Should we step up our voting culture?

Question

I've noticed more than a few questionable answers lately, most have received the typical "welcome to the site, but..." sort of comments, but it doesn't look like these comments are accompanied by votes. Which is admittedly concerning.

Should we step up our downvote game?

Like comments are nice and welcoming, and all, but when we're really trying to get the message across that these answers don't fit here, we may be doing ourselves a disservice by holding back.

I fully understand the counter argument. We want to welcome new users. We've done that on other sites, but it seems to me that we should welcome people and still expect them to toe the line. Holding back isn't really doing them or us a favor.

Answer 1

Yes.

Guilty as charged, for the record. I had started leaving comments, but I hadn't done as much downvoting. My strategy was

1. Comment on the post, if it doesn't meet the standards I'm (we're?) looking for.
2. Wait 12-24 hours to see if an edit is made.
3. If no edit is made that makes the answer good enough, downvote.

The big problem, of course, is that posts that aren't downvoted are more likely to be upvoted^{[citation needed]}, from what I've observed. If the post score stays at 0 (or above!), then things can get really bad, because 12 hours is more than enough time for the question to hit the Hot Network Questions list. If that happens, the answer might get enough upvotes that any downvote I could give it later wouldn't stop the tide.

The above is something I hadn't quite gotten through my head, and I should have. By voting, we let not just the writer, but also those who read the post in the future understand what our quality standards are. If we don't vote, we implicitly say, "Yeah, this answer's not that bad", and so people who swoop in from the rest of the network say, "Hey, this sounds about right" and upvote. And that's a problem.

So, yes, I think I'm guilty of commenting but not immediately downvoting with my comment, and I think continuing that could lead to problems down the road. I'll be freer with my votes in the future.

Answer 2

I'd like to cite a Physics.SE answer on meta:

I think that we are too reluctant to downvote [...]

And here's why:

First and foremost, votes are quality indicators. When I pass through and see a highly upvoted question, I think "Oh, nice, this is what physics is about, what physicists find interesting and how questions here should be". When I see a highly upvoted answer (without fights in the comments), I think: "This is probably correct and/or a useful way to think about the question - why else would they all upvote it?" What votes are emphatically not are judgements of the users.

I understand it may be disheartening to get downvotes, but votes are, not counting revenge voters and other "illegal" schemes, really just relating to the post they are cast on. They are no judgement of the user as a whole, and not casting a downvote because you are afraid of the effect it might have on the user just defeats the whole purpose of downvoting in two ways:

1. You let content you do not actually believe to be a good fit for the site slide by without an indicator (the -1) saying so. This, in turn, might invite more questions like it (since people can see similar questions have not been badly received). Additionally, it makes low positive vote counts essentially meaningless - if almost no downvotes are cast, votes in the 1-4 ranges are quite meaningless, because one or two upvotes are often quickly cast on almost all types of questions, even the blatantly off-topic and the really bad ones.
2. By making downvotes rare, you intensify the psychological effect a downvote has when it is actually cast, leading to "Why -1, step forward, cowardly downvoter!"-type comments and accusations for merely casting a downvote. This, in turn, leads to people thinking it is actually a grave decision to cast a downvote (since other don't seem to cast them lightly), and they might grow to use them more sparingly themselves.

I would also reference the conversation starting here in Computer Science Educator's chatroom The Classroom. There you can see some arguments made on both sides of the issue.

Answer 3

As a very new member, I think I may have an unexpected perspective on this that you might really appreciate:

In short, we should absolutely step up our voting culture!

I may be new here, but personal investments sites like this (and Wikipedia) are nothing – quite literally – without each user recognizing their very critical role as a member of the quality control crew. So, for those who really get it, the duty will be threefold:

1. improve the quality of the site (down-votes will inevitably lead to some deletions);

2. define the culture of the site (down-votes will set the tone and, over time, discourage "questionable" answers); and,

3. establish the practice of the quality control crew (consistent, fair use of down-votes, accompanied by positive, encouraging, informative comments, from all of us, will show everyone how it's to be done and our lead will, hopefully, be followed).

But I digress. Here is the unexpected perspective of which I spoke:

1. Down-vote as deterrent works.

On my first day here, I made the perfectly reasonable, very newbie mistake of thinking, "Hey, this thread is hot! Let me throw out a quick answer and try to get some quick up-votes." It, deservedly, received a down-vote instead.

I am competition-oriented, love sites with scoreboard type features, etc. Since I was paying attention to my points, the down-vote really stung ... kinda like getting slapped (hard) by the love of my life. Lesson learned! (I learned my lesson about hunting Rep by editing the same way.)

I hope this will remind us that we should be kind to users when we go about our task – leave a reason for the down-vote in the comments, some encouragement, etc.

2. Friendly comment alone as deterrent – much less likely to work.

In the above situation, if I'd gotten the friendly comment without a down-vote, it's possible I may have taken the advice to heart, maybe even tried to rewrite my answer, but I'm an editor and generally conscientious. I can't say for sure, but I think most people (especially if they posted their answer for no better reason than I did) would probably say to themselves, "well, that's one opinion; maybe someone else will up-vote it" and not change anything.

3. Down-votes are not necessarily detrimental to one's Reputation (which is a good thing – for them and us).

It's good to consider the negative consequences, but if we handle it positively, there shouldn't be much to worry about. Getting a down-vote will never be taken as positive or particularly diplomatic, and it could discourage participation here and there, but (just as an example again) I took the rebuke well; I knew that my intentions in posting the answer were less than pure. More importantly, I knew that I had the choice to sidestep any lasting negative effects of the down-vote by simply deleting my answer, and that's what I did.

So, I suggest we pretend our down-votes are a semi-limited resource (so we don't pull the trigger every time someone answers a question differently than we would), and then just be supportive in the comments ("this is why, but it's great you're contributing!") when we do deliver a down-vote.

Answer 4

Well, I suppose it's time to step up and accept my downvotes. ;D

I think we downvote too much. I understand the idea that we are trying to build a community and establish standards for it, but ...

Who is the community for? The users? A coterie of high-rep "guardians"? Sometimes I feel that there is too much "Vanguard Party" atmosphere; too much attempt to control the community instead of letting it blossom. There was a note above from HDE 226868:

If the post score stays at 0 (or above!), then things can get really bad, because 12 hours is more than enough time for the question to hit the Hot Network Questions list. If that happens, the answer might get enough upvotes that any downvote I could give it later wouldn't stop the tide.

Honestly, I'm not trying to be snarky here, but does this ring a little odd only to me? The HNQ crowd may be accidentally enouraging herd voting, but -- but -- aren't we trying to manipulate the same phenomenon on purpose?

I'll be fair and admit that I may be completely missing some key facet of SE philosophy. I come here because people are asking questions asking for advice, and lean heavily toward having people say what they want to say, how they want to say it.

I'll be even more fair and admit that my perception may be biased because close moderation has already removed weird or completely tangential text.

Still. Being afraid that people will upvote an answer before we can properly suppress it? Really? Really?

What I am I missing here, folks?

Anyway. Just gimme my damn downvotes. And do it quick, to lessen the chance that someone might actually upvote.