Timeline for Completely Unexplained Downvotes
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:58 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
|
|
| Jul 8, 2013 at 19:51 | comment | added | user9072 | @JoelReyesNoche: The comment would likely be flagged. Also, it is not permitted to downvote based on ones opinion of OP, or at least not solely based on it (by which I mean it is likely alright to be stricter with users doing repeatedly the same thing). | |
| Jul 8, 2013 at 11:44 | comment | added | Dilaton | The downvoters do not necessarily have to be established MO users, they can come from everywhere in the SE network since if I remember this correctly only 125 rep is enough to downvote which is not much taking the association bonus into account. Fully agree that spurious unexplained unjustified downvotes are horrible. | |
| Jul 8, 2013 at 4:36 | comment | added | JRN | What if someone commented "-1 because I hate the OP"? | |
| Jul 8, 2013 at 3:43 | comment | added | Kaveh | If you feel that you don't understand a down-vote you can post a comment. For example, if you feel the reason for the down-vote is not clear you can post a comment like: "It is not clear to me why this post is down-voted." An someone else (not necessarily the user who down-voted the post) may reply explaining why a down-vote is reasonable. Even if no one replies your comment can still be helpful for the author to remain positive. | |
| Jul 7, 2013 at 19:12 | comment | added | user9072 | Thank you for the reply and the change. What you say would also be an option. However, since you mention -1 and -2, let me mention that since the change downvoting on questions does not cost any points. This change might contribute to possibly increased frequency of downvotes. | |
| Jul 7, 2013 at 19:05 | comment | added | Vidit Nanda | @quid thanks, I've made the change you suggested. What I had in mind was something like -1 to your reputation if you explain your downvote but -2 if you don't. | |
| Jul 7, 2013 at 19:03 | answer | added | user35354 | timeline score: 14 | |
| Jul 7, 2013 at 19:01 | history | edited | Vidit Nanda | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Following Quid's Suggestion to replace Enforce by Encourage
|
| Jul 7, 2013 at 18:45 | answer | added | Steven Landsburg | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jul 7, 2013 at 18:44 | comment | added | user9072 | This is an interesting discussion to be had, only I think the word "enforce" is not good. Because if you really want to enforce it the answers will be simple (yet unlikely to happen), such as change the software so that you can only downvote after posting a comment or voting on one, which would more or less enforce this (true somebody could vote up a non-critical cmnt, but it would catch most cases an one could develop on this). Or otherwise one needed to search the voting rec, when it happens, which seems even more infeasible or reveal downvotes. Perhaps change enforce to say encourage. | |
| Jul 7, 2013 at 18:27 | history | asked | Vidit Nanda | CC BY-SA 3.0 |