10:02
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Any questions that involve statements/phrases like what are the arguments that brought the software/policy maker to chose this option. really should be asked on Meta.StackExchange and not here. $\endgroup$ – Kyle Kanos Jan 28 '15 at 15:10
  • $\begingroup$ @bobie: You've asked many questions here on Meta.Physics about the software developers intention behind something. The answers are easily found when asking at the right place, Meta.SE, where the developers actually frequent. Why you insist on asking here is beyond me. $\endgroup$ – Kyle Kanos Jan 28 '15 at 15:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @KyleKanos, "Why...is beyond me" , I suppose you already expressed your dislike with a vote. Don't get a headacke, now! (btw, you can always VTC!) :) $\endgroup$ – bobie Jan 28 '15 at 16:14
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @KyleKanos, I see you literally took my advice :) , but the answers in the quoted link do not make much sense. If you care to repeat those arguments here, I'll be glad to refute you and them $\endgroup$ – bobie Jan 28 '15 at 16:22
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ If you think those arguments do not make sense, go ahead and ping Sklivvz and Manishearth (in that post) about clarifications. Regardless of your disagreement with them, this question is a duplicate of that one. $\endgroup$ – Kyle Kanos Jan 28 '15 at 16:24
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Note that you are the one who asked the question, without apparently searching beforehand to see if it was previously asked. I merely saw it in the "Related" toolbar to the right and acted accordingly to the practices expected of a 3k+ rep user on this site. $\endgroup$ – Kyle Kanos Jan 28 '15 at 16:30
  • $\begingroup$ Done. But do note that Sklivvz is actually a StackExchange employee. $\endgroup$ – Kyle Kanos Jan 28 '15 at 16:33
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ @KyleKanos, "..do note that Sklivvz is actually a StackExchange employee." and what does that mean in your opinion? That he doesn't know when a question is legitimate here at Physics SE? and why did not Manishearth VTC or directly closed the question as a duplicate of SE Meta? The surely know better and are more tolerant than you. But I see you got a 'follower' there are 2 VTC now. Tomorrow i might find this closed, I hope I get other interesting answers and opinions before then. ..'night! $\endgroup$ – bobie Jan 28 '15 at 17:09
  • $\begingroup$ The statement means that Slivvz knows the reason (and gave it), just the same as any other employee (as evidenced in Gowtham's link); I try not thinking about reasons for other people's actions/non-actions. Cross-site duplicates are not allowed by design, so there's no way to close it as a duplicate of the Meta.SE question. $\endgroup$ – Kyle Kanos Jan 28 '15 at 17:49
0
$\begingroup$

The answer is simple. They are not answers or questions but comments. Don't you know what the comment exactly means? It mean a verbal or written remark expressing an opinion or reaction. So in my view, it is really absurd to vote down someone's opinion. An opinion is only a thought. Thoughts are responsible to create questions, answers and rulings. Hope you understand.

Assume: If I say, "I think there is gonna be end of physics when string theory is gonna proved".

It is comment and it may only needs a correction from expert.

But what if I say, "I know that string theory is the last theory and the end of physics".

It may be a foolish assertion that can be voted down.

Or you can say that there is always an opportunity for an opinion to be non-foolproof or to be.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ All you say would make sense if comments couldn't be upvoted too: I pointed out the asymmetry of the choice. You surely know that asymmetries are the exceptions and not the rule, and need a justification. Update- your example sare not real: comments comment an answer and often criticize it. If you upvote you imply you agree and the thesis is correct, if you want to dissent you may not express it with a vote, but must articulate another post. Lazyness or other reason limit the response. $\endgroup$ – bobie Jan 28 '15 at 16:12
  • $\begingroup$ You are right. In my view comments should not be voted up too. They must be given another comment only. I voted your question up for I liked it. $\endgroup$ – user66452 Jan 28 '15 at 16:15
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ That would make more sense, by the laws of Nature! :) $\endgroup$ – bobie Jan 28 '15 at 16:17

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