This answer illustrates something I find bizarre.
My (borderline rude) comment there has accrued 82 upvotes in less than 4 months and reads as follows:
Why in the world does this have 159 upvotes? It's just a copy and paste, without a link or version number, from some old version of the jQuery source. It's not even usable without copying more stuff from jQuery than is shown here, because it refers to multiple other jQuery properties and methods. This is a completely worthless answer.
Meanwhile, the answer I was commenting on - which has existed for over 4 years - has a mere 22 downvotes.
I can't make sense of this. A quick Fermi estimate based on these numbers (and assuming a steady stream of visitors to the question since the answer was posted) indicates that visitors to that question are roughly 50 times more likely to upvote a comment describing a post as 'completely worthless' than they are to downvote the post that they consider worthless. If people had been willing to downvote the post at the same rate that they're apparently willing to upvote my hostile comment, then it would have a massively negative score by now (as it ought to). But people have seen the post, observed that it is bad (and been comfortable expressing that via upvoting a comment that says so), and yet chosen not to downvote it, leaving it with a score that in no way represents its usefulness.
This is obviously unhelpful behaviour.
Why has this happened, and is there anything that we can or should do to modify people's voting behaviours? Do these people just really, really value their rep? Is this in fact explained by many viewers having the comment voting privilege but not the downvote privilege? Is there something statistically unusual about the viewers of that answer, or is this reluctance to downvote a site-wide problem?