3 ms·

That's news: they removed downvote penalties? 8 years back I asked a question to make a poc virus for college, it received 2 downvotes, then a high rep guy quot

That's news: they removed downvote penalties? 8 years back I asked a question to make a poc virus for college, it received 2 downvotes, then a high rep guy quoted a Meta post saying it's consensus to answer such questions and I got a good answer.

muzani 7y ago
There is a downvote penalty to a bad question, but no cost to the downvoter (unlike with downvoting answers) https://stackoverflow.blog/2011/06/13/optimizing-for-pearls-not-sand/ https://stackoverflow.blog/2011/06/13/optimizing-for-pearls-... It was an unpopular decision, partly because it could lead to people downvoting questions trivially. But there was user trust at the time, and the main issue was low quality questions. A few years later, they reincreased the question bonus to +10 but never removed the downvote cost, but I think they should have done the opposite.
- busymom0 7y ago
  Do you think a downvote penalty system works better than one which doesn't have one? I am trying to figure out which system works best - 1. Reddit's where you can upvote or downvote a post 2. HN's where you can only upvote a post and both up and down vote a comment 3. Stackoverflow's where you can downvote but with downvote penalty I think a combination of HN's and SO's would be best - posts can only be upvotes, comments can both be up and downvotes but downvotes come with a penalty. Are there any studies on this subject?
  - muzani 7y ago
    It seems like the sample size is too low/varied and data is too closed to have studies. And Stack Overflow 2012 and Stack Overflow 2020 are different communities, even though they are structured the same. I think what matters more is the goal of the system. SO has a downvoting penalty on answers but not questions, because asking questions is a privilege, but answers are rare. HN has a similar attitude with comments - be careful what you say as you will be judged for it and it can't be taken back. The downside of cost-free downvoting is that it allows people to throw punches without any repercussions. Someone saying something unpopular will just get downvoted. If it were good, the upvotes would balance it out, but downvotes do hurt feelings and discourage people with a particular slant. I think HN and SO has attracted a certain niche of people and discouraged others. On the other hand, without downvoting, you'll still get hostile comments, like you would on Tumblr or Daily Mail. I'd say if you want to encourage downvoting as a form of decentralized moderation, then it should be without penalty. But I'm not sure if you even need karma in the first place. In almost every system, quantity matters more than quality, and the kind of people who should be discouraged by downvotes aren't.

muzani 7y ago

There is a downvote penalty to a bad question, but no cost to the downvoter (unlike with downvoting answers) https://stackoverflow.blog/2011/06/13/optimizing-for-pearls-not-sand/ https://stackoverflow.blog/2011/06/13/optimizing-for-pearls-... It was an unpopular decision, partly because it could lead to people downvoting questions trivially. But there was user trust at the time, and the main issue was low quality questions. A few years later, they reincreased the question bonus to +10 but never removed the downvote cost, but I think they should have done the opposite.

busymom0 7y ago
Do you think a downvote penalty system works better than one which doesn't have one? I am trying to figure out which system works best - 1. Reddit's where you can upvote or downvote a post 2. HN's where you can only upvote a post and both up and down vote a comment 3. Stackoverflow's where you can downvote but with downvote penalty I think a combination of HN's and SO's would be best - posts can only be upvotes, comments can both be up and downvotes but downvotes come with a penalty. Are there any studies on this subject?
- muzani 7y ago
  It seems like the sample size is too low/varied and data is too closed to have studies. And Stack Overflow 2012 and Stack Overflow 2020 are different communities, even though they are structured the same. I think what matters more is the goal of the system. SO has a downvoting penalty on answers but not questions, because asking questions is a privilege, but answers are rare. HN has a similar attitude with comments - be careful what you say as you will be judged for it and it can't be taken back. The downside of cost-free downvoting is that it allows people to throw punches without any repercussions. Someone saying something unpopular will just get downvoted. If it were good, the upvotes would balance it out, but downvotes do hurt feelings and discourage people with a particular slant. I think HN and SO has attracted a certain niche of people and discouraged others. On the other hand, without downvoting, you'll still get hostile comments, like you would on Tumblr or Daily Mail. I'd say if you want to encourage downvoting as a form of decentralized moderation, then it should be without penalty. But I'm not sure if you even need karma in the first place. In almost every system, quantity matters more than quality, and the kind of people who should be discouraged by downvotes aren't.