Re^2: Encouraging comments for downvotes

It seems reasonable to assume that those who upvoted such nodes did not see the flaws that you did. Upvotes are fairly self-explanatory: they simply mean that a reader thought the post was good (even if that perception is misguided). I suppose there's a chance that some upvoter, by explaining, might enlighten you to merits you had not discerned, but I doubt it.

Downvotes, on the other hand, are not self-explanatory. Posters, apart from trolls, don't post things they know to be flawed. They post things they think contribute some useful information -- they know why they should be upvoted. They may or not be able to figure out why they're downvoted.

The PerlMonk tr/// Advocate

Comment on Re^2: Encouraging comments for downvotes

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re^2: Encouraging comments for downvotes by EdwardG (Vicar) on Apr 05, 2004 at 16:14 UTC
Isn't this somewhat of a double standard? If upvotes are based simply on perception, why not accept that downvotes are also based simply on perception? My perception, FWIW, is that mild criticism is much harder to accept than mild praise. In fact I'd go so far as to say that people will agree with almost any statement made about them provided that it is a mild compliment.	[reply]
Re^4: Encouraging comments for downvotes by Roy Johnson (Monsignor) on Apr 05, 2004 at 16:26 UTC
If upvotes are based simply on perception, why not accept that downvotes are also based simply on perception? I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "based simply on perception", as you seem to suggest that perception obviates explanation. Votes are based on understanding the merits (or lack thereof) of the post. However, it is reasonable to assume that a poster understands why you upvoted -- it is for the same reason that he thought the post was worth making. It is not reasonable to assume that he understands why you downvoted, except, perhaps, in the case of a proposal, where downvoting is often used to signal disagreement. The PerlMonk `tr///` Advocate	[reply]
Re: Re^4: Encouraging comments for downvotes by diotalevi (Canon) on Apr 05, 2004 at 16:34 UTC
Votes are based on understanding the merits (or lack thereof) of the post. Speak for yourself. That only occasionally true for me. More commonly I'll vote on a batch of nodes to rearrange their sorting so the better nodes go the top. This means good nodes are --'ed as a side effect. This is also why it doesn't help to get worked up about what the actual reputation of anything is.	[reply]
Re^4: Encouraging comments for downvotes by Roy Johnson (Monsignor) on Apr 05, 2004 at 16:37 UTC
Re: Re^4: Encouraging comments for downvotes by EdwardG (Vicar) on Apr 05, 2004 at 19:09 UTC
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "based simply on perception" They were your words - Upvotes are fairly self-explanatory: they simply mean that a reader thought the post was good (even if that perception is misguided) ...did I misinterpret them?	[reply]
Re*: Encouraging comments for downvotes by Roy Johnson (Monsignor) on Apr 05, 2004 at 19:58 UTC
Re: Encouraging comments for downvotes by Abigail-II (Bishop) on Apr 05, 2004 at 23:13 UTC
Some notes below your chosen depth have not been shown here
Re: Re*: Encouraging comments for downvotes by EdwardG (Vicar) on Apr 05, 2004 at 20:22 UTC
Some notes below your chosen depth have not been shown here