in reply to Re^4: /msg me the reason of -- (both)
in thread /msg me the reason of --

LOL. Well, it should be noted that this argument is about downvotes in the technical realm, ie "doing it that way is wrong", rather than the social realm, ie "you're being offensive and rude". What I was getting at is that I find it much easier to stomach "your way of doing things described in 123456 sucks" than "you suck" or even "your node sucks".

Of course it's a whole different game with downvotes for social reasons.

Makeshifts last the longest.

  • Comment on Re^5: /msg me the reason of -- (source of suckage)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: /msg me the reason of -- (sucks eq sucks)
by tye (Sage) on Dec 01, 2003 at 19:53 UTC

    Even saying "it would be better if you did X in node Y" is a criticism of the author of the node. It is likely a much more polite and less personal criticism than most and so is easier for the author to take well.

    If you accompany it with a downvote (and tell the author you have done so), then you have "added injury to insult" and made it much more likely that the author will take it personally or otherwise poorly. The author has reason for that, especially if your downvote cost the author one XP, IMO.

    As I said, I don't feel justified in downvoting a node simply because "it would be better if you did X" in it. That is a reason to reply (or perhaps /msg the author).

    I guess that since I sometimes downvote a node because it is rated higher than some "better" node in the same thread, there are cases where I don't expect the author to take the downvote personally. But part of why I think the author can manage to not take such a downvote personally is because it is a downvote on a node with positive reputation (higher than some other node with positive rep) and so is less likely to cost an XP and is late enough after the node was posted that the rep change is also unlikely to be noticed.

    Calling their attention to the downvote by mentioning it to them removes this posibility and I find it quite expected that it also makes it likely that the author will take such an announced downvote badly.

    I hope and believe that when a "compensating" downvote is noticed, the impact is much lower. I certainly hear few complaints about such and find them much easier to take on the rare occasions when I notice them.

                    - tye
[reply]

      Parents are told to express disapproval of the actions of their children, rather than of the children themselves. That is because there is a difference between criticizing someone's actions and criticizing them as a person. Otherwise we wouldn't need to read nodes, just look at who wrote them.

      In case it appeared any differently, please note I'm not arguing that every or even just every one in ten votes should be explained. (That would silly due to the traffic alone; all we'd be talking about anymore would be votes.) I'm simply stating that most voting is not personal, and that remembering this would help not to take downvotes personally.

      I don't feel justified in downvoting a node simply because "it would be better if you did X" in it.

      There's difference between "it would be better if you X" and "it is wrong to Y". I won't downvote on the former either, but may on the latter, and will certainly feel compelled to reply and correct it in addition to a downvote. If it has been corrected by someone else, I might just downvote or might not do anything. It really depends on circumstances - my guideline is mostly "will it lead to problems for someone else to take this advice?".

      Makeshifts last the longest.

[reply]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion