Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 158 Stack Exchange communities.

What is meta?
Here's how it works:
  1. Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
  2. The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
  3. Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates

The purpose of the useful arrows are from what I understand, to get the most useful and/or the best answer near the top while the not useful near the bottom.

It's a good system but I noticed that when people started getting useful points down voted(the down arrow) some people got offended that it's more of a personal level (like people giving the down arrow votes didn't like the person or answer)

That is not the case right? The point of the down useful arrow is not to punish someone on a personal level, the point is to get the best answer up, right?

Because in most situations, a negative(-) sign means bad. So instead of showing how many points are (-), just show 0 but hide the actual the amount of (-)arrows so people don't get the wrong impression or idea about this system. The system will still work since this will encourage those people why their answers are near the bottom without offending themselves.

Also I seen this type of system work in Starcraft 2 where the devs hide the loses so players don't concentrate so much on their loses and concentrate on getting better and winning.

Again this is from my observation and suggestion on this since I seen a few times when people getting down voted and not knowing why they got down voted and asking why or get a little offended over it.

share|improve this question
Before you get shocked, downvotes here on Meta are often used to express disagreement. They don't necessarily indicate that your question is bad. – Bart Aug 8 '12 at 17:44
mmm, old questions usually have couple of answers with negative score, if these have 0 then when someone posts a new answer (with 0 score too) will need to fight with all these. The need of being able to DV a post to a lower score than posted is needed to prevent this, but even if every post started with, lets say, +5, and then prevent from going below 0, I wouldn't support that either – ajax333221 Aug 8 '12 at 18:07
possible duplicate of When should I vote? – Brad Mace Aug 8 '12 at 18:59

Votes should be cast based on the contents, not the user who posted. They are not directed for or against the person, but to indicate whether the contents is good/relevant or not.

Hiding the number of downvotes is not a good idea – if that was done, there would be nothing to distinguish between answers that are at a net score of zero (no votes either way for example), and answers with a majority of downvotes. (And if you put something in place to distinguish them, you're back to square one.)

That wouldn't help the annoyed downvoted user either: their rep is still diminished, and they don't have any more feedback than in the current system. Might be a bit better for their ego, but only marginally.
Until they understand that the votes are not a personal matter, there's nothing much you can do for them except apply yourself to being friendly and constructive in comments when you do downvote and you judge that a comment is called for.

So removing the absolute count of votes doesn't help with classifying the "quality" of the posts, and doesn't materially help the person who's post is concerned – I don't think it would help.

share|improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

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