10

Often times I see that people won't down vote "bad" responses/answers because they don't want to consistently lose rep.

Sure, it's only -1 point per down-vote, but do this 3 - 5 or so times a day, and you'll see that you've lost 1,095 - 1,825 reputation (assuming that you log in and do this every day) in the past year.

I thought of a few similar solutions to this:

  • Provide users with a reputation of at least 125 (minimum to down-vote) the ability to down-vote 3 times a day without a penalty to their reputation. OPTIONAL: If you are the recipient of a down-vote that was cast free, you will only lose -1 reputation.

  • Provide users with a reputation of 500 (this number is only my suggestion, it really could vary) the ability to down-vote 3 times a day without losing any rep. Then perhaps at 5,000 reputation, users may have 5 or 10 free daily down-votes (who would down-vote any more than 10 times a day anyways? That must be an awful day if you have to do that!).

Those are only a few options, but I think something to give down-voting a slight promotion (but not so huge of a promotion that everyone will start getting reckless with it/abusing its power) would be nice to see. This slight promotion may convince more users to down-vote answers/responses (and maybe even questions, although I've been told down-voting on questions is already free) that they see useless, repetitive, uninformative, etc. Does anyone else have any other ideas to add to this?

Improve this question
15
  • 1
    Seconded, I would recommend something like, for every 100~200 reputation the user have above the 125 minimum, he should have an extra free downvote. Also, the system should notice the user when he is getting close to that limit. Users with over X(<<125) should be able to case infinite (until the vote limit of course) free downvotes.
    – Madara's Ghost
    Commented Aug 26, 2011 at 14:03
  • That sounds like a great idea too. However, I don't think too many downvotes should be handed out freely. Perhaps a very, very high reputation should be required for infinite free downvotes (like 20,000+).
    – Mxyk
    Commented Aug 26, 2011 at 14:06
  • 13
    Downvoting questions is already free, as of a few months ago.
    – Pops
    Commented Aug 26, 2011 at 14:12
  • 12
    Downvotes are already "free", even on answers, as long as enough people agree with you and the post gets deleted. You will then eventually get the rep back when a recalc happens.
    – hammar
    Commented Aug 26, 2011 at 14:19
  • (Good thinking, @hammar! Sounds like an answer to me!)
    – Arjan
    Commented Aug 26, 2011 at 14:22
  • Downvoting should be 100% free
    – user150926
    Commented Aug 26, 2011 at 14:22
  • 1
    @hammar: it won't solve the problem of the answer that never get deleted because they have more upvotes than downvotes.
    – user150926
    Commented Aug 26, 2011 at 14:23
  • 1
    Great idea. The people saying that downvoting questions is already free are missing the point. It's often bad answers that most need downvotes, which people are often reluctant to do, for the reasons listed.
    – Adam Rackis
    Commented Aug 26, 2011 at 14:24
  • 1
    Not 100% free. Then people will go ballistic with it. For example - what if everyone decided to go to Jon Skeet's profile, find every response he has every posted, and down-vote it? He'd lose rep pretty fast! That's just a far-fetched example, of course :).
    – Mxyk
    Commented Aug 26, 2011 at 14:24
  • I agree with you, @Adam Rackis. On a side note, there seems to be a large amount of comments here now. To clean it up a bit, perhaps we could move some of these responses to answers?
    – Mxyk
    Commented Aug 26, 2011 at 14:27
  • 1
    @Mike - On the other hand Jon would get 1000's of free downvotes a day, so we better take care as well!
    – Bo Persson
    Commented Aug 26, 2011 at 15:31
  • Yes, @Bo, but our down-votes are anonymous. He would never know who got him ;).
    – Mxyk
    Commented Aug 26, 2011 at 15:34
  • 2
    @Mike Gates: such behavior is detected and fixed by the system anyway
    – user150926
    Commented Aug 26, 2011 at 15:37
  • Even if a downvoted answer doesn't get deleted, if you exceed rep cap, then you get the -1 back after recalc.
    – user138231
    Commented Aug 26, 2011 at 18:27
  • 4
    I know how to get 10 FREE downvotes. You just have to get 1 upvote to any of your answers!
    – Marcelo
    Commented Aug 26, 2011 at 19:51

6 Answers 6

Reset to default
21

The losing of reputation was never been a reason not to down-vote for me. On the contrary, I find it to be a good protector—otherwise people will down-vote for small inaccuracies, and not for completely wrong answers.

Improve this answer
0
10

I don't see the need for it. Downvotes on questions are "free" anyhow. When downvotes on answers would (sometimes) be "free" too, then shouldn't we also raise the required reputation for all kind of privileges? I think things are nicely balanced now.

Improve this answer
4
  • I was unaware down-votes were free on questions. And, like you said, they are (sometimes) free - not all the time. Every time I've down-voted, I have never (or at least rarely) have gotten my rep back, due to it being down-voted and flagged/deleted afterward. I still feel that some free down-votes on answers should be issued.
    – Mxyk
    Commented Aug 26, 2011 at 14:23
  • I just don't see why downvoting should be free to promote downvoting. To me, that would just be a reputation inflation, @Mike.
    – Arjan
    Commented Aug 26, 2011 at 14:31
  • Well, like I mentioned, it shouldn't be entirely free. I totally agree with your latter point, @Arjan. But, like I said, I feel like it needs a slight promotion, which is why I suggested only a few free downvotes per day. I hate to see really bad, uninformative responses go with few-to-no downvotes. Maybe theres another way to slightly promote it?
    – Mxyk
    Commented Aug 26, 2011 at 14:34
  • 1
    @mike see blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/06/optimizing-for-pearls-not-sand
    – Jeff Atwood
    Commented Aug 27, 2011 at 3:06
4

Agree.

I will downvote only if a question is outright wrong. In cases where an answer is maybe incomplete or simply not as good quality as its competitors I will just pass over it. I feel that those grey answers will eventually be pushed towards the bottom where they belong even without a downvote.

Improve this answer
3

The correct way to promote down voting is not by removing, but with adding. A lot of users are badge hunters, so few badges may draw attention. Suggested badges, which promotes down voting, but disallows abuse and promotes leaving a comment when you down-vote:

  • downvote with comment,which was upvoted
  • 50 downvotes with upvoted comments

Another can be added as well. Other, which does not require comments:

  • more than 10 downvotes, at least 25% of total votes

but in this case user may just downvote to get the badge

lol this is the first time I'm adding 2 answers - is there a badge for it (perhaps if both are upvoted more then 5?)

Improve this answer
2
  • 2
    Requiring more than X% of your votes be downvotes seems like it would discourage upvoting (positive reinforcement) in favor of more downvotes (negative reinforcement) or no votes (did anybody even read my answer/question?).
    – Troyen
    Commented Aug 26, 2011 at 19:09
  • I like the comment/downvote badges, but not necessarily as a solution to this problem. (The badges you suggest are more about being helpful, not just encouraging downvotes).
    – Nicole
    Commented Aug 26, 2011 at 19:29
2

How about if you downvote, but leave a comment explaining why, you don't get lose any points?

Improve this answer
7
0

Perhaps down-votes on answers from unregistered or 1-rep users should be free. Since it's not going to affect them at all I usually only down-vote if it's dangerously wrong, not just unhelpful.

Improve this answer
7
  • 4
    So you're saying you don't want to downvote if the receiver is not penalized? I'd rather downvote posts, not users.
    – Arjan
    Commented Aug 26, 2011 at 14:34
  • 1
    I'm saying the incentives are wrong. If they posted the bad answer, why should I be the only one losing rep?
    – Brad Mace
    Commented Aug 26, 2011 at 14:35
  • 3
    This arises another problem, actually. Some users may not down-vote either because they don't want to penalize the person who made the response - why penalize someone that's just trying to help (unless they're just terribly wrong, uninformative, or made an extremely little attempt to help)?
    – Mxyk
    Commented Aug 26, 2011 at 14:37
  • 1
    @Mike Actually, I see that a lot (and there was even a mention in one of the podcasts). The psychological impact is a big deal because people on the internet are calling you out and saying you're wrong when you were just trying to help, and apparently a large proportion of new users take that personally.
    – Troyen
    Commented Aug 26, 2011 at 19:05
  • Sounds like you are using your downvotes wrong, then. The receiving end of a downvote should not influence your motivation to downvote in any way.
    – Nicole
    Commented Aug 26, 2011 at 19:27
  • 1
    @Ren - the receiving end is half the point of downvotes (the other half being to indicate quality to other readers). It's a key part of holding users accountable for their posts, which is in turn a key part of why Stack Exchange works. But downvoting can feel futile sometimes against the hordes of new users that are used to forums with no quality standards whatsoever.
    – Brad Mace
    Commented Aug 26, 2011 at 21:08
  • @bemace That's true, but it's not of significance to you -- the reason you downvote should be the same either way.
    – Nicole
    Commented Aug 26, 2011 at 23:02

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .