Downvotes, on the other hand, are not self-explanatory. Posters, apart from trolls, don't post things they know to be flawed. They post things they think contribute some useful information -- they know why they should be upvoted. They may or not be able to figure out why they're downvoted.

Isn't this somewhat of a double standard?

If upvotes are based simply on perception, why not accept that downvotes are also based simply on perception?

My perception, FWIW, is that mild criticism is much harder to accept than mild praise.

In fact I'd go so far as to say that people will agree with almost any statement made about them provided that it is a mild compliment.

If upvotes are based simply on perception, why not accept that downvotes are also based simply on perception?

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "based simply on perception", as you seem to suggest that perception obviates explanation. Votes are based on understanding the merits (or lack thereof) of the post. However, it is reasonable to assume that a poster understands why you upvoted -- it is for the same reason that he thought the post was worth making. It is not reasonable to assume that he understands why you downvoted, except, perhaps, in the case of a proposal, where downvoting is often used to signal disagreement.

---

The PerlMonk tr/// Advocate