A bit of kindness vs. Ripping into newbs' attempts at answers

Question

I don't have much experience with meta on this site, though I do remember this question. Per the accepted answer there, I agree that constantly coddling those who post new questions of poor quality, repeatedly, do not deserve ongoing attention and must have their questions closed.

However...

First, I'd like to say a couple of things. I've gone through some life changes since I first got on this site 5 years ago. I've realised the real value of kindness, and I remember a certain senior player on the site who made life hell for me when I started out here (who is happily no longer around). I also remember a phase where I made life hell for some folks; I was dealing with my own issues then.

I appreciate that this is a gaming-related site and gaming has a whole set of stigmas around it: competitiveness, rampant bravado, intellectual duelling, etc. etc. I'm not boxing this site as being only those things, but they sometimes come through. Some apply to programming more broadly.

Do we have to criticise new users into hiding, and downvote their humble attempts at answers over the most trivial things, putting them on -1 before they can even think, or for things that are just unreasonable? We all know how the -1 dynamic works; once you hit -1, chances of getting any upvotes are pretty much annulled. That should be saved for worst cases.

I don't like this kind of thing when I see high-ranked members doing it, members with a vested interest in this site. I'm in my late thirties now, and I try to accept that I'm not one of the younger folk anymore, and I'm not new to my field, either. I have knowledge to impart, and with that seniority comes a duty to be kind to those less knowledgable and reputable... and often younger.

One must appreciate that tearing up and throwing out the window what people have put time and effort into crafting - their answers - is a slap in the face and gives you and the rest of us high-ranked users, a bad name... Why? Because that's the nature of privilege. I have had hateful comments directed at me before on this site due to my perceived privilege, undeserved. We are grouped that way in the newcomers mind... as top-rankers. In spite of the fact that the vast majority of the top members on this site are peaceful and at ease in their position - just as they should be.

Let's not be stackoverflow. We're a smaller community with far greater control over how we treat newcomers. We set the tone. It's one thing when we old hands duel amongst one another... quite another to pick on a greenhorn. Just please, think twice before dropping someone to -1.

Answer 1

Generally speaking, if I find an answer that is of poor quality, I do check to see how new a person is. If they are low reputation, I typically give them a few pointers. If the answer is salvageable, then I'll see what I can do to fix it, or make suggestions on how to do so. If not, then I'll recommend it for deletion, after a comment.

If it is evident that the user is simply trolling, then I downvote/flag without hesitation.

Answer 2

I agree that being helpful and nurturing towards new or relatively inexperienced (in terms of activity on the site) users is important. Further, it's always important to be nice and civil to one's fellow users, regardless of their experience with the site. And certainly I think that there's always room to do this better, for all of us.

I don't completely agree with the idea that voting down a question is mean or otherwise inappropriate in and of itself. StackExchange tries to encourage or enforce the idea that you vote on the content not the person. True, that content is tied to a person and the effect of voting on that content is reflected in a number on that person's profile. Ultimately, however, I think the more important goal for the site is the curation of good content, and that that goal takes priority -- even if by just a hair -- over concerns about the psychological impact a negative score or minor dip in one's reputation will have on a user.

That is not to say, however, that entirely disregarding the person on the other end of the post is acceptable. Good content doesn't happen without good users, and I think it's true that we could all spend a little more time to take a look at the history of a user we're about to down vote, and if that user seems new or inexperienced, maybe think a little harder about leaving an explanatory comment as well to help the user learn. Or at least help them feel that there are people on the other end of that score widget and not droves of mindless internet hate machines.

There's nothing we can do to police voting, by design. Your votes are yours and barring flagrant violations like sock-puppet or serial voting (which we do have tools to police), you can do with them what you will. But please, do vote conscientiously. Remember that we are a community of people with a particular common interest, and while we want to build something that is itself greater than that community, we can't do that without welcoming new people. And showing them the ropes.

Answer 3

Unfortunately, I think this will fall on deaf ears.

Those who care don't hit new users head with a hammer, and those who should care, those your post targets, probably don't read meta, or don't think the message is for them.

---

Additionally, what does imply refraining from downvoting a question from 0 to -1?

• From a poster point of view it is "My answer is neither useful, nor not useful.", i.e. "My answer is OK; I'm not too bad!" (while it's wrong).
• From a voter point of view "Ok, well I'll wait for someone not smart, or someone cuddly, gives them an upvote (just to be kind?) so I can then downvote it to bring it back to zero." This strips the users from their own rights, i.e. using the site the way it was designed. Downvoting is not free, it has a cost, and in my humble opinion, never done lightly.

This would then raise the next question: "Could we not downvote new users from square one to square zero, in case someone upvoted the question?".

Why should there be a threshold where one would refrain from voting, and how is it based on 0?

---

I know how it could feel getting -1 (or below), but to be honest, stack exchange sites are based on content. If someone posts poor, bad or inaccurate content, a downvote should go to the post (not to the user). The user then has ways to fix it: he/she can delete the poor post and re-write one better, or try to improve it.

---

In conclusion: I take your post as "Let's be more kind and more friendly with the users." Yes, I agree. Not using the downvote button is not the solution. The downvote should be used, as well with comments. If one downvotes, it would be a good practice to 1) leave a comment and 2) come back later and remove the downvote (and maybe upvote) if the answer as been improved.