5

There is much talk of late about the need to downvote rather than close or delete certain content. I see these come through the low quality review queue frequently. To give them the appropriate treatment, I have to make several extra mouse clicks to open up. It would seems that you would want to optimize and encourage the correct behavior of downvoting by allowing downvoting right there in the LQ review framework.

  • In the duplicate I linked Shog mentions the reason voting was removed from the VLQ queue specifically. – slugster May 18 '14 at 22:16
0

I don't think this should be a top priority since many posts that end up in that queue are not an answer posts that are going to end up being deleted anyways. Probably like 40%? Just a guess. Depends on the site.

If a question makes it to the LQRQ chances are it already has -1 score or worse, and a close vote from you is top priority. If you want to help out as much as you can, then do the extra clicks and downvote it too.

The only reason I can think of why they don't have it included already, is that they don't want people to just downvote and pass the review successfully, and then have to click back to go and close vote it too. So some technical thing.

| improve this answer | |
  • 3
    Well, we're not supposed to delete merely 'bad' answers. 'Not an answer', as I got reminded by a flagging suspension, is reserved for things that are completely and entirely not an answer, not merely poor attempts. Yet the review structure optimizes deletion over downvoting. – Rosinante May 18 '14 at 21:57
  • If most things in that queue are low-quality but only some should (or will) be deleted, doesn't it make sense to always downvote? If a post gets deleted you get your rep back, but if (to use your numbers) that happens only 40% of the time, it seems to me that you shouldn't punt on the DV because it may be "wasted". So what if it's "wasted"? – Monica Cellio May 18 '14 at 22:29

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