2
\$\begingroup\$

I agree that votes should be kept anonymous. However, it would be nice to be able to notify voters of changes, particularly down-voters.

For example, say a new user posts a question that's unfortunately worded and appears very off topic. That question would likely be down-voted. Then, later, the question may be updated to fit within the guidelines of the site. However, the down-votes remain.

It would be nice to be able to notify the down-voters of that situation. Perhaps via a comment tag "@Downvoters Please check my edits and see if your downvote is still warranted, thanks". The down-votes are for the question after all, not the user. So when the question is altered, shouldn't it get a chance at being reconsidered?

It has the additional benefit of allowing for clarification. It's unfortunate when I see a post with 2+ down-votes and no comments, especially when the reason for the down-votes might not be obvious to the OP. So someone can say "@Downvoters, can you please comment on why you're down-voting so I can improve the question/answer?"

I suppose we'd have to try it out to see if that creates too much notification spam.

While this does have the potential for abuse (giving angry people a way to yell at down-voters) I think that can be controlled the same way any other uncivil comment is dealt with (and likely more swiftly since people will be alerted to it!).

\$\endgroup\$

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2
\$\begingroup\$

I believe this is a moot point as many community members up-vote any question they feel is unfairly downvoted. If a question is at -2 and the author rewrites it so that it is a good question it quickly jumps back to neutral.

Anyways leaving a vote should not be a long term investment. Its an judgment of the question at that moment. The asker should just take the time to write it correctly in the first place and if they don't get over the initial down-votes.

So I think it generates spam to try and fix something that is not broken. Anyways do you have an example of a question that was poorly written and and wasn't upvoted back to at least neutral after being fixed?

Stop. Example time.

How can I use WebGL to create a tile-based multi-layer scrolling platform game?

This was originally a bunch of whining about how hard WebGL is with a 2 questions mixed in. It was quickly down voted to -3 or so. It got rewritten a bit and was an ok question and was positive before the bounty was added.

I don't believe the question would have 7 upvotes if originally written as it is in its current state. I believe that 4 of those votes were just people popping in to see if why the question was negative, disagreeing with the current score, and trying to offset the down votes. In other words negative questions get additional upvotes unrelated to the user's individual interest because they are negative. I see nothing to fix.

\$\endgroup\$
6
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I don't have a specific example. I wouldn't call it a moot point even if the question did go back to neutral. If the question was -4/+4, it's at 0 but not receiving the attention a +4 question might. Your second paragraph seems to be implying that the down-votes are punishment for the OP for writing a bad question. \$\endgroup\$
    – House
    Commented Sep 11, 2012 at 17:35
  • \$\begingroup\$ My point is the question wouldn't have gotten those +4 if it it hadn't gotten down to -4. The +4 is people disagreeing with the downvotes not expressing that they like the question. \$\endgroup\$
    – ClassicThunder
    Commented Sep 11, 2012 at 17:57
  • \$\begingroup\$ So you're saying that since people apparently just up-vote to "undo" what they think are "unjust" down-votes, we shouldn't try to find other ways to fix the problem? I'm not sure how you can know the +4 is only people repealing the -4. The example you list was down to -5, then edited by me. Luckily, one of the down-voters replied to my request. That's not always the case. It would have been better to be able to address them directly and ask the reason for the down-votes. It still has -4/+7, netting +3. I think it would get a lot more attention as a +7 than it would as a +3. \$\endgroup\$
    – House
    Commented Sep 11, 2012 at 18:22
  • \$\begingroup\$ "I think it would get a lot more attention as a +7 than it would as a +3." Assuming it would have gotten to +7 if posted as it in now, which I doubt. Its a how do I do the most basic of basics using a technology. +3 is high for such a question because the op can usually (and in this case can) answer his own question with some basic googling. \$\endgroup\$
    – ClassicThunder
    Commented Sep 11, 2012 at 18:31
  • \$\begingroup\$ "So you're saying that since people apparently just up-vote to "undo" what they think are "unjust" down-votes, we shouldn't try to find other ways to fix the problem?" I'm saying there is already too much "moderator" intervention and not to fix what isn't broken. Unless you can convince me something is broken or unfair I see no reason to change things. The guy wrote a very bad question and if got down voted. It got kina fixed (still a bad question imo) and is now positive. What is to fix? I don't see "The Problem". \$\endgroup\$
    – ClassicThunder
    Commented Sep 11, 2012 at 18:41
  • \$\begingroup\$ That's fine, it may not be a problem for everyone. It's simply a request for better communication. It's not required to be used, but I believe I've made the case for the situation where it could be useful. \$\endgroup\$
    – House
    Commented Sep 11, 2012 at 18:46

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .