I was wondering why there is question upvotes. The obvious reason would be that the question is useful, clear, and has a positive impact towards the community. Also, the question asker has researched extensively towards the answer of the question.
But at the same time, there is no clear boundary to do nothing or to upvote the question. For example, a well written question that is extensively researched but has bad grammar might get one downvote and one upvote, as people have different ideas of what an upvote consists of. Is there a clear boundary between upvote and novote?
Also, upvotes are, to my understanding, based off some categories, the ones I have stated above. If a question satisfies them, it gets upvotes. But that would not be very useful because the question asker does not need a hundred people telling them that the question is good, they only need to know that it is good, many people think that, and having people tell them how it could be improved is even better.
So perhaps, we should make upvotes tag based and this way people will know what question is good. New tags give you points, this way simply getting views is not enough for points, but to make your question satisfy all the big signposts saying what you should do.
Now to the question downvotes. This is more clear: downvotes=not enough effort, bad question, dumb question, etc. The problem is, most times the people looking at the questions are more knowledgeable that the person asking them, because they went into there to answer the question. This way, something that seems simple may be complex to the people asking the question. Also, for the people who know the answer, the vocabulary doesn't matter, but for the asker, they might search up their question on Google, then get nothing back because they don't know the special vocabulary! This shouldn't get downvoted, but simply being linked to the right vocabulary and information.
Downvotes should probably be because the question yields many search results on Google already. They should also be tag based as well, this way, the asker would know how to make the question better and not just know that their question is bad. Also, some questions are just flawed in one part, but gain many downvotes because of the large number of views, then many people downvote for the same reason. Neither upvotes nor downvotes should be rewarding or punishing because of the number of views, but to improve the question.
Also, edits should now be able (they don't have to) to address downvote tags. When the asker addresses the tag someone posted, they would get a notification to check. After two days of not verifying the downvote, it is removed. This way, people would not have their questions be bad, change it to be good, and still get downvotes because no one did anything to the questions. Also, the people who downvote because of their mood would have to be responsible now to their downvotes. To avoid spam editing we should have this feature only used twice for every tag.
So: we should have tag based systems, and let the readers and askers of the question know: how many people upvoted or downvoted, how many different upvote or downvote tags, and what are the tags. A sum of them to get the current number would also be good.
(edit) The OP is using the word "tag" in a different way to its usual interpretation on SE. They propose that instead of simple upvote & downvote buttons that there are a series of categories (eg good grammar, clear, etc) that voters can tick to indicate how valuable a question is.
PM2Ring Nice Explanation!