in reply to Re: Re: Increased number of downvotes at the Monastery?
in thread Increased number of downvotes at the Monastery?

And your 50% figures leave no room for neutrality.

That is why I said For the nodes that I do vote on, I think it is only normal that 50% is down and 50% is up. Context is everything.

I don't vote a lot. When I vote, I think there should be as many downvotes as upvotes. In practice, most votes are upvotes, simply because there aren't that many bad nodes...

The only bit of information I can glean from them is that there are some jackasses around.

How unfortunate. That way, the downvotes were a waste of time. Someone's very subtly trying to tell you your post could have been much better. Not always do people reply or message you when you do something wrong, because you're supposed to in many cases be able to find out what was wrong yourself.

Should you be unable to guess why people downvote and still want to know, you can always ask in an update. I've done that several times and so far it has always worked.

But please, don't think that someone who downvotes is a jackass. If someone downvotes your post, that means they care enough about what you wrote to let you know that they don't like it. It's a bit like a relationship: you fight because you CARE.

Just so you know: I downvoted this node's parent node because you didn't pay attention. (Note that I always try to vote on replies to my nodes. People who take the time to answer me IMHO deserve to know what I think of their answers.)

Juerd # { site => 'juerd.nl', plp_site => 'plp.juerd.nl', do_not_use => 'spamtrap' }

  • Comment on Re: Re: Re: Increased number of downvotes at the Monastery?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Increased number of downvotes at the Monastery?
by Roy Johnson (Monsignor) on Mar 11, 2004 at 17:36 UTC
    you can always ask in an update. I've done that several times and so far it has always worked.
    It hasn't worked for me.
    But please, don't think that someone who downvotes is a jackass.
    Frankly, you've done nothing to convince me otherwise. You downvoted my post because it contained one erroneous point. That's hardly an expression that it "could have been much better."
    It's a bit like a relationship: you fight because you CARE.
    You just don't CARE enough to discuss it. Downvoting isn't fighting, it's sniping. There's no interaction. It's an expression that the post was so bad, it doesn't merit a reply.
    People who take the time to answer me IMHO deserve to know what I think of their answers.
    And you think that a reply is too subtle? They really need a vote? Feh.

    Just so you know, I didn't vote on your posts. But you do know what I think about them, don't you?

    The PerlMonk tr/// Advocate
[reply]

      (re downvoting) There's no interaction.

      The voting itself is interaction.

      It's an expression that the post was so bad, it doesn't merit a reply.

      Perhaps that is how you view downvotes. I do not. Usually when I downvote, I reply and tell what is wrong with the post (not saying anything about how I voted). UNLESS someone has already done so OR the post is just a stupid flame.

      And you think that a reply is too subtle?

      No, a reply is not subtle at all.

      They really need a vote?

      There is no question of *need* regarding XP or votes.

      Just so you know, I didn't vote on your posts. But you do know what I think about them, don't you?

      I can guess. You choose how you vote. I'm not saying any voting strategy is bad, as long as you vote for nodes, not people. You chose not to vote, I chose to vote. We both have our reasons for doing (or not doing) so. One of the reasons I vote for most replies is that I have plenty of votes to cast.

      Juerd # { site => 'juerd.nl', plp_site => 'plp.juerd.nl', do_not_use => 'spamtrap' }

[reply]
        The voting itself is interaction.
        Not from my POV. It's just reaction.
        Usually when I downvote, I reply and tell what is wrong with the post
        But that's not the situation we were discussing. I mentioned that the downvotes were both unexplained and inexplicable (not flames, not inaccurate, not even re-orderable when viewing by reputation).
        There is no question of *need* regarding XP or votes.
        Context, my friend: you said that the vote told them what you thought of their post. Why is it necessary to provide a vote to tell them what you thought of their post, when you provided a reply? That is what is meant by "They really need a vote?"
        The PerlMonk tr/// Advocate
[reply]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion