-10
$\begingroup$

Would it be better if we make necessary for a member to comment/reason along with downvoting?

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ Nope: meta.chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/515/… The problem is that no one is obliged to explain their vote. And votes should be anonymous. And nothing stops the downvoter from posting gibberish as a comment; like "asdfasdfasdfasdf". And nothing stops the OP from revenge downvoting. And soooo many other reasons. At least, I explained my downvote. $\endgroup$ – M.A.R. Feb 15 '16 at 14:26
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ (Note that for feature requests on meta, downvotes mean "I disagree", nothing else) $\endgroup$ – M.A.R. Feb 15 '16 at 14:27
  • $\begingroup$ @IͶΔ POSTING OG GIBBERISH AS A COMMENT ; like adgadsgfsfdfhdht can be prevented by approving mechanism as in editing a question $\endgroup$ – JM97 Feb 15 '16 at 14:33
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ There are a gazillion comments being posted on the site everyday and a megagazillion downvotes are given. Even China can't reliably approve this many comments. $\endgroup$ – M.A.R. Feb 15 '16 at 14:52
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @IͶΔ never underestimate the power of China D= $\endgroup$ – Jan Feb 17 '16 at 18:04
16
$\begingroup$

This is literally the most asked question on the meta history of SE. Almost every per site meta gets it and the mother meta – meta.SE – well.

Just as I said in my comment:

  • Votes are meant to be anonymized and you shouldn't be to find out who voted how on what.
  • People would post useless comments to just bypass the requirement.
  • I don't want to be pestered with a meaningless requirement when I'm controlling quality on the site by downvoting a stupid not thought-out homework dump question.
  • Many downvotes are given fairly and a very minute fraction are not. What you propose takes that triviality into account.
  • This feature would discourage downvotes. We shouldn't discourage downvotes. We don't have enough of them.
  • . . .
| |
$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Covered it pretty well! $\endgroup$ – jonsca Feb 15 '16 at 23:25
14
$\begingroup$

No. I don't think this should be required for the reason of revenge downvoting.

I do think people should be more aware of what content should be downvoted. Yesterday I saw a chemistry homework question where the asker showed an image from their book (a homework question) and shared their reasoning as to why the answer was one of two options. While at first glance it DID look like one of those homework questions where the person simply leaves the question and expects us to answer, this question DID have reasoning and thought put into it.

The question was at maybe -3. It was a new user who had gone through the process of signing up, creating a username other than userxxxxx, and asked a question. It kind of made me sad... this is how the user was welcomed.

We're not a homework site, but I think we should appreciate users who want to learn through their homework.

I think if it's blatantly asking you to do their homework, a question that's rude, or breaks site rules... then go ahead and downvote. If you're not sure, then just don't upvote.

That's a major aside, but I think something worth mentioning.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ I agree with this. I would like to point out, that commenting on such issues should be considered. I often include: "A screenshot or picture of an exercise is not searchable. Please consider rewriting it, so that it can be of help for future visitors." $\endgroup$ – Martin - マーチン Feb 23 '16 at 8:37

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .