-22

This is starting to get really frustrating.

The problem

People are down-voting valid solutions and questions.


Examples

How to install ldap module for php 5.5.9 for Ubuntu?

The author in this post asked how to add support for LDAP in php 5.5.9. According to Ubuntu, there is no "native" support, and their library for 5.5.3 only works with 5.3 . Both the question and workable solution were down-voted.

Get nearest values without loop in array using PHP

The author (myself) of this post asked how to get adjacent elements in an array (closest), where the array is non-sequencial and may have very large gaps between key values. The solution I provided is very thorough and covers both methods of return.


Summary

In all cases thus far, none of the "answers" that were not down voted have any substance or even come close to a working stable solution to the OP's question being asked.

Secondary problem with this, is that users can not "up-vote" or "down-vote" an answer unless they have at least 125 rep which essentially means that people are just down-voting because they can. I think it would be a GREAT idea if some accountability were set on down-voters such as forcing them to enter in a reason as to why they voted the question or answer down, and to have a reporting system in place for invalid down-votes as this ruins the reliability of the site overall.

I do not see any direct way to prevent this from happening. Perhaps someone has a solution or can give some insight as to why people are deliberately defacing this site ?

Improve this question
14
  • 13
    It's just one downvote. Everyone gets one of those every now and then. Don't sweat it. If the answer is good, the vote will be offset by an upvote before long.
    – Pekka
    Commented Mar 31, 2014 at 15:55
  • 12
    Re forcing downvoters to provide a reason - that's historically the #1 feature request on Meta. The general consensus is it wouldn't work, as people would just enter nonsense when giving a reason, and we don't want to put that obstacle in the way of downvoting. Downvoting is an important mechanism for the site's health. The unpleasantness of the occasional unfair downvote is outweighed by the benefits.
    – Pekka
    Commented Mar 31, 2014 at 15:59
  • Well, as it stands, I now have only 1 rep. If someone down-votes something, you should not lose "rep" for it. It basically means that you contributed nothing --- which is wasting my time. Not really encouraging me to help further.
    – Dan
    Commented Mar 31, 2014 at 16:00
  • 3
    One upvote will gain you 10 points, and the community is much more prone to upvoting than to downvoting. (Also because downvoting an answer costs 1 rep point.) Things will be fine in the long run. If someone down-votes something, you should not lose "rep" for it. that would be horrible. What meaning would voting have then at all?
    – Pekka
    Commented Mar 31, 2014 at 16:00
  • 7
    Re. "users can not "up-vote" or "down-vote" an answer unless they have at least 200 rep which essentially means that people are just down-voting because they can." You get the downvote privilege at 125 rep. It's also quite a leap to assume that the only reason people would downvote an answer is "because they can."
    – ThisSuitIsBlackNot
    Commented Mar 31, 2014 at 16:05
  • You may use "unicoins" to remove downvote button from your questions and answers.
    – Saqib
    Commented Mar 31, 2014 at 20:09
  • @SaqibSabir - THANK YOU!!!! Your response was actually the best answer!!! Please post as an Answer so I can flag it as the Answer.
    – Dan
    Commented Apr 1, 2014 at 11:23
  • 1
    I hear a lot of people saying that even with a "you have to post a reason when you down vote a question/answer" system in place that people will abuse it will place spam for the "reason", essentially giving no reason. I don't think that kind of system will "never work" as long as you have an admin operated backup system that punishes the people who abuse that system by removing certain privilege for a limited time period of the violator and revoking reputation every time they offend(increasing the rep revoked and preivelage(s) revoked time per each admin approved violation)
    – Daemous
    Commented Apr 2, 2014 at 5:04
  • 1
    @Daemous - That is exactly the point I am trying to make with the requiring people to post a reason why it was down-voted. Currently people are required to put a reason why they flag a user or a question, and that has proven to work. Any claims stating this will "never work" are purely speculative in nature as there is no evidence supporting that aside from this is clearly an unpopular recommendation (see how many downvotes this has ... lol... kind of funny actually). I would personally like to see some accountability for down-voting.
    – Dan
    Commented Apr 2, 2014 at 5:10
  • 3
    Anonynymity is key to downvoting. Would you downvote things that are bad but require you to expose yourself to the poster? There are many users out there that would go on a rampage and downvote you in turn for doing so. Others would just not downvote so they don't have to deal with the problem. That's why it's anonymous; it allows you to place your perception of content onto it, without fear of judgement or retailation. It's not like you're voting on the user, so taking it personally is exactly the wrong thing to do.
    – fbueckert
    Commented Apr 2, 2014 at 16:09
  • @fbueckert - Yes, I actually would because I don't have a problem with being accountable for my actions or justifying my decisions and BACKING THEM UP. Down-voters that do not state why, are just Lurkers , and nothing more. Essentially pests. Much more productive if you really have a problem with a thread, to post WHY you have a problem with it so the author can fix, or perhaps, the Lurker just had no real idea on how to process the information, and down-voted because their interpretation (skimming), was faulty.
    – Dan
    Commented Apr 2, 2014 at 17:12
  • 1
    Because every single user is reasonable and takes to constructive criticism well. Personally, I try to comment on most things at Arqade, and I take a lot of hate for it. I don't see that having to be the de facto standard, just because you don't like anonymous downvotes.
    – fbueckert
    Commented Apr 2, 2014 at 17:14
  • @fbueckert - Yes... it's Just because I personally don't like down-votes ... really, I don't care, I do see there is Injustice in this and the system is weighted for spam bots. I also see that this is an ENORMOUSLY HOT topic that thousands of others ALSO want down-voters to be accountable. Probably a word they have never heard of. For the Lurkers out there -- Being accountable means taking full responsibility and ownership over your actions.
    – Dan
    Commented Apr 2, 2014 at 17:18
  • You seem to be equating accountibility with responsibility. They are two different things, and really, they are as accountable as they are going to be. The system works. Provide actual, well thought out arguments as to why users should be exposed when they downvote. Until then, this is useless. /done
    – fbueckert
    Commented Apr 2, 2014 at 17:38

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
11

People are free to vote as they see fit. They can downvote an answer / question if they think it is not helpful. If you honestly think your answer is perfect, then you may want to request clarification in the comments below your answer:

It would be nice for the downvoter to explain why he/she thinks this is an unhelpful and/or incorrect response so I can, perhaps, improve it.

But make sure you do that politely. If you demand an explanation, that might result in more downvotes. If nobody replies, just wait. If your answer is actually helpful, it will eventually gain more upvotes.

Secondary problem with this, is that users can not "up-vote" or "down-vote" an answer unless they have at least 200 rep

That's not true. Vote Up privilege requires at least 15 reputation. Vote Down, on the other hand, requires at least 125 reputation.

I think it would be a GREAT idea if some accountability were set on down-voters such as forcing them to enter in a reason as to why they voted the question or answer down

As Pekka notes in the comments section, this was one of the first feature requests here on Meta: Encouraging people to explain downvotes

And to have a reporting system in place for invalid down-votes as this ruins the reliability of the site overall.

Even if the downvotes are "invalid" as you say, you shouldn't take them personally. Voting is done (at least supposed to be) on the basis of the quality of the post, and not on the person who posted it.

Improve this answer
4
  • You are correct. I don't recall where I saw the 200 rep required specifically. It is 125 to down-vote ---- but this does not actually get deducted from the down-voter, instead, it only affects the person who took the time to contribute.
    – Dan
    Commented Mar 31, 2014 at 16:16
  • 9
    @Dan That is completely incorrect. Downvoting an answer costs 1 rep.
    – Servy
    Commented Mar 31, 2014 at 16:17
  • @Servy - And it costs the contributor 200% what it costs the down-voter
    – Dan
    Commented Mar 31, 2014 at 23:01
  • 5
    @Dan Both of which completely pale in comparison to the reputation earned from pretty much all forms of upvotes. In both cases the rep change associated with downvotes, by design, is almost nothing.
    – Servy
    Commented Apr 1, 2014 at 1:24
8

Downvotes are a normal healthy part of the site. The only way forward is for you to stop taking them personally.

Secondary problem with this, is that users can not "up-vote" or "down-vote" an answer unless they have at least 200 rep which essentially means that people are just down-voting because they can.

Makes no sense at all. They can not vote, so they're downvoting, because they can? You said two exactly opposite things in the same sentence.

I do not see any direct way to prevent this from happening. Perhaps someone has a solution or can give some insight as to why people are deliberately defacing this site ?

That isn't much of a feature request, it's more of a rant, which typically are not well-received here.

RE: Your comments

... but more so, the outcome which results in the user who may have contributed thousands of valid articles and countless hours/days/years .... for NOTHING !!

It's all "for NOTHING" unless you get a few imaginary Internet points? That's not a very healthy mentality and it's not going to lead to a very happy time on any of the Stack Exchange network. We support downvotes. This isn't Facebook, where you only have the option to "like" content. We give you a big "dislike" button, and we encourage people to use it. Downvotes are a part of life here - people are going to disagree with you, and some people are going to downvote you for no reason what so ever, and there is no other recourse available to you except to ignore it and get on with life.

Improve this answer
9
  • Impossible to not take personally, when it directly affects my use of the site. Down-voting valid questions/answers is a big problem, but more so, the outcome which results in the user who may have contributed thousands of valid articles and countless hours/days/years .... for NOTHING !!
    – Dan
    Commented Mar 31, 2014 at 16:03
  • 6
    If two downvotes deter you from becoming a super active member on this site, then I put it to you you were unlikely to become one in the first place. As said, everyone gets the occasional stray downvote. It's incredibly irritating... just shrug it off and see whether there's anything you can do to improve your post.
    – Pekka
    Commented Mar 31, 2014 at 16:04
  • 5
    @Dan First off, no, it's not a big problem. Is actually a rather small problem. Great content virtually always ends up with a good score, despite the occasional malicious vote; it's just not a huge problem on the site. It has a very, very small effect on your use of the site, unless you let it. You are losing much more by taking it personally than you are due to any other effects. It also doesn't negate your contributions. They are still there, they can still help people if they are in fact valuable.
    – Servy
    Commented Mar 31, 2014 at 16:05
  • @Servy - What i mean by negating the contributions, is a couple of things. It moves the contribution down the page (I have seen some threads by others esp with no accepted answer where the working solution was really far down the page, way past a tonne of up-voted non-working solutions). The secondary attribute to this that makes it an issue is that it is discouraging when seeing your "rep" drop, when you have done nothing except contribute positively to the community. And last, if it is an obscure problem, it is unlikely to move back up.
    – Dan
    Commented Mar 31, 2014 at 16:13
  • 1
    @Dan But that doesn't negate it's value. It deminishes its values, but not completely, only to a limited degree. It's still there, it can still be read, and if the other posts aren't working solutions then you have pretty high odds of readers working their way down to yours, at which point there's a good chance of yours being upvoted and theirs downvoted. That is, if your assertions hold. Yes, it can be discouraging to have an answer that you feel is great be downvoted. This is something that you will need to learn to live with if you want to participate actively.
    – Servy
    Commented Mar 31, 2014 at 16:17
  • @servy - i understand. i just dont feel the author of the downvoted question or answer should receive 200% the penalty of the non contributer who just clicked a button and probably spam created a bunch of accounts to upvote their own junk responses. while there is nothing i can do about this, the many threads on this topic present this as a very real threat to the overall health of SO, requiring much more manual moderator intervention that presently would be a tremendous amount of work babying every thread as to it's legitimacy and quality
    – Dan
    Commented Mar 31, 2014 at 20:14
  • 1
    @Dan You have no basis for claiming that the person who downvoted you isn't a contributor, that they don't have valid reasons to downvote your post, that they have multiple accounts they use for voting fraud, or that this is, in any particularly significant way, degrading the quality of the site. Your conclusions are all based on entirely fantastical assertions. Even if you could indicate that any of that is true for this one case (hint: you can't; doing so is impossible) you certainly couldn't (or at least haven't) prove that this is happening frequently and that it's a widespread problem.
    – Servy
    Commented Mar 31, 2014 at 20:20
  • @Servy - Simultaneously, you have no basis for claiming that they aren't. While some down/up(votes) may be legitimate, there are countless articles that suffer because of illegitimate votes. There is nothing fantastical about the scripts written for Ubot and ZennoPoster for just this purpose --- automating stackexchange (among many other sites like facebook, twitter and so on).
    – Dan
    Commented Mar 31, 2014 at 23:11
  • @Dan You're the one insisting that there is a problem, and advocating a significant change. For that to be made you would need to have some basis for your arguments. You are providing none. The system has worked very well so far. The entire history and success of SO/SE demonstrates a lack of the fatal flaw you claim to exist.
    – Servy
    Commented Apr 1, 2014 at 1:23
3

...Hey Dan, I downvoted your question because I think it's a bad question. It started as a "meh" type question, but after I verified your claims from it, it turned out you were lying. So I gave you -1 for that.

I see now that you also posted a solution there. I'm going to downvote that as well, because you are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist in reality. But if you can prove it does, I'll remove my downvote and give you +1 ! I s

...edit...

ok you are taking this very personally. I didn't downvote u because of hate, but because your question is raising a so-called performance problem that doesn't seem exist in reality. I wanted to help you by making u realise that and focus on other things, not imagined ones.

PHP coders often make this mistake, and think that using internal array functions are faster than loops. Sometimes it's true, but they don't realize that these functions also loop internally, so in some cases (like this one) they would be slower than a simple foreach block. In your question it's ksort+array_search vs. foreach+if.

You chose the slower method, then wanted someone to agree with you, which is stupid but I don't really care about that because both methods were fast enough in practice. The main issue with your question however is that you don't have a performance issue in the first place! It took less than a tenth of second on my rather slow PC to sort 100K elements! I would be more concerned about the memory usage than CPU time. That's why my downvote.

But now I see that getting someone to confirm your expected "solution" is more important than getting a proper answer. I wish you would understand taht this kind of attitude doesn't do you or anyone else any good.

Improve this answer
6
  • Which question is that ? -- Also thank you for addressing that you downvoted. While I disagree with your opinion, at least you had the respect to say something. I am not sure what claims that you verified which i was allegedly "lying" about. Could you please expand on this.
    – Dan
    Commented Apr 1, 2014 at 2:50
  • I think it would be off topic here. The problem was that you were asking for advice on optimizing some code that didn't need optimization
    – thelolcat
    Commented Apr 1, 2014 at 3:01
  • If you are talking about the PHP thread, I wasn't lying as I was looking for a solution that doesn't loop to get nearby keys. After some research, and looking at the solutions provided (which if you look, all increment/decrease by 1 so if a key is 100,000 away from it's neighbor ... yeah). The answer I posted checks nearby without this ... and yes... it has a loop in it because PHP is not capable of this -- but if someone can do this (aka, the commented part of my OP), I would happily accept it as the solution.
    – Dan
    Commented Apr 1, 2014 at 3:01
  • I wish we could have a private discussion, as you are correct. It is off-topic here. -- or we can take this to that post. Perhaps I didn't clarify something properly. As I only have 5 questions, that has to be it.
    – Dan
    Commented Apr 1, 2014 at 3:03
  • I can see that you are in fact the one who is a liar -- Your down-vote remains, even though I am the one who was finally able to come up with a NO LOOP solution. Secondary, I don't see how a question could EVER be a lie, and the fact this got +1'd is either showing lack of intelligence, or that you have multiple accounts and upvoted yourself.
    – Dan
    Commented Apr 2, 2014 at 17:03
  • 1
    Hooray! thelolcat just earned the downvote privilege on Meta
    – mob
    Commented Apr 2, 2014 at 18:46

You must log in to answer this question.

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