4 ms·

> Can people truly not comprehend how downvoting a post to -20 (or more) is perceived by the author of that post? No, Stack Overflow high-rank users certainly

> Can people truly not comprehend how downvoting a post to -20 (or more) is perceived by the author of that post? No, Stack Overflow high-rank users certainly do not. (A current community moderator literally said "Voting is not a friendly or unfriendly activity.") I've too suggested that the UI should be changed to be less abrasive and that high-rank people should be more accountable for their actions and been downvoted for that. It's worth noting that this phenomenon of lack of empathy exists mostly in Stack Overflow, much less so in smaller communities where people don't generally have that much rank. At least that's what I saw with my personal empirical observation of Arduino SE. Not to mention the high-rank users loathe the welcoming initiative SO made, because god forbid they can't be snarky asses without getting flagged any more.

jodrellblank 7y ago
The SO guidelines are that voting is about the question, not about the author. Everyone who has a rant about SO shows that is not universally agreed on, to say the least. But for you to say "people should be kinder and more empathic", for downvoting within the rules of the site, while you go on a rant calling people unwelcoming snarky abrasive asses, is amusingly hatey.
- Avamander 7y ago
  > for downvoting within the rules of the site Doesn't make it good for the site or it's users. It's a very poor excuse. > rant calling people unwelcoming snarky abrasive asses, is amusingly hatey. Are you a high-rank SO user? Also, what I stated is not a "rant" it's an empirical observation.
  - jodrellblank 7y ago
    > Doesn't make it good for the site or it's users. It's a very poor excuse. Excuse for what? SO has the UI instruction that you /should/, as a user who agreed to follow the rules, downvote low effort questions which show no research. Agreeing to follow the site rules, then not following the site rules and deciding it should be run the way you want it to be run instead, isn't good for the site either. > Are you a high-rank SO user? I've never thought so, but looking at the data[1] everyone with >500 rep is in the top 5%, so by that standard, yes. > Also, what I stated is not a "rant" it's an empirical observation. No, it's not. Saying that people "should be held accountable" for their downvotes on an internet site is not "provable by means of experiment", it's "people I disagree with should be punished". Calling people "snarky asses" is not experimental, it's subjective interpretation. Describing downvoting as lacking empathy, on a site where downvotes are intended to describe the question not the author, is subjective interpretation. [1] https://stackexchange.com/leagues/1/alltime/stackoverflow/2008-07-31?sort=reputationchange&page=1 https://stackexchange.com/leagues/1/alltime/stackoverflow/20... tables on the right hand side
    - Avamander 7y ago
      > Excuse for what? SO has the UI instruction that you /should/, as a user who agreed to follow the rules, downvote low effort questions which show no research. Agreeing to follow the site rules, then not following the site rules and deciding it should be run the way you want it to be run instead, isn't good for the site either. How many questions that get downvoted actually haven't done any research? I've seen a ton of those that have done their research and have gotten downvoted. In addition to those I have personal experience where I list what I've tried and found, and still get downvoted. I have to say, not listing any research has ended up better for me. It's an excuse for just downvoting without really a good, constructive reason. It's absolutely fallacious to keep iterating over the same "it's a feature, not a bug" argument, the existence of a guideline is not a good reason for the guideline to exist, same applies to the Stack Overflow Meta as well. > Saying that people "should be held accountable" for their downvotes on an internet site is not "provable by means of experiment", it's "people I disagree with should be punished". How is "explain why you are downvoting" a punishment if what you're doing is actually reasonable? If you feel you are punished when you have to explain why then you shouldn't downvote. > Calling people "snarky asses" is not experimental, it's subjective interpretation. It's your interpretation of "snarky ass" you can't detect by observation of comments. I myself can verify by observation that such comments exist. > Describing downvoting as lacking empathy, on a site where downvotes are intended to describe the question not the author, is subjective interpretation. You're definitely lacking empathy right now if you don not see that downvotes will never have the "intention" you said, at least for most people. Oh, and let's not forget, it's not a subjective interpretation that people get negative emotions towards random downvotes being thrown at them, it's very visibly observable one, might even say it's empirical.
      - galaxyLogic 7y ago
        > random downvotes being thrown at them True. And I would say "random unjustified" down-votes. Because if they are not required to explain their down-vote the simplest Occam's Razor explanation for such down-votes is that they just wanted to be a jerk. This is a system-problem with Stack Overflow. They could easily require that every down-vote is given a verbal justification AND also that down-votes can be down-voted (with a similar verbal justification). Down-vote without explanation is like a punch in the face in the dark you can not counter-punch, and you know they know you can not, and therefore you know that is one factor on why they are doing it. That is the reason why it feels hostile. Now of course somebody who punches you can SAY they don't mean it as a hostile action, but do you believe them?
will4274 7y ago
> lack of empathy I think this interpretation is colored by your own bias. Downvotes only show a lack of empathy if downvotes are a social mechanism to comment on the asker, not the question. Particularly given that the SO guidelines explicitly say that downvotes are for the question, not the asker... I'm reminded of every stop sign I've ever stopped at in my life. Some asshole is always waving me ahead of them, even though the rules of the road say it is their turn. They probably think they are being considerate. But I don't think they are being considerate - I think they are making traffic flow less well, an inconsiderate act. Interpreting downvotes as a lack of empathy is the same sort of wrong reasoning as thinking that letting somebody go in front of you at a stop sign is considerate. It disregards the well documented and publicly posted rules for something you made up.
- Avamander 7y ago
  > Interpreting downvotes as a lack of empathy is the same sort of wrong reasoning as thinking that letting somebody go in front of you at a stop sign is considerate. It disregards the well documented and publicly posted rules for something you made up. Interpreting downvotes as a considerate act is like stabbing tires on someone's car who just had a light go out. Saying nothing because downvotes don't give any useful signal at all, they don't even know you stabbed because a light doesn't work. And seeing stabbed tires doesn't really give people seeing the car an useful signal either, only maybe a sense of being in danger.
  - will4274 7y ago
    The signals aren't for the person who asked the question. Downvoting signals to other stack overflow users that this question probably doesn't contain the information they are looking for. When done correctly, this is considerate because it reduces the amount of time users spend searching for an answer. The goal of SO isn't to answer your question, it's to build up a massive high quality FAQ, and you should interpret the social cues in this context.
    - Avamander 7y ago
      > When done correctly, this is considerate because it reduces the amount of time users spend searching for an answer. But it isn't done correctly. It's done rather arbitrarily, because who could have predicted that accurate rating of questions is hard and that in the end what matters is having a quality knowledge base on various subjects not only the ones some specific people think are useful. I'd also not ignore that pretty much noone except the asker care about questions' votes when primary traffic to questions is from search engines. Oh, and I almost forgot, your claims of how downvotes are not meant as a signal for the asker, then why are they displayed the votes? Why should they lose rep if it's not meant as a signal to them?
mark-r 7y ago
This high-rank user does comprehend the impact of downvotes, and I cringe when I see people advocating for their use. The lack of empathy is truly incomprehensible.

jodrellblank 7y ago

The SO guidelines are that voting is about the question, not about the author. Everyone who has a rant about SO shows that is not universally agreed on, to say the least. But for you to say "people should be kinder and more empathic", for downvoting within the rules of the site, while you go on a rant calling people unwelcoming snarky abrasive asses, is amusingly hatey.

Avamander 7y ago
> for downvoting within the rules of the site Doesn't make it good for the site or it's users. It's a very poor excuse. > rant calling people unwelcoming snarky abrasive asses, is amusingly hatey. Are you a high-rank SO user? Also, what I stated is not a "rant" it's an empirical observation.
- jodrellblank 7y ago
  > Doesn't make it good for the site or it's users. It's a very poor excuse. Excuse for what? SO has the UI instruction that you /should/, as a user who agreed to follow the rules, downvote low effort questions which show no research. Agreeing to follow the site rules, then not following the site rules and deciding it should be run the way you want it to be run instead, isn't good for the site either. > Are you a high-rank SO user? I've never thought so, but looking at the data[1] everyone with >500 rep is in the top 5%, so by that standard, yes. > Also, what I stated is not a "rant" it's an empirical observation. No, it's not. Saying that people "should be held accountable" for their downvotes on an internet site is not "provable by means of experiment", it's "people I disagree with should be punished". Calling people "snarky asses" is not experimental, it's subjective interpretation. Describing downvoting as lacking empathy, on a site where downvotes are intended to describe the question not the author, is subjective interpretation. [1] https://stackexchange.com/leagues/1/alltime/stackoverflow/2008-07-31?sort=reputationchange&page=1 https://stackexchange.com/leagues/1/alltime/stackoverflow/20... tables on the right hand side
  - Avamander 7y ago
    > Excuse for what? SO has the UI instruction that you /should/, as a user who agreed to follow the rules, downvote low effort questions which show no research. Agreeing to follow the site rules, then not following the site rules and deciding it should be run the way you want it to be run instead, isn't good for the site either. How many questions that get downvoted actually haven't done any research? I've seen a ton of those that have done their research and have gotten downvoted. In addition to those I have personal experience where I list what I've tried and found, and still get downvoted. I have to say, not listing any research has ended up better for me. It's an excuse for just downvoting without really a good, constructive reason. It's absolutely fallacious to keep iterating over the same "it's a feature, not a bug" argument, the existence of a guideline is not a good reason for the guideline to exist, same applies to the Stack Overflow Meta as well. > Saying that people "should be held accountable" for their downvotes on an internet site is not "provable by means of experiment", it's "people I disagree with should be punished". How is "explain why you are downvoting" a punishment if what you're doing is actually reasonable? If you feel you are punished when you have to explain why then you shouldn't downvote. > Calling people "snarky asses" is not experimental, it's subjective interpretation. It's your interpretation of "snarky ass" you can't detect by observation of comments. I myself can verify by observation that such comments exist. > Describing downvoting as lacking empathy, on a site where downvotes are intended to describe the question not the author, is subjective interpretation. You're definitely lacking empathy right now if you don not see that downvotes will never have the "intention" you said, at least for most people. Oh, and let's not forget, it's not a subjective interpretation that people get negative emotions towards random downvotes being thrown at them, it's very visibly observable one, might even say it's empirical.
    - galaxyLogic 7y ago
      > random downvotes being thrown at them True. And I would say "random unjustified" down-votes. Because if they are not required to explain their down-vote the simplest Occam's Razor explanation for such down-votes is that they just wanted to be a jerk. This is a system-problem with Stack Overflow. They could easily require that every down-vote is given a verbal justification AND also that down-votes can be down-voted (with a similar verbal justification). Down-vote without explanation is like a punch in the face in the dark you can not counter-punch, and you know they know you can not, and therefore you know that is one factor on why they are doing it. That is the reason why it feels hostile. Now of course somebody who punches you can SAY they don't mean it as a hostile action, but do you believe them?

will4274 7y ago

> lack of empathy I think this interpretation is colored by your own bias. Downvotes only show a lack of empathy if downvotes are a social mechanism to comment on the asker, not the question. Particularly given that the SO guidelines explicitly say that downvotes are for the question, not the asker... I'm reminded of every stop sign I've ever stopped at in my life. Some asshole is always waving me ahead of them, even though the rules of the road say it is their turn. They probably think they are being considerate. But I don't think they are being considerate - I think they are making traffic flow less well, an inconsiderate act. Interpreting downvotes as a lack of empathy is the same sort of wrong reasoning as thinking that letting somebody go in front of you at a stop sign is considerate. It disregards the well documented and publicly posted rules for something you made up.

Avamander 7y ago
> Interpreting downvotes as a lack of empathy is the same sort of wrong reasoning as thinking that letting somebody go in front of you at a stop sign is considerate. It disregards the well documented and publicly posted rules for something you made up. Interpreting downvotes as a considerate act is like stabbing tires on someone's car who just had a light go out. Saying nothing because downvotes don't give any useful signal at all, they don't even know you stabbed because a light doesn't work. And seeing stabbed tires doesn't really give people seeing the car an useful signal either, only maybe a sense of being in danger.
- will4274 7y ago
  The signals aren't for the person who asked the question. Downvoting signals to other stack overflow users that this question probably doesn't contain the information they are looking for. When done correctly, this is considerate because it reduces the amount of time users spend searching for an answer. The goal of SO isn't to answer your question, it's to build up a massive high quality FAQ, and you should interpret the social cues in this context.
  - Avamander 7y ago
    > When done correctly, this is considerate because it reduces the amount of time users spend searching for an answer. But it isn't done correctly. It's done rather arbitrarily, because who could have predicted that accurate rating of questions is hard and that in the end what matters is having a quality knowledge base on various subjects not only the ones some specific people think are useful. I'd also not ignore that pretty much noone except the asker care about questions' votes when primary traffic to questions is from search engines. Oh, and I almost forgot, your claims of how downvotes are not meant as a signal for the asker, then why are they displayed the votes? Why should they lose rep if it's not meant as a signal to them?

mark-r 7y ago

This high-rank user does comprehend the impact of downvotes, and I cringe when I see people advocating for their use. The lack of empathy is truly incomprehensible.