4 ms·

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 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?

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?