-13

According to my question Voting the question vs. Voting the answer I felt there is a difference between votes casted to the questions and voted casted to the answers in the nature of votes and in the target persons,

In short:

  • Votes on questions are more useful and addressed to the answerers and moderators or the active community members who follow or manage the list of questions and the quality of the website and the OP to get informed about the faults in his question. (I call them group A)
  • Votes on answers are more useful and addressed to the OP and other askers who mainly find a random question through a search engine, they usually look for the best answer for their questions and not other questions. (I call them group B)

Then I think they need different voting mechanism and would like to propose some suggestions for that:

  • Up votes on the questions could be the indicator of the usefulness of the question or the number of users who have the same question, Then it needs lower reputation and all users could contribute on it.

As the down votes on the questions is targeted more to the OP and the other answerer and moderators then:

  • The reputation needed to cast down votes on questions should be different with the one needed for votes (up or down) on the answers and up votes for the questions. This right should be more shaped to the group A.
  • The reason for the down votes should be clear to the Group A, since it's their main function. Then after casting a down vote a pop up could ask the reason in multiple choices. Choices could be according to the reasons for closing or holding a question such as (Unclear, Off-topic, Not researched well, Too board, Opinion based..., Other (Please specify)
  • As the main function of down votes to the questions is to help moderators, OP and the answerer (group A), if a question already have an accepted answer then down-vote to the question loose its main applicability, and I suggest to be restricted.

This way the OP and other answerer have less confusion on the purpose of down votes and they can enhance the questions better.

  • 1
    Downvotes on an answer also incur a -1 for the downvoter, but no penalty on questions. Besides it is impossible to determine why and even more impossible to control how people vote – user273376 Oct 31 '14 at 10:22
  • 11
    The mechanism for making "less irritation for the OP" cannot be to increase irritation for everyone else. Popup requiring me to select (or type) a reason for every downvote I cast? No thanks. – JonK Oct 31 '14 at 10:24
  • @Gone where there is no control, people can not to vote – Ahmad Oct 31 '14 at 11:50
  • @JonK you could just select if it was applicable, if not would be like now, and its not really a hard job – Ahmad Oct 31 '14 at 11:52
  • 4
    I didn't say it would be hard, I said it would be irritating. I don't disagree that we could do more to make the common reasons behind downvoting more obvious to the author, but not at the expense of making the voting process itself more irritating/annoying for the voters. – JonK Oct 31 '14 at 11:56
  • @JonK It just about down votes on questions and not other up or down votes including answers. One should have a big reason to do that and selecting a choice would be OK for him. Regard the rights of OP too. – Ahmad Oct 31 '14 at 14:32
  • 2
    While I disagree with the feature requests, I want to applaud you for a well-articulated position. – BradleyDotNET Oct 31 '14 at 23:55
  • @BradleyDotNET Thank you for your support and advice, just something? I've heard down votes on a feature-request question is like a pulling system. why they decrease my reputation points? – Ahmad Nov 1 '14 at 11:24
  • @Ahmad You are correct; downvotes on a feature request (in meta) indicate if you wan't/don't want the feature. It still affects your reputation though (doesn't quite seem fair to me either). Note that this bug only exists on Meta.SE, since its the only Meta that has a separate reputation/account. – BradleyDotNET Nov 1 '14 at 17:54
  • @BradleyDotNET It's not really a bug. It's because there is no main site of SE (okay, there is actually, but you can't get rep from there). Therefor, Meta Stack Exchange is considered as a main site (since you need rep for privilege and moderation, after all), compared to other sites which have their own child meta site. – Meta Andrew T. Nov 3 '14 at 1:34
  • 1
    @AndrewT. My apologies on poor wording. I understand its as-designed. I can understand why it seems a bit inconsistent to have an agree/disagree vote affect reputation, but at the same time, I don't see any way to fix it. Thanks for making sure the design was clear though! – BradleyDotNET Nov 3 '14 at 5:01
5

Nearly all of these points have already been discussed.

Up votes on the questions could be the indicator of the usefulness of the question or the number of users who have the same question, Then it needs lower reputation and all users could contribute on it.

You only need 15 reputation to up-vote a post. Thats a pretty low standard.

The reputation needed to cast down votes on questions should be different with the one needed for votes (up or down) on the answers and up votes for the questions. This right should be more shaped to the group A.

Also (basically) in place; you need 125 reputation to down-vote a post. I'm not sure why you would need a higher limit in place for questions than answers; if you had enough dedication to get to 125, you are experienced enough to know what a post's quality is.

The reason for the down votes should be clear to the Group A, since it's their main function. Then after casting a down vote a pop up could ask the reason in multiple choices. Choices could be according to the reasons for closing or holding a question such as (Unclear, Off-topic, Not researched well, Too board, Opinion based..., Other (Please specify)

Discussed a million and one times: Proposal: Require anonymous comment with downvotes I personally would like this feature as well (from a poster's point of view), but from a voter's point of view, I can understand why it will never happen.

As the main function of down votes to the questions is to help moderators, OP and the answerer (group A), if a question already have an accepted answer then down-vote to the question loose its main applicability, and I suggest to be restricted.

This one, to my knowledge, is new and original. However, if a vote's main purpose is to indicate quality, the presence of an accepted answer doesn't really change its value. Additionally, by the same logic, you would have to restrict up-votes as well, which penalizes answerers of a good question that have a quick accepted answer.

You are basically saying "because its got an answer, it doesn't need to be moderated further"; which is very often not true. Plenty of terrible questions get equally terrible (or even good!) but accepted answers.

You could re-propose your last point as a feature request, but I don't see any of them as being an improvement on the current system.

You must log in to answer this question.

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