-21

There has been a trend now two persons downvote it then it goes on like that. So let there be down voting but do not display the downvotes till the user votes on it. Else the user reads it with an impression that the question is not good.

Am I missing something?

2
  • 3
    Please provide evidence for your belief in this trend. Commented Jan 28, 2013 at 7:58
  • 4
    What about sympathy upvotes? I feel bad questions get sympathy upvotes after a -1 or -2 a lot more often than OK questions get truly piled on. Commented Jan 28, 2013 at 8:00

2 Answers 2

6

You're implying that most users just go with the flow and are unable to determine the value of a question for themselves.

I beg to differ. Most users don't vote at all. Those who do vote do it for a reason: either the question is good or useful to them, or it is useless and they believe it should be marked as such (and that this should be made clear to the asker).

In my opinion, not enough of the bad stuff is getting downvoted given that every time I load SO and click on several random questions, a worryingly high percentage of them turn out to be zero-effort debug-my-code-for-me/write-my-code-for-me/read-the-docs-for-me garbage.

1
  • +10 for "not enough of the bad stuff is getting downvoted". -9 because I don't want to get my sock puppets caught ;) (net +1!) Commented Jan 29, 2013 at 15:11
5

I disagree with this idea.

There has been a trend now two persons downvote it then it goes on like that

No. It's your thinking. If any question has negative votes it doesn't mean we (the community) downvote it. We downvote it when no efforts are shown etc..

so let there be down voting but do not display the down votes till the user votes on it

Then I will (can) vote on it to see the actual votes then un-vote it. :) So people simply game the system.

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