Is http://idownvotedbecau.se counter productive? Can it be better used?

Question

Now, I realize that in a sense it helps meet a certain common demand, that folks explain downvotes. It's an excellent resource. It explains very well how a post can be improved.

On the other hand, I think a bare link to it is off-putting because:

1. As an experienced user, I feel there's often a little more guidance that's needed.
2. It puts the focus on the downvote, rather than the improvement until you click through. A new user is going to focus on the former, not the latter.
3. It's an LMGTFY-style 'lazy' way to deal with a lower-quality question.

Now, together with a bit of fluff "Your question could do with some improvement blah blah" and a link, its handy.

I love the intent, not the implementation. Could we consider encouraging better, more productive use of it, or maybe blocking bare links to it (if possible) to encourage more insightful commentary?

Answer 1

I do also feel it's kind of off-putting at first glance. It reads as if there's little care about what the question actually is, like it's just throwing robotic jargon at them. Bare links to it read even more like LMGTFY links than actual helpful links, and even though it doesn't carry the sarcastic tone, it still doesn't seem very nice or approachable.

I would however, be in support for potentially linking to them in some nicer pro-forma comments that properly summarize what's wrong, but I'd like to see the site's content cleaned up quite a bit first. As it's currently written, it:

1. Includes an arguably debatable reason: "Being unresponsive" - 99% of these cases already merit downvoting for other reasons anyways, like being unclear.
2. Includes a couple redundant reasons:
   • "No debugging" - I've yet to see a case of this that isn't either "no code", "no errors", or both. And for genuine cases where they didn't even try to test their code, it can just be chalked up to "no research" (trying their code counts as research into their issues).
     • Also, this and "no research" appear to have already been discussed before.
   • "No MCVE" - We already have a FAQ page at //$SITEURL$/help/mcve specifically dedicated to it. A canned comment to this more directly helps people, and it has basically the same content (if not more) than the idownvotedbecau.se link. Furthermore, all but one part, "verifiable", is covered with more specific reasons on that site that are better suited to each problem, and "verifiable" in particular isn't something you can typically tell just at a glance like the others. (Just because you can't reproduce it, doesn't imply others can't.)
3. Includes a few reasons that are just as easily explained in a canned comment, providing little extra benefit to them:
   • "Too much code" - I've got this canned comment which does just as well in practice: You seem to have posted more code than what would be reasonable for your issue. Please read [ask] and how to make a [mcve], providing a MCVE helps users answer your question and future users relate to your issue.
   • "No code" - 99% of these are resolved after me posting this canned comment (or failing that, the first reiteration of basically the same thing): It seems you have a problem with your code. However, we can't help unless we have [code or information that can reproduce the problem](//$SITEURL$/help/mcve). Otherwise, we are just blindly guessing. The remaining 1% who don't get it after the second time probably wouldn't get the idownvotedbecau.se link either, since you usually end up having to drill this simple concept into them of "we can't help you unless we know what you tried". (Also, another issue that's almost as common is not having enough code, which amounts to similar issues.)
   • "Missing exception details" - I've got this canned comment which is a little more general, and it works just as well most of the time: Can you elaborate on how your code "doesn't work"? What were you expecting, and what actually happened? If you got an exception/error, post the line it occurred on and the exception/error details. Please [edit] these details in or we may not be able to help. The issues I run into with this are very similar to the kinds of issues I run into with the "no code" issue.
4. Includes a few reasons that could stand to be improved:
   • "It's not working" could use a bit of emphasis on the need for "why" or "how", as opposed to relying on the reader to do some logical deduction. (Quite a few newbies here don't seem to think to use logic to infer a response's meaning, no matter how simple.)
   • "Image of code" completely misses many of the reasons why we should be avoiding them. Stack snippets and copying is useful, but it misses other things like screen readers, phones, Googleability, etc.
   • "Unreadable code" unhelpfully places language idioms above existing internal idioms, and in some languages, some syntactic issues (like Ruby method calls and Python/CoffeeScript indentation) might find themselves obscured or accidentally corrected from "fixing" whitespace to be more idiomatic.

---

Yeah, I know I'm not a high-rep user. So do take my guesstistics and fauxnalyses with a grain of salt. ;-)

Answer 2

I've only seen these links used maybe twice, but I really dislike them.

Used as a link-only comment it comes across as lazy, snarky and off-putting (whatever the actual intent is; and I'm sure they are perfectly well intended). It comes across as "this person hates my post so much had to point it out... but couldn't be bothered to explain why".

If it comes with an explanation and suggestion for improvement then it's not so bad. But more importantly, it still focuses on the wrong thing...

Explicitly advertising your downvote in itself is no help to anyone. Sure, we all know downvotes aren't really personal and the numerous requests for explaining downvotes makes it sound like a good idea... but that's not really true, and it's not helpful either way. However much we like to tell them it is wrong, users do take downvotes personally and advertising your downvote is just rubbing salt in the wound, with absolutely no benefit.

What is helpful is the reasoning that comes with it. So, instead of saying "I downvoted because..." what you should be doing is suggesting improvements to the post. That is constructive, helpful and doesn't bring along the misplaced sense of personal attack for the ride. Simple.