3 added 234 characters in body
source | link

I don't like change. But I guess it has merit. (An answer downvotes graph would help to judge it better..)

Usually I avoid downvoting newcomer questions. It's pointless to downvote a rep 1 user. And if it costs me -1 without affecting that account, I do in fact opt out. (But most people use closevotes in lieu of downvotes in these cases anyway.)

So making that free would indeed incentivize me to downvote more questions. But I believe I'm already downvoting too few answers. And if this idea is given a roll, I would request that this is used to at least even out the discrepancy between question and answer votes:

               cost  upvote      cost  downvote

 question      0     +5          0     -1 

 answer        0     +10        -1     -2

If upvotes only bring half as much reputation win, then downvotes should subtract only half of what answer downvotes do. And I assume it would cause less hurt feelings if the free downvotes cause less loss there.

Regarding the pity upvotes that's maybe not such a glamorous idea. Albeit there is the same discrepancy of worthless internet moneyrequiring 5 downvotes to cancel out a pity answer upvote. (And dangerous answers IMHO require fiercer eradiction than unreadable questions.)

(The banning metrics would be unaffected by the reputation charges. It's the downvotes alone that count.)

I don't like change. But I guess it has merit. (An answer downvotes graph would help to judge it better..)

Usually I avoid downvoting newcomer questions. It's pointless to downvote a rep 1 user. And if it costs me -1 without affecting that account, I do in fact opt out. (But most people use closevotes in lieu of downvotes in these cases anyway.)

So making that free would indeed incentivize me to downvote more questions. But I believe I'm already downvoting too few answers. And if this idea is given a roll, I would request that this is used to at least even out the discrepancy between question and answer votes:

               cost  upvote      cost  downvote

 question      0     +5          0     -1 

 answer        0     +10        -1     -2

If upvotes only bring half as much reputation win, then downvotes should subtract only half of what answer downvotes do. And I assume it would cause less hurt feelings if the free downvotes cause less of worthless internet money.

(The banning metrics would be unaffected by the reputation charges. It's the downvotes alone that count.)

I don't like change. But I guess it has merit. (An answer downvotes graph would help to judge it better..)

Usually I avoid downvoting newcomer questions. It's pointless to downvote a rep 1 user. And if it costs me -1 without affecting that account, I do in fact opt out. (But most people use closevotes in lieu of downvotes in these cases anyway.)

So making that free would indeed incentivize me to downvote more questions. But I believe I'm already downvoting too few answers. And if this idea is given a roll, I would request that this is used to at least even out the discrepancy between question and answer votes:

               cost  upvote      cost  downvote

 question      0     +5          0     -1 

 answer        0     +10        -1     -2

If upvotes only bring half as much reputation win, then downvotes should subtract only half of what answer downvotes do. And I assume it would cause less hurt feelings if the free downvotes cause less loss there.

Regarding the pity upvotes that's maybe not such a glamorous idea. Albeit there is the same discrepancy of requiring 5 downvotes to cancel out a pity answer upvote. (And dangerous answers IMHO require fiercer eradiction than unreadable questions.)

(The banning metrics would be unaffected by the reputation charges. It's the downvotes alone that count.)

2 added 47 characters in body; added 101 characters in body; added 42 characters in body; added 28 characters in body
source | link

I don't like change. But I guess it has merit. (An answer downvotes graph would help to judge it better..)

Usually I avoid downvoting newcomer questions. It's pointless to downvote a rep 1 user. And if it costs me -1 without affecting that account, I do in fact opt out. (But most people use closevotes in lieu of downvotes in these cases anyway.)

So making that free would indeed incentivize me to downvote more questions. But I believe I'm already downvoting too few answers. And if this idea is given a roll, I would request that this is used to at least even out the discrepancy between question and answer votes:

               cost  upvote      cost  downvote

 question      0     +5          0     -1 

 answer        0     +10        -1     -2

If upvotes only bring half as much reputation win, then downvotes should subtract only half of what answer downvotes do. And I assume it would cause less hurt feelings if the free downvotes cause less of worthless internet money.

(The banning metrics would be unaffected by the reputation charges. It's the downvotes alone that count.)

I don't like change. But I guess it has merit. (An answer downvotes graph would help to judge it better..)

Usually I avoid downvoting newcomer questions. It's pointless to downvote a rep 1 user. And if it costs me -1 without affecting that account, I do in fact opt out. (But most people use closevotes in lieu of downvotes in these cases anyway.)

So making that free would indeed incentivize me to downvote more questions. But I believe I'm already downvoting too few answers. And if this idea is given a roll, I would request that this is used to at least even out the discrepancy between question and answer votes:

               cost  upvote      cost  downvote

 question      0     +5          0     -1 

 answer        0     +10        -1     -2

If upvotes only bring half as much reputation win, then downvotes should subtract only half of what answer downvotes do.

I don't like change. But I guess it has merit. (An answer downvotes graph would help to judge it better..)

Usually I avoid downvoting newcomer questions. It's pointless to downvote a rep 1 user. And if it costs me -1 without affecting that account, I do in fact opt out. (But most people use closevotes in lieu of downvotes in these cases anyway.)

So making that free would indeed incentivize me to downvote more questions. But I believe I'm already downvoting too few answers. And if this idea is given a roll, I would request that this is used to at least even out the discrepancy between question and answer votes:

               cost  upvote      cost  downvote

 question      0     +5          0     -1 

 answer        0     +10        -1     -2

If upvotes only bring half as much reputation win, then downvotes should subtract only half of what answer downvotes do. And I assume it would cause less hurt feelings if the free downvotes cause less of worthless internet money.

(The banning metrics would be unaffected by the reputation charges. It's the downvotes alone that count.)

1
source | link

I don't like change. But I guess it has merit. (An answer downvotes graph would help to judge it better..)

Usually I avoid downvoting newcomer questions. It's pointless to downvote a rep 1 user. And if it costs me -1 without affecting that account, I do in fact opt out. (But most people use closevotes in lieu of downvotes in these cases anyway.)

So making that free would indeed incentivize me to downvote more questions. But I believe I'm already downvoting too few answers. And if this idea is given a roll, I would request that this is used to at least even out the discrepancy between question and answer votes:

               cost  upvote      cost  downvote

 question      0     +5          0     -1 

 answer        0     +10        -1     -2

If upvotes only bring half as much reputation win, then downvotes should subtract only half of what answer downvotes do.