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

It is incredibly rare that I down-vote on this or any other community site. I would rather just ignore the item. However, occasionally some very bad advice is given that is worthy of a down vote. Why should this adversely affect the reputation of the down-voter?

share|improve this question

migrated from Aug 20 '09 at 19:16

This question came from our site for professional and enthusiast programmers.

You are only spending one point to down-vote a bad answer/question. You get 10 points for a good answer/question. As long as you don't down-vote all the time, it will not really effect your reputation. – Craig Mar 19 '09 at 11:13
Down-voting for ironic purposes. -1. – the.jxc Jul 1 '09 at 1:32
it is like accepting, post is that bad that even I can loss my one reputation for down-voting it. – Zaheer Ahmed Jan 8 '14 at 6:33
I lost a point for down voting a question that a user completely copied (word for word) from another users answer on a similar question. Most people didn't have any idea it was just copy and pasted and the user was gaining points from it. This system is broken. – Charlie Martin Nov 5 '14 at 17:15
If you think the advice is bad, add a comment and say why. Anonymously down voting without comment is as unhelpful as it is spineless. – OtagoHarbour Jan 27 '15 at 20:51

18 Answers 18

The motivation behind it is to put emphasis on up-voting or not voting at all. This way, down votes will carry more weight and it will also prevent users from abusing the system by down-voting excessively.

According to what Jeff/Joel discussed on the SO podcast, they wanted to find a way to discourage users from down-voting for less legitimate reasons (say a pro-Java developer down-voting everything remotely related to .NET or the like).

Edit: I have to admit, it definitely puts it into perspective to compare how many points you gain for other activities vs. the 1 point you lose for a down vote. It is effectively the smallest penalty that the Stack Overflow scoring system will permit.

Also, it may not be the best possible approach, but one has to start somewhere. Besides, the site is only a couple of months old.

Note that you only lose reputation for downvoting answers, not questions.

share|improve this answer
It would be nice if it wasn't so immediate. Perhaps considering an up to down-vot ratio. – BlackWasp Oct 1 '08 at 21:01
I agree - that might be a more accurate way of detecting someone who downvotes excessively. – Wilco Oct 1 '08 at 21:02
So I got punished for down-voting spam and marking it as offensive? Great :( – chrisntr Oct 1 '08 at 21:02
Of course, the flipside is that someone can up vote anything at all (including wrong answers) for no reason at all. And yes, this has been happening. – NotMe Oct 1 '08 at 21:07
you do not lose rep for marking offensive and the downvote rep loss is so small as to be meaningless unless you go on a spree. – EBGreen Oct 1 '08 at 21:09
You don't get punished for marking offensive, just for down-voting. If it's spam, just it mark offensive but don't down-vote it. It'll go away as soon as 9 other people agree with you. – cjm Oct 1 '08 at 21:10
5 people, cjm. It has been lowered. – roosteronacid Oct 1 '08 at 21:34
4, excluding yourself. – roosteronacid Oct 1 '08 at 21:35
It's not a punishment, it's a payment. You are buying a downvote. Reputation is merely currency, and it will become more so as I expect them to add bounties to questions - I can pledge a portion of my reputation to the accepted or highest voted answer of a question to get better/faster response. – Adam Davis Oct 29 '08 at 14:53
Kinda late, but if the post is deleted and a rep recalc is performed, then you'll get your rep back. – Hello71 Sep 11 '10 at 0:34
@chrisntr I find that flagging helps to identify spam with no reputation loss. – gonzobrains Apr 12 '13 at 22:21
> Besides, the site is only a couple of months old. It's more than five years old now. – Ramchandra Apte Nov 20 '13 at 15:01
It is really not the right solution to the problem. Appropriately down voting an answer is improving the question and the site. This action should not be damaging a user's reputation, even by 1 point. It should boost it if anything. Is it a user's reputation, or is it Stack Exchange currency? I think a monthly/weekly down vote quota would be a more appropriate solution and only allow it for users who have reached a certain reputation score (indicating they hopefully understand how the system works). The quota could even still be earned as percentage of the user's other activity on the site. – xr280xr Mar 17 '14 at 18:11
If some troll goes around down voting good answers, the majority will still win via up votes. – xr280xr Mar 17 '14 at 18:13
How about if you could up-vote a down-vote ;) – Damien Golding Oct 2 '14 at 4:42

So you will think twice before doing it.

share|improve this answer
thats the great thing :) – Coding Mash Sep 29 '12 at 16:52
@user151827 You've answered with minimal usage of words but still enough to understand and think about your comment. Thus I would really agree with the one questioner - Users shouldn't be allowed to vote down the answer, in case they don't like it they should ignore it, and in case it has a rude attitude they should flag it. Simple as that. – sensation Jun 7 '13 at 21:09
I disagree, down-voted!Or on second thought... – Trufa Nov 20 '13 at 14:40
Feel safe, if it would be a questions, you would be -35 now – Danubian Sailor Jan 8 '14 at 13:21
great answer! Gotta love stackexchange. – guy mograbi Mar 13 '15 at 21:49

To be a slight deterrent to someone downvoting everything they don't like.

share|improve this answer

So how is that different than somebody voting up indiscriminately? Instead of the java developer voting down everything .NET, you have the java developer voting up everything Java. I also don't see how marking something wrong down should degrade your reputation when you are doing the community a favor. Maybe you should just get a "curmudgeon" badge.

While I see the simple votes as easy to understand, I'd rather see something like badges for answers. That way you could have things like "verified" where the voter had a choice like "I have implemented this answer and it works for me", Or "incorrect" where the choice was "I have tried this answer and it does not appear to work".

share|improve this answer
'tis worth noting that us n00bs can only vote so many times in a day. Tends to discourage frivolous voting – LRE Aug 20 '09 at 19:46
You can still downvote every QUESTION of .NET. However, the APs are safe. – Danubian Sailor Jan 8 '14 at 13:22

I often wonder if -2 off the person your down-voting is enough. Maybe it should be -10 to equal the amount they might get off an up-vote. I only say this as one user could have got one down-vote and one up-vote which would still equate to +8 rep points for them. (Even though their vote score would still be at zero).

Of course I understand that -10 might seem excessive, I’m just looking at a view point of balancing the rep when it comes to up-votes and down-votes.

Keeping it to -1 for the person who originally cast the down-vote but giving -10 to the person who's been given that down-vote might seem fairer to some, and make it more acceptable when losing some rep to down-vote a bad post/answer.

EDIT: I do believe that down-voting should be kept to a minimum and only used when really neccessary.

share|improve this answer

I like the idea. It keeps people from mass down voting for the sake of down voting, since you yourself take a penalty for the action.

share|improve this answer

I know it's a deterrent to stop people abusing the system but it still seems unfair to loose reputation for pointing out a rubbish reply / question. I for one won't ever vote anyone down now which probably isn't a good thing?


share|improve this answer

I think it's to discourage people from down voting indiscriminately.

share|improve this answer
Is down-voting indiscriminately any more harmful than upvoting indiscriminately? – Ajedi32 Mar 15 at 15:58

It seems reasonable to me. You're limited to a certian number of down-votes a day anyway, right? If you're contributing positively to the site at all, then I doubt you'd notice the change in your reputation.

share|improve this answer
You are limited in your number of votes per day (I believe 50), but I don't know if there's also a specific down-vote max per day as well. – Timothy Carter Oct 22 '08 at 18:01

I'm not sure whether the down-voting feature was really well thought out.

On one side, Jeff praises the possibility of downvoting as a very valuable feature. On the other hand, you are discouraged from down-voting because you lose almost as much reputation as the user being downvoted.

share|improve this answer
On the contrary – I think the explanation in your second paragraph refutes your opening statement. In other words, that balance you describe makes me think there was some forethought put into this. – J.R. Nov 20 '13 at 13:39
They should lose more since it is their choice to down vote. I posted a question about something I was having a problem with. I figured out the solution and posted the solution which would be potentially helpful to several people. Some no life down voted it without comment. – OtagoHarbour Jan 27 '15 at 20:36

It also seems reasonable to me. I've only downvoted once, and that was on a truly bad answer. (I've been downvoted at least three times, and I think four, and I understand why on most of them ... )

The one-point penalty is a "keep-it-honest" deal. Downvote for something BAD, but not just because you don't like it.

share|improve this answer

I'll admit to being annoyed about something in the SOverse and thinking "I'd like to downvote that". The cost associated with that helps me keep things in perspective. Nothing has yet been worth the downvote.

I should also note that when you don't have much in the way of rep to start with the cost of a downvote is proportionately far greater than for someone with a lot of rep. This favours having high-rep users as the ones who do the downvoting - which is in line with the basic idea of rep IMO.

share|improve this answer

My guess is that it is to make you think twice: Is it really worth 2 whole reputation points to mark this as bad, or should I just ignore it? It seems to work quite effectively.

Free down-votes would probably result in a habitual down-voting of mostly anything that someone doesn't agree with; a small penalty lessens that tendency.

share|improve this answer
Just a nitpick - the downvoter gets one rep point subtracted. The user who wrote the response that got downvoted gets 2 rep points deducted. – Michael Burr Oct 1 '08 at 21:15

I dunno, if I really disliked what someone did in real life, I might cut off a piece of myself and through it at them.

share|improve this answer
Which part? I guess it could be your hair but this is unlikely to hurt. A leg would do serious damage - but it would probably sting a bit when you sawed it off... – BlackWasp Mar 19 '09 at 13:03

The loss of a point on a down-vote is really a mechanism to punish newer users and prevent them from abusing the system. Let's face it; the 30K rep users here really could care less about a point, but they've gotten to that point because they've been around a while and are active in the system. They (theoretically) know better when to down-vote and when to add a comment to help the asker/answerer in question. New users, on the other hand, value every point they can get and need incentive to not just go on a down-vote binge because they didn't have their coffee.

Or at least that's what I believe.

share|improve this answer
Not relevant to this question. The OP here is asking about the -1 for the down-voter, not the -2 to the owner of the post. – Shadow Wizard Nov 20 '13 at 15:48
I think the answer still holds. Not sure why someone downvoted it. I changed my answer to reflect -1 instead of -2. – Johnny Bones Nov 20 '13 at 15:51
Ah, OK It was me, thinking you were refering only to the -2 penalty to the author of downvoted post. Better and clearer now. – Shadow Wizard Nov 20 '13 at 15:53

One point would be, to avoid excessive use of it. You should only down vote if it is a bad post.

One Rep-Point is not much but it makes some think twice before spending it ;)

share|improve this answer

It's a deterrent to some users who might otherwise down-vote indiscriminately. I think most people would down-vote only rarely regardless, but there are some who might want to use down-voting to penalize other users for having a different opinion, for using the wrong language, for having too much rep, etc.

share|improve this answer

Because they didn't think before implementing this reputation system. They just wanted the project to look new and different. The point of being effective as well got somehow lost on the way.

share|improve this answer
downvote, downvote !!!!! – LRE Aug 20 '09 at 19:47

You must log in to answer this question.