Re:Observations on what's getting downvoted, with some disse...
by enraged_camel on Sunday October 14, 2012 @02:24PM
(#4652084)
Exactly. There is a huge gap between how the system was designed to work and how it actually works.
What upvoting is supposed to be: "Good post that adds a lot to the discussion."
What it really is: "I agree with this guy."
What downvoting is supposed to be: "Person is spamming, making a weak point or arguing in an inflammatory manner."
What it really is: "You're wrong shut the hell up."
This problem could be fixed if people were forced to give a reason for their upvotes and downvotes. Imagine if every time you click upvote, a small textbox appears that has a list of predefined options, such as "valid point" or "good contribution" or "i learned something". Similarly, every time you click downvote, it automatically takes you to the Reply page; if you don't reply, your downvote does not go through.
This kind of transparency would encourage people to be more thoughtful when they cast their votes.
What upvoting is supposed to be: "Good post that adds a lot to the discussion." What it really is: "I agree with this guy."
What downvoting is supposed to be: "Person is spamming, making a weak point or arguing in an inflammatory manner." What it really is: "You're wrong shut the hell up."
This problem could be fixed if people were forced to give a reason for their upvotes and downvotes. Imagine if every time you click upvote, a small textbox appears that has a list of predefined options, such as "valid point" or "good contribution" or "i learned something". Similarly, every time you click downvote, it automatically takes you to the Reply page; if you don't reply, your downvote does not go through.
This kind of transparency would encourage people to be more thoughtful when they cast their votes.