I was not suggesting that one couldn't explain what one liked about a post, but that such explanation was generally redundant. Those who ++ without additional comment have nothing to add or correct. Those who -- clearly do think something should be added or corrected. In some cases, other monks might already have responded, pointing out the problem; in others, better answers may have been offered, and their context makes the reason for the downvote discernible. But a number of downvotes are just drive-bys that leave the poster frustrated at being slapped without receiving any useful feedback.

Those voters are jackasses, IMO, and considering how often this topic gets raised, I'm not alone in that assessment.

Those who ++ without additional comment have nothing to add or correct.

Huh? Are you saying that ++ votes are meaningless? People just vote because they need the exercise for their fingers? Voting should be symmetric: downvote bad post, upvote good post. Don't upvote just because the best you can think of the post is "nothing to add or correct" - you might as well downvote such a post. If there's nothing to add or correct, it's a neutral post, and should receive no votes.

who -- clearly do think something should be added or corrected.

Yeah, but ++ voters do think the post was above what could be expected. If you want to press for a policy that -- voters tell why they -- voted, than please be symmetric, and insist ++ voters justify their actions as well.

Those voters are jackasses, IMO, and considering how often this topic gets raised, I'm not alone in that assessment.

It seems to me the topic is raised by whiners who can't stand receiving downvotes, but who never seem to question their upvotes. I never see a thread started about "I'm getting upvotes, but noone tells me why".

Abigail

Huh? Are you saying that ++ votes are meaningless?

No. ++ votes mean it was an especially good post. The lack of additional comment means there was nothing to add or correct.

there's nothing to add or correct, it's a neutral post, and should receive no votes.

No. If a post is thorough, what needs to be added? If it's exactly what I would have said, but said better, why shouldn't I upvote it? If it's something I wouldn't have thought of, but a great idea, I should upvote it.

It seems to me the topic is raised by whiners who can't stand receiving downvotes, but who never seem to question their upvotes.

I'm sure that such a smug prejudice is much preferable to reading and understanding what's written. As I've explained several times already, people know why they get upvotes -- it's for the same reason that they thought their post was worth making. And the threads -- including this one -- are started by people who find it frustrating to get no useful feedback that would help them improve their posts.

Update: An explanation of why you got a ++ would not likely give you any information on how to improve your posts. The ++ is not an indicator that you need to improve it.

---

The PerlMonk tr/// Advocate

Agreed Abigail, if every vote is cast well and in good faith, there is nothing wrong with 50% up and 50% down, or whatever the odd ratio is that happens. And since everyone thinks differently, the upvotes and downvotes will all balance out in the long run. Not having a set procedure, and leaving fickle humans in control, is perfectly fine.

But seriously, why do we care about XP past level 5 (home node pic) anyway? It's meaningless. Let's not talk about the sports forum where I led total posts for like 3 years ... again, I don't have that title now, but when I did I wanted to get rid of it. It made me stand out like sort of message board geek (which I am, BTW, but ah well) ...

You are overstating the case. Those who ++ could well have something to add or correct, but they don't. Those who -- might have nothing but their (perhaps incorrect) perception of the node, or they might be voting randomly, or they might be voting for reasons that have nothing to do with the node.

Any of these jackasses care to comment?

You are overstating the case.

I am giving the general case. There's no productive purpose in discussing the pathological cases.

Those who -- might have nothing but their (perhaps incorrect) perception of the node

This makes no sense. Of course they have nothing but their perception of it. How could they have more than they perceive? And why would that preclude them from sharing their perception?

---

The PerlMonk tr/// Advocate