Timeline for Canned reasons for upvote and downvote (with an example of how it would work)
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 18, 2013 at 8:50 | comment | added | jxh | @JPLemme: I agree with your sentiments. If one doesn't have a good reason for the down vote, then they shouldn't down vote. If they feel the question is a lost cause, they should vote to close. | |
| Nov 21, 2011 at 8:18 | comment | added | dbjohn | @Jeff You need to consider what kind of community you want to foster here. As with #1, do you want to encourage serial downvoters who don't have to think about why they are downvoting? NO! We don't want that, give them that feedback and enforce them to reflect on the question and act more intelligently. | |
| Jan 8, 2011 at 6:59 | comment | added | JPLemme | @Jeff. I disagree with what you say. I would explain why, but I think you'll understand my point better if you try to figure it out yourself. The burden should be on the writer, after all... | |
| Jan 6, 2011 at 4:56 | comment | added | Jeff Atwood | @jplemme welcome to the world. this is how it works. The burden is on YOU to figure out why. Those who want to give feedback, will. Those who don't, cannot be forced to. | |
| Jan 6, 2011 at 4:48 | comment | added | JPLemme | @Valentin. I might have gone over the top. But I did get a paper back in college once that contained nothing but a "B" in red ink. That was almost 20 years ago and it burns me up to this day. To steal from Monty Python, "Constructive criticism is an intellectual process. Silent downvoting is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes." And intellectual processes require work. From the reader. Because he's the one making the constructive criticism. | |
| Jan 4, 2011 at 14:29 | comment | added | Valentin Rocher | Should people use too much metaphors ? We'll never know (just kidding @JPLemme, I in fact globally agree with what you say) | |
| Jun 28, 2010 at 16:58 | comment | added | JPLemme | #3 is absurd. How can you "make it better" when all the information you have available to you is "it's not good enough"? Should history teachers return research papers with merely a "D" and not explain why? Should GUIs simply respond to user input with "Nope. Try again" without explaining why? Should building inspectors deny a permit without mentioning the violations that caused the denial? Should a letter to the editor (or a reply to a blog post) simply say "Your article could be better" and nothing else? Should movie critics just rate a film as "2 stars" with no supporting details? | |
| May 18, 2010 at 3:42 | comment | added | Senseful | In regard to #2: My guess is that 90% of users that would use a canned responses system wouldn't bother typing a reason in the comments if there was no canned responses system. Due mainly to laziness and anonymity reasons. | |
| May 18, 2010 at 3:41 | comment | added | Senseful | In regard to #1: let's say you start reading a post, then you see something that merits a down vote (e.g. "it's confusing"), now you down vote it and are done. Unfortunately you just lost valuable information. You are compressing "down vote because it's confusing" into a single down vote. | |
| May 18, 2010 at 0:55 | comment | added | Aarobot | What if it were optional? As it is, there's already a popup for downvotes when users have low rep; that could be changed to a short list of reasons with a "go away" panic button. I agree that this shouldn't be forced on all users, but most of the comments I leave are quite similar, and I think I would get good mileage out of an opt-in feature. Maybe have a small link or button appear in the comment area after voting, that allows the voter to call up the list on demand. | |
| May 18, 2010 at 0:36 | history | answered | Jeff Atwood | CC BY-SA 2.5 |