Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
P is for Practical
 
PerlMonks  

About giving reasons for downvoting (Was: Re: Re: Interesting use of the chatterbox...)

by Dog and Pony (Priest)
on Apr 12, 2002 at 09:45 UTC ( #158534=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: Interesting use of the chatterbox...
in thread Interesting use of the chatterbox...

I'm gonna be a bad boy and follow this sidetrack instead of the real discussion. :)
...just don't blindly downvote because you disagree. Write a reply... Please.
Sometimes I think this should be written in big letters beside the "Vote" button, because I can't recall one single time anyone has given me a reason for a downvote (although it has probably happened)... and that has sometimes, even often, left me pretty puzzled as to why I am getting them. Especially if my answer to something is correct, although not perfect - and I most oftenly try to be just polite and helpful (do I succeed? dunno). I'd really, really appreciate the feedback, so I can learn something, if I did something wrong.

It was especially annoying in cases like I dare you to run this. - I even rant about it in the node... . Funny thing is that I got lots of personal positive messages about the node (in my standard), then it got at a guess about 40-50 votes, of which a third was down ones... was a real rollercoaster, and thus pretty funny. If I had gotten any reasons... (still none to this date) - the downvoting doesn't bother me, if it is for a reason.

I still wonder why people are so reluctant to explain themselves? They afraid to get an enemy, or to be downvoted themselves? Just lazy? Not deeming the target worth it? Any of the reasons? All? Probably a little of this, a little of that, and it depends...

Sadly, I guess I am guilty myself. I will try to be better. Update: *Laughs at tjh* - yes, a Confession section would be great... haha. :) Nooooo... not a MattScript!!! Please...


You have moved into a dark place.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
  • Comment on About giving reasons for downvoting (Was: Re: Re: Interesting use of the chatterbox...)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: About giving reasons for downvoting (Was: Re: Re: Interesting use of the chatterbox...)
by tjh (Curate) on Apr 12, 2002 at 14:22 UTC
    "Sadly, I guess I am guilty myself. I will try to be better."

    I've often wondered if we needed a formal "Confessional" section in the monastary. :)

    Well done, my son. For your penance, recite perlfaq7, satisfactorily improve at least one MattScript, and use strict for a year.

    LOL; however, treating others like we want to be treated (in CB, for instance) is a Good Thing.

Re: About giving reasons for downvoting (Was: Re: Re: Interesting use of the chatterbox...)
by thelenm (Vicar) on Apr 12, 2002 at 14:48 UTC
    If I ever downvote you, I'll give you a reason. :-) I'm surprised no one has. I would guess maybe it's all the reasons you gave: laziness, fear of "retaliation", desire not to make enemies... but I don't know.

    Personally (though I'm pretty new here), I really haven't found a reason for downvoting any node so far. I don't think I would downvote a node that raises interesting points like Necos's if I just happened to disagree with those points.

    Sorry, this is off-topic, but a discussion I'm curious about and interested in. Maybe we could start a new Perl Monks Discussion thread?

Re: About giving reasons for downvoting (Was: Re: Re: Interesting use of the chatterbox...)
by ariels (Curate) on May 06, 2002 at 07:16 UTC

    I admit it! I downvote without /msg'ing or replying! I upvote without /msg'ing or replying!

    When I have something to say, I say it. What if I don't? What about a poorly-written incorrect node, already replied-to and corrected? I have nothing to add. Posting a second correction is pointless -- I might as well post a copy of the reply that already exists. /msg'ing is pointless -- the author surely by now knows something's wrong! In this case, a downvote is the surest way of communicating agreement with the correction.

    What about a well-written correct node, already fully discussed in followups? I have nothing to add. Posting another followup is pointless -- I might as well post a copy of a reply that already exists. /msg'ing is pointless if I have nothing new to add -- the author surely by now knows everything's right! In this case, an upvote is the surest way of communicating agreement with the writeup.

    There's no difference between the 2 cases. Words should be used as necessary; upvotes should be used as necessary; downvotes should be used as necessary. I don't want to receive 50 /msg's just because some obscure writeup of mine reaches rep +33 (exercise for the reader: prove that this is in any case impossible). I don't want to send over 30 /msg's a day just for giving feedback.

    I fully expect everyone to downvote me when I add a followup consisting of the words "Yes. I agree." after a really good writeup. I'll even skip my inalienable "post-downvote-/msg'ing rights".

    When /msg's and replies are warranted, use them. When they're not, don't. Do the same with your votes. And combine these tools, when appropriate.


    UPDATE. I also reserve the right to downvote unchecked incorrect code, incorrect claims about relative speeds of 2 techniques, or incorrect claims that there exists a speed difference when measurement would show there is none. However, in those cases I'll often explain myself...

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://158534]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others musing on the Monastery: (2)
As of 2020-08-12 04:32 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    Which rocket would you take to Mars?










    Results (64 votes). Check out past polls.

    Notices?