It is incredibly rare that I downvote on this or any other community site. I would rather just ignore the item. However, occasionally some very bad advice is given that is worthy of a downvote. Why should this adversely affect the reputation of the person who downvotes?

  • 8
    You are only spending one point to down-vote a bad answer/question. You get 10 points for a good answer/question. As long as you don't down-vote all the time, it will not really effect your reputation. – Craig Mar 19 '09 at 11:13
  • 6
    it is like accepting, post is that bad that even I can loss my one reputation for down-voting it. – Zaheer Ahmed Jan 8 '14 at 6:33
  • 9
    I lost a point for down voting a question that a user completely copied (word for word) from another users answer on a similar question. Most people didn't have any idea it was just copy and pasted and the user was gaining points from it. This system is broken. – Charlie Martin Nov 5 '14 at 17:15
  • 11
    If you think the advice is bad, add a comment and say why. Anonymously down voting without comment is as unhelpful as it is spineless. – OtagoHarbour Jan 27 '15 at 20:51
  • 4
    @CharlieMartin you could have flagged the post as duplicate. – Black Mamba Nov 18 '16 at 14:16
  • 4
    Anger Insurance™ – hBy2Py Mar 29 '17 at 18:23
  • 5
    It gives you the critic badge though :) – MuhsinFatih Jan 31 '18 at 1:32
  • 3
    I find this annoying as well. When, by some miracle, a post that lacks sufficient information or contains errors is upvoted 100+ times... I then get a minus for downvoting...seems unfair! – chrips Feb 11 '18 at 8:05
  • 2
    @OtagoHarbour, when I see a bad answer, I add a comment about why it is bad and yet the downvote is still anonymous and the downvote still gets me a -1 rep. So what is it that you were trying to say in your comment, to not do the downvote? – rectorsquid Apr 10 '18 at 19:20
  • 1
    @OtagoHarbour An anonymous comment attached to a downvote would solve this problem--i.e. if a comment box would pop up when a downvote was cast. – user45664 May 8 '18 at 16:37
  • 2
    @rectorsquid. I like the comment, by user45664, that a comment box pops up when you down vote. I think the user should have the option of commenting or losing reputation. It would be preferable if the comments could be reviewed so that they are valid reasons. – OtagoHarbour May 10 '18 at 0:26
  • If down voting is not recommended ,then why do we have that option in first place ? . I agree that down voting does not do any good , then why we have that feature ?. – PDHide Nov 1 '19 at 20:34

18 Answers 18


The motivation behind it is to put emphasis on up-voting or not voting at all. This way, down votes will carry more weight and it will also prevent users from abusing the system by down-voting excessively.

According to what Jeff/Joel discussed on the SO podcast, they wanted to find a way to discourage users from down-voting for less legitimate reasons (say a pro-Java developer down-voting everything remotely related to .NET or the like).

Edit: I have to admit, it definitely puts it into perspective to compare how many points you gain for other activities vs. the 1 point you lose for a down vote. It is effectively the smallest penalty that the Stack Overflow scoring system will permit.

Also, it may not be the best possible approach, but one has to start somewhere. Besides, the site is only a couple of months old.

Note that you only lose reputation for downvoting answers, not questions.

  • 33
    It would be nice if it wasn't so immediate. Perhaps considering an up to down-vot ratio. – BlackWasp Oct 1 '08 at 21:01
  • I agree - that might be a more accurate way of detecting someone who downvotes excessively. – Wilco Oct 1 '08 at 21:02
  • 76
    So I got punished for down-voting spam and marking it as offensive? Great :( – chrisntr Oct 1 '08 at 21:02
  • 10
    Of course, the flipside is that someone can up vote anything at all (including wrong answers) for no reason at all. And yes, this has been happening. – NotMe Oct 1 '08 at 21:07
  • 2
    You don't get punished for marking offensive, just for down-voting. If it's spam, just it mark offensive but don't down-vote it. It'll go away as soon as 9 other people agree with you. – cjm Oct 1 '08 at 21:10
  • 1
    5 people, cjm. It has been lowered. – roosteronacid Oct 1 '08 at 21:34
  • 2
    4, excluding yourself. – roosteronacid Oct 1 '08 at 21:35
  • 37
    It's not a punishment, it's a payment. You are buying a downvote. Reputation is merely currency, and it will become more so as I expect them to add bounties to questions - I can pledge a portion of my reputation to the accepted or highest voted answer of a question to get better/faster response. – Pollyanna Oct 29 '08 at 14:53
  • 17
    Kinda late, but if the post is deleted and a rep recalc is performed, then you'll get your rep back. – Hello71 Sep 11 '10 at 0:34
  • 2
    @chrisntr I find that flagging helps to identify spam with no reputation loss. – gonzobrains Apr 12 '13 at 22:21
  • 2
    > Besides, the site is only a couple of months old. It's more than five years old now. – Ramchandra Apte Nov 20 '13 at 15:01
  • 7
    It is really not the right solution to the problem. Appropriately down voting an answer is improving the question and the site. This action should not be damaging a user's reputation, even by 1 point. It should boost it if anything. Is it a user's reputation, or is it Stack Exchange currency? I think a monthly/weekly down vote quota would be a more appropriate solution and only allow it for users who have reached a certain reputation score (indicating they hopefully understand how the system works). The quota could even still be earned as percentage of the user's other activity on the site. – xr280xr Mar 17 '14 at 18:11
  • 1
    "Note that you only lose reputation for downvoting answers, not questions." --- which is completely counter-intuitive: what's the old adage, There's no such thing as a stupid question, only stupid answers?" And yet according to this system, you can punish questions with impunity? Derp. – d370urn3ur Mar 26 '15 at 9:29
  • 5
    then we should also be awarded for upvote as well ;) – Sindhoo Oad Oct 18 '15 at 15:03
  • 1
    Looking back at the statement saying, the site is a couple of months old. And now stackoverflow is something which even the initial team would not have dreamt of. Love you stackoverflow. – arqam Oct 26 '18 at 6:00

So you will think twice before doing it.

  • 4
    thats the great thing :) – Coding Mash Sep 29 '12 at 16:52
  • 2
    @user151827 You've answered with minimal usage of words but still enough to understand and think about your comment. Thus I would really agree with the one questioner - Users shouldn't be allowed to vote down the answer, in case they don't like it they should ignore it, and in case it has a rude attitude they should flag it. Simple as that. – sensation Jun 7 '13 at 21:09
  • 1
    I disagree, down-voted!Or on second thought... – Trufa Nov 20 '13 at 14:40
  • 1
    Feel safe, if it would be a questions, you would be -35 now – Danubian Sailor Jan 8 '14 at 13:21
  • 1
    great answer! Gotta love stackexchange. – guy mograbi Mar 13 '15 at 21:49
  • haha yea should be thinking twice – Liakat Jul 26 '17 at 16:27

To be a slight deterrent to someone downvoting everything they don't like.


So how is that different than somebody voting up indiscriminately? Instead of the java developer voting down everything .NET, you have the java developer voting up everything Java. I also don't see how marking something wrong down should degrade your reputation when you are doing the community a favor. Maybe you should just get a "curmudgeon" badge.

While I see the simple votes as easy to understand, I'd rather see something like badges for answers. That way you could have things like "verified" where the voter had a choice like "I have implemented this answer and it works for me", Or "incorrect" where the choice was "I have tried this answer and it does not appear to work".

  • 2
    'tis worth noting that us n00bs can only vote so many times in a day. Tends to discourage frivolous voting – LRE Aug 20 '09 at 19:46
  • You can still downvote every QUESTION of .NET. However, the APs are safe. – Danubian Sailor Jan 8 '14 at 13:22

I often wonder if -2 off the person your down-voting is enough. Maybe it should be -10 to equal the amount they might get off an up-vote. I only say this as one user could have got one down-vote and one up-vote which would still equate to +8 rep points for them. (Even though their vote score would still be at zero).

Of course I understand that -10 might seem excessive, I’m just looking at a view point of balancing the rep when it comes to up-votes and down-votes.

Keeping it to -1 for the person who originally cast the down-vote but giving -10 to the person who's been given that down-vote might seem fairer to some, and make it more acceptable when losing some rep to down-vote a bad post/answer.

EDIT: I do believe that down-voting should be kept to a minimum and only used when really neccessary.


I like the idea. It keeps people from mass down voting for the sake of down voting, since you yourself take a penalty for the action.


I think it's to discourage people from down voting indiscriminately.

  • 3
    Is down-voting indiscriminately any more harmful than upvoting indiscriminately? – Ajedi32 Mar 15 '16 at 15:58

I know it's a deterrent to stop people abusing the system but it still seems unfair to loose reputation for pointing out a rubbish reply / question. I for one won't ever vote anyone down now which probably isn't a good thing?



I'm not sure whether the down-voting feature was really well thought out.

On one side, Jeff praises the possibility of downvoting as a very valuable feature. On the other hand, you are discouraged from down-voting because you lose almost as much reputation as the user being downvoted.

  • On the contrary – I think the explanation in your second paragraph refutes your opening statement. In other words, that balance you describe makes me think there was some forethought put into this. – J.R. means 'Just Reinstate' Nov 20 '13 at 13:39
  • They should lose more since it is their choice to down vote. I posted a question about something I was having a problem with. I figured out the solution and posted the solution which would be potentially helpful to several people. Some no life down voted it without comment. – OtagoHarbour Jan 27 '15 at 20:36

It seems reasonable to me. You're limited to a certian number of down-votes a day anyway, right? If you're contributing positively to the site at all, then I doubt you'd notice the change in your reputation.

  • You are limited in your number of votes per day (I believe 50), but I don't know if there's also a specific down-vote max per day as well. – Timothy Carter Oct 22 '08 at 18:01

It also seems reasonable to me. I've only downvoted once, and that was on a truly bad answer. (I've been downvoted at least three times, and I think four, and I understand why on most of them ... )

The one-point penalty is a "keep-it-honest" deal. Downvote for something BAD, but not just because you don't like it.


I'll admit to being annoyed about something in the SOverse and thinking "I'd like to downvote that". The cost associated with that helps me keep things in perspective. Nothing has yet been worth the downvote.

I should also note that when you don't have much in the way of rep to start with the cost of a downvote is proportionately far greater than for someone with a lot of rep. This favours having high-rep users as the ones who do the downvoting - which is in line with the basic idea of rep IMO.


My guess is that it is to make you think twice: Is it really worth 2 whole reputation points to mark this as bad, or should I just ignore it? It seems to work quite effectively.

Free down-votes would probably result in a habitual down-voting of mostly anything that someone doesn't agree with; a small penalty lessens that tendency.

  • 3
    Just a nitpick - the downvoter gets one rep point subtracted. The user who wrote the response that got downvoted gets 2 rep points deducted. – Michael Burr Oct 1 '08 at 21:15

The loss of a point on a down-vote is really a mechanism to punish newer users and prevent them from abusing the system. Let's face it; the 30K rep users here really could care less about a point, but they've gotten to that point because they've been around a while and are active in the system. They (theoretically) know better when to down-vote and when to add a comment to help the asker/answerer in question. New users, on the other hand, value every point they can get and need incentive to not just go on a down-vote binge because they didn't have their coffee.

Or at least that's what I believe.

  • 1
    Not relevant to this question. The OP here is asking about the -1 for the down-voter, not the -2 to the owner of the post. – Shadow9 Nov 20 '13 at 15:48
  • I think the answer still holds. Not sure why someone downvoted it. I changed my answer to reflect -1 instead of -2. – Johnny Bones Nov 20 '13 at 15:51
  • 1
    Ah, OK It was me, thinking you were refering only to the -2 penalty to the author of downvoted post. Better and clearer now. – Shadow9 Nov 20 '13 at 15:53

It's a deterrent to some users who might otherwise down-vote indiscriminately. I think most people would down-vote only rarely regardless, but there are some who might want to use down-voting to penalize other users for having a different opinion, for using the wrong language, for having too much rep, etc.

  • People do this anyway because they know they will get sympathy upvoted on their own content more than enough to make up for the petty downvotes they cast. – Nij Dec 22 '17 at 19:29

I dunno, if I really disliked what someone did in real life, I might cut off a piece of myself and through it at them.

  • 2
    Which part? I guess it could be your hair but this is unlikely to hurt. A leg would do serious damage - but it would probably sting a bit when you sawed it off... – BlackWasp Mar 19 '09 at 13:03

One point would be, to avoid excessive use of it. You should only down vote if it is a bad post.

One Rep-Point is not much but it makes some think twice before spending it ;)


The reasons for down-voting are too numerous and complex to be reliably and accurately discriminated, some down-votes are justified, others not at all. Losing reputation, and losing a single point, is a compromise, a Keep It Simple approach.

Here are various reasons for down-voting, gathered from common sens and from answers and comments above, arbitrarily ranked from those calling for more than 1 point in reputation loss to those calling for no reputation loss (or even a gain):

  • retaliation: a user feels offended by some comments, or finds out who down-voted him/her and goes on a down-vote rampage
  • indiscriminate down-vote: a user is in a bad mood, is upset, irritated, having a bad day, doesn't like a user, the answer...
  • SPAM: question or answer is clearly written with a will to spam the site, it's helping the community to shadow these by a down vote (SPAM should be flagged, edit: flagging a post as SPAM automatically downvotes the post at no reputation loss downvote, from Catjia's comment)
  • the answer contains offending wording (they can be flagged too)
  • the question has been already asked, shows no effort from the user to search by him/herself
  • the answer given is off-topic (similar to SPAM but in a more subtle way)
  • the answer given is misleading or plain wrong

I'd sure support a no-reputation-loss when down-voting spam, and even a reputation gain when down-voting a misleading or wrong answer with a justification for the down-vote; someone who aggressively down vote for no given reason should lose more than 1 point.

But unless SE introduces Artificial Intelligence to analyze users behavior and the content of their justification for down-vote so the system can sort legitimate down-votes from those given in pure revenge, a -1 loss is a good compromise.

  • 4
    Just FYI, flagging something as spam applies an automatic, free downvote... it's not necessary to additionally downvote it. – Catija Jun 7 '18 at 2:03
  • ...but if you do, that reputation point will be restored as soon as the post is deleted, so it's a net-zero anyway. – ale Jun 7 '18 at 11:06

You must log in to answer this question.