4 ms·

Make downvotes require a comment. Let other users vote on the reasoning. If it's a BS reason like "Duplicate! Duplicate!" that's wrong, let others erase that va

Make downvotes require a comment. Let other users vote on the reasoning. If it's a BS reason like "Duplicate! Duplicate!" that's wrong, let others erase that vandalism from the site. One of the stupidest things on the internet is when someone comments that it's a duplicate question and then posts something that makes it obvious they read neither the question nor the supposed duplicate. Most downvotes are never explained. After too much vandalism, suspend the user.

jasode 7y ago
>Make downvotes require a comment. I cited some meta SE threads about that idea in my other comment but I forgot to add this thread as well: https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/357436/why-isnt-providing-feedback-mandatory-on-downvotes-and-why-are-ideas-suggestin https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/357436/why-isnt-pro... Forcing comments on downvotes looks reasonable but it doesn't work at the high-traffic scale of StackOverflow. [To downvoters, (1) are there any other discussion websites with comparable high traffic to StackOverflow that have forced-downvote-explanations so we can see if they work ... and (2) are you aware of the degraded-signal-noise-ratio reason in 2011 that Jeff Atwood made downvotes easier (free) instead of harder?]
- mcguire 7y ago
  Maybe "high traffic scale" is a problem?
  - jasode 7y ago
    >Maybe "high traffic scale" is a problem? I honestly can't tell if your comment is snark or some type of realistic actionable advice. If you intended actionable, what exactly do you propose SO to do to not be "high-traffic"? One of the meta threads say they got ~12k questions a day. (Most of them bad.) Should SO set a limit of 500 questions and after that, each person gets an error on the webform saying "Sorry, we've reached our max question limit today. We want to stay a low-traffic site so hope you'll understand!" To recap some SO history from Atwood's posts... 2008 - StackOverflow is opened 2010 - Atwood and others notice they're getting inundated with too many bad questions. At this time downvoting questions cost karma. 2011 - To counteract the high volume of low-quality questions, they made downvoting questions free to remove friction.[1] Atwood noticed that users were too restrained in downvoting the questions and didn't exercise that power enough to clean up the site. Therefore, forcing the downvotes to have comments (add friction) is the opposite of what they were trying to solve in 2010 which was quickly suppressing the bad questions. SO has more traffic now in 2019 than back in 2011. Perhaps some that are suggesting the idea of forced downvote explanations (I admit that it sounds like a wonderful feedback mechanism) -- don't know of SO's scale and the problems they had in 2010? I dunno. [1] Jeff Atwood announced change of policy -- "Downvotes on questions no longer cost the casting user 1 reputation, so they are effectively “free”. [...] So, it’s imperative the question list have a high signal-to-noise ratio, and removing the penalty for those users who do take the time to read a question and later find it to be useless so they can down-vote is conducive to that." -- excerpt from : https://stackoverflow.blog/2011/06/13/optimizing-for-pearls-not-sand/ https://stackoverflow.blog/2011/06/13/optimizing-for-pearls-...
Aperocky 7y ago
I agree that we should make downvotes only ok with a comment. But then again there's a fine line that both side seem to constantly walk over. 30% of question consists of "how to do this on my homework, please submit a full solution", while the other 30% that are legitimate question being over zealously patrolled.
- eitland 7y ago
  > 30% of question consists of "how to do this on my homework, please submit a full solution" I've suggested a few times already that part of this problem might be that asking questions is the first privilege you get and you get it for free. If it costs something people would be more careful. The cost can be anything: - Classify 5 answers correctly - Pick answers from a multiple choice - Pay a dollar - Wait a few days to activate - etc Ideally the user should be able to choose a method that suits them but make the account worth something. As long as accounts are free, activate instantly and comes with a free right to ask questions, stop being surprised that new accounts pop up to ask silly questions.
  - hgoel 7y ago
    It'd be interesting if the cost were something like "vote on these items in the moderation queue", and they'd only get through if they voted in line with existing votes (with a few new items mixed in). The idea being to help cut down on work for mods by getting some prioritization based on new/young user votes. By mixing in topics that have been voted on, the user can be convinced that they have to vote honestly, and by gathering a large number of votes on actual posts mixed in, things can be roughly classified reliably. By voting I'm referring to things like whether or not a question is a duplicate of another etc.
    - eitland 7y ago
      You could also have a gradual onboarding process, this should help a bit but might be over the top : - first: multiple choice. You get 5 good questions and 5 good or bad answers. For each of the questions you have to answer if the answer is good or bad. - Next: 5 known questions, that might be good or bad. You have to answer if it is good or bad. - Finally: the moderation queue where the answer is only used as an weak signal to the actual moderators. Success rate of 100% required for stage 1, 60% for stage 2 and just completion for stage 3. This would leave a new user with a good understanding of what the site is for before they can spam. It will also make their account seem somewhat valuable. And if someone wants to pay someone to take their test, fine with me, at least the account isn't free anymore.
PunksATawnyFill 7y ago
+1. Cowards often downvote perfectly legitimate posts and face no consequences.
aloisdg 7y ago
http://idownvotedbecau.se/ http://idownvotedbecau.se/ is handy to have a quick useful comment.
Carpetsmoker 7y ago
I think this would make it even worse, because people will leave short abrasive/snappy comments, rather than actually helpful ones.
- bachmeier 7y ago
  Then they're breaking the code of conduct, and should have their accounts suspended. That's a lot better than letting them keep their reasoning silent.
  - Carpetsmoker 7y ago
    It's not so simple, you can post snappy/disrespectful comments that skim the line and create an unfriendly atmosphere for a very long time. It's a hard problem, because it's about patterns. Everyone has a bad day and posts a badly worded comment every once in a while; I certainly have. That's okay, it's human nature. The problems start when a small group of people do it all the time, and turns out it's rather hard to actually detect those kind of patterns.

jasode 7y ago

>Make downvotes require a comment. I cited some meta SE threads about that idea in my other comment but I forgot to add this thread as well: https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/357436/why-isnt-providing-feedback-mandatory-on-downvotes-and-why-are-ideas-suggestin https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/357436/why-isnt-pro... Forcing comments on downvotes looks reasonable but it doesn't work at the high-traffic scale of StackOverflow. [To downvoters, (1) are there any other discussion websites with comparable high traffic to StackOverflow that have forced-downvote-explanations so we can see if they work ... and (2) are you aware of the degraded-signal-noise-ratio reason in 2011 that Jeff Atwood made downvotes easier (free) instead of harder?]

mcguire 7y ago
Maybe "high traffic scale" is a problem?
- jasode 7y ago
  >Maybe "high traffic scale" is a problem? I honestly can't tell if your comment is snark or some type of realistic actionable advice. If you intended actionable, what exactly do you propose SO to do to not be "high-traffic"? One of the meta threads say they got ~12k questions a day. (Most of them bad.) Should SO set a limit of 500 questions and after that, each person gets an error on the webform saying "Sorry, we've reached our max question limit today. We want to stay a low-traffic site so hope you'll understand!" To recap some SO history from Atwood's posts... 2008 - StackOverflow is opened 2010 - Atwood and others notice they're getting inundated with too many bad questions. At this time downvoting questions cost karma. 2011 - To counteract the high volume of low-quality questions, they made downvoting questions free to remove friction.[1] Atwood noticed that users were too restrained in downvoting the questions and didn't exercise that power enough to clean up the site. Therefore, forcing the downvotes to have comments (add friction) is the opposite of what they were trying to solve in 2010 which was quickly suppressing the bad questions. SO has more traffic now in 2019 than back in 2011. Perhaps some that are suggesting the idea of forced downvote explanations (I admit that it sounds like a wonderful feedback mechanism) -- don't know of SO's scale and the problems they had in 2010? I dunno. [1] Jeff Atwood announced change of policy -- "Downvotes on questions no longer cost the casting user 1 reputation, so they are effectively “free”. [...] So, it’s imperative the question list have a high signal-to-noise ratio, and removing the penalty for those users who do take the time to read a question and later find it to be useless so they can down-vote is conducive to that." -- excerpt from : https://stackoverflow.blog/2011/06/13/optimizing-for-pearls-not-sand/ https://stackoverflow.blog/2011/06/13/optimizing-for-pearls-...

Aperocky 7y ago

I agree that we should make downvotes only ok with a comment. But then again there's a fine line that both side seem to constantly walk over. 30% of question consists of "how to do this on my homework, please submit a full solution", while the other 30% that are legitimate question being over zealously patrolled.

eitland 7y ago
> 30% of question consists of "how to do this on my homework, please submit a full solution" I've suggested a few times already that part of this problem might be that asking questions is the first privilege you get and you get it for free. If it costs something people would be more careful. The cost can be anything: - Classify 5 answers correctly - Pick answers from a multiple choice - Pay a dollar - Wait a few days to activate - etc Ideally the user should be able to choose a method that suits them but make the account worth something. As long as accounts are free, activate instantly and comes with a free right to ask questions, stop being surprised that new accounts pop up to ask silly questions.
- hgoel 7y ago
  It'd be interesting if the cost were something like "vote on these items in the moderation queue", and they'd only get through if they voted in line with existing votes (with a few new items mixed in). The idea being to help cut down on work for mods by getting some prioritization based on new/young user votes. By mixing in topics that have been voted on, the user can be convinced that they have to vote honestly, and by gathering a large number of votes on actual posts mixed in, things can be roughly classified reliably. By voting I'm referring to things like whether or not a question is a duplicate of another etc.
  - eitland 7y ago
    You could also have a gradual onboarding process, this should help a bit but might be over the top : - first: multiple choice. You get 5 good questions and 5 good or bad answers. For each of the questions you have to answer if the answer is good or bad. - Next: 5 known questions, that might be good or bad. You have to answer if it is good or bad. - Finally: the moderation queue where the answer is only used as an weak signal to the actual moderators. Success rate of 100% required for stage 1, 60% for stage 2 and just completion for stage 3. This would leave a new user with a good understanding of what the site is for before they can spam. It will also make their account seem somewhat valuable. And if someone wants to pay someone to take their test, fine with me, at least the account isn't free anymore.

PunksATawnyFill 7y ago

+1. Cowards often downvote perfectly legitimate posts and face no consequences.

aloisdg 7y ago

http://idownvotedbecau.se/ http://idownvotedbecau.se/ is handy to have a quick useful comment.

Carpetsmoker 7y ago

I think this would make it even worse, because people will leave short abrasive/snappy comments, rather than actually helpful ones.

bachmeier 7y ago
Then they're breaking the code of conduct, and should have their accounts suspended. That's a lot better than letting them keep their reasoning silent.
- Carpetsmoker 7y ago
  It's not so simple, you can post snappy/disrespectful comments that skim the line and create an unfriendly atmosphere for a very long time. It's a hard problem, because it's about patterns. Everyone has a bad day and posts a badly worded comment every once in a while; I certainly have. That's okay, it's human nature. The problems start when a small group of people do it all the time, and turns out it's rather hard to actually detect those kind of patterns.