Timeline for If downvoting is so important, why does it cost reputation?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 2, 2012 at 17:58 | comment | added | hexparrot | @sixlettervariables Misuse of words then--not 'discourse', clarification. Exactly as you said; encouraging clarification (and not requiring it) is bad? Has this whole thread been understood as 'comments should be REQUIRED for downvoting' (which is quite clearly not my position)? | |
| May 2, 2012 at 17:56 | comment | added | user7116 | @hexparrot: Meta is where you go for discourse. Comments are used for clarification. | |
| May 2, 2012 at 17:56 | comment | added | hexparrot | @sixlettervariables well, that's perhaps your only reason you can think of, and maybe even most people's. But even if I am an SO newbie, what bad is done in encouraging (who said 'requiring'???) discourse? | |
| May 2, 2012 at 17:54 | comment | added | user7116 | @hexparrot: There's only one reason to require comments for downvotes, and that is because you want someone to blame. If a downvote needs a comment, it usually has one there. Requiring an explanation for every downvote would significantly decrease the number of downvotes...which is a bad thing. | |
| May 2, 2012 at 17:52 | comment | added | hexparrot | @sixlettervariables who's mad? I was hoping to provide what I believe to be a means to encourage productivity. Flagging comments does nothing, true, but isn't the whole idea of this meta discussion about rep cost to propose ideas that incur changes to the status quo? Downvotes happen, and they mostly happen anonymously; this won't change--I'm not trying to eliminate that ability, either, as you can see--just giving incentive to not be anonymous--'perk' as you will. The hostile opposition to this idea as an augmentation is...surprising. | |
| May 2, 2012 at 17:49 | comment | added | user7116 | @hexparrot: who cares if you flag comments. Comments are not important and are subject to deletion at any point with no guarantees. I'd downvote more if they were free, lots more. Especially if all I had to do was comment, because downvotes are always constructive. Serial downvoting is already reversed. You've not been with SO long enough to appreciate the workflow, and that's Ok. Downvotes happen, and they mostly happen anonymously. Either learn to love it, or be forever mad. | |
| May 2, 2012 at 17:40 | comment | added | hexparrot | let us continue this discussion in chat | |
| May 2, 2012 at 17:38 | comment | added | hexparrot | @AndrewtheStupid ...'There is no compelling reason to think Comments and Votes should be connected'... has it occurred to you this is a means to change that? You seem to be under the impression that I could (under my proposal), put at risk USEFUL comments? Right now I can falsely flag USEFUL comments--what measures will stop this? My idea encourages people to flag useless comments...and patterns that emerge from abuse would be more prevalent then. | |
| May 2, 2012 at 17:33 | comment | added | hexparrot | There's nothing in place to currently protect against "revenge downvoting", other than the inability to afford it. Should somebody be discouraged from downvoting a strictly bad post simply because of those costs, or can we provide a means to transform the desire to downvote into constructive commenting (and if not constructive, the comment would be not rewarding?) | |
| May 2, 2012 at 17:33 | comment | added | Andrew Barber | Here's what you are missing: There is no compelling reason to think Comments and Votes should be connected. | |
| May 2, 2012 at 17:32 | comment | added | Andrew Barber | No, it would not be remotely useful. Not in the least. It would result in dozens... hundreds... of false-positives due to people commenting but not voting. It would have a chilling effect on real comments. Why would I leave a non-DV-comment if it exposed me to being flagged just because another of your DV'ers revenge-DV'ed you? | |
| May 2, 2012 at 17:30 | comment | added | hexparrot | @AndrewtheStupid How are you continuing to miss the main premise of my proposition then? If somebody REVENGE DVing doesn't leave comments, they're experiencing the exact same behavior as currently in place: paying with rep to DV. If they DO leave comments that are of no consequence, they're opening themselves up to site-wide flagging (that is, people reading their comments would flag it), which would be a useful process in weeding out abusive behavior by bringing their behavior to the forefront. | |
| May 2, 2012 at 17:27 | comment | added | Andrew Barber | Both would be incredibly easy to detect. Your proposal does nothing against "revenge down voting", and I'm not even sure why you think it would... you think those meaningless comments would be left by someone revenge DVing? | |
| May 2, 2012 at 17:24 | comment | added | hexparrot | @AndrewtheStupid So what exactly is my proposition failing to address? I could go and 'revenge downvote' you, putting myself into single digits and you would have no idea why (irrelevant that I lack the currency or its impact would be insignificant), or I could 'revenge downvote' you and post worthless comments to reimburse myself. Which one would more easily be detectable as abuse and be punishable? | |
| May 2, 2012 at 17:20 | comment | added | hexparrot | Quite frankly, I have no problem with the costs incurred to downvote--and I don't mind if people do so anonymously--and as yourselves--have sufficient currency to downvote 4800 answers and questions, but that is all beside the point: such a system that I am suggesting encourages more helpful actions (editing/constructive comments) rather than anonymous dismissing and downvoting, which provides very little benefit to the community at large. It's not increasing the costs for you to anonymously downvote, it's increasing the comparative cost versus doing something helpful. | |
| May 2, 2012 at 17:18 | comment | added | Andrew Barber | @hexparrot Nothing about what you suggest enables any of the things you just claimed. | |
| May 2, 2012 at 17:12 | comment | added | hexparrot | @sixlettervariables So both of you have STRICTLY PROVEN my point. Yes, you have downvoted me and you say 'cost you nothing', but it cost you your time and effort, and most importantly, if it was not constructive, I could FLAG it, which is another mechanism that could conceivably be employed to protect from abusive downvotes, e.g., for a flagged comment ruled unconstructive, its impact (reimbursing the rep) could be undone. | |
| May 2, 2012 at 17:12 | comment | added | hexparrot | @AndrewtheStupid Neither of you seem to see that this is an extension of the current system. "Did I downvote or upvote or even vote at all?"--I sure don't need to know--the OP doesn't address the recipient, he is concerned about the one CASTING the vote. Thus, for you to downvote me, costs you (as it already does). In addition, I received a response knowing WHO potentially downvoted me and I can ascertain their intent (success). | |
| May 2, 2012 at 16:41 | comment | added | user7116 | Did I downvote or upvote or even vote at all? You have no clue if I'm getting a free downvote or just putting in my two cents. I've got enough reputation to downvote 4,800 answers and questions. What difference is it to you if I comment and downvote? Voting is anonymous, learn to love it. | |
| May 2, 2012 at 16:32 | comment | added | Andrew Barber | here, have a DV that cost me nothing. (Just making a point - that's exactly how your system would be used) | |
| May 2, 2012 at 16:01 | history | answered | hexparrot | CC BY-SA 3.0 |