Votes are based on understanding the merits (or lack thereof) of the post.

Relative merits are still merits.

---

The PerlMonk tr/// Advocate

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "based simply on perception"

Upvotes are fairly self-explanatory: they simply mean that a reader thought the post was good (even if that perception is misguided)

"simply" was not my word, it was yours, and it looks like your usage equates "perception" to "impression" -- something vague and unexplainable. That wasn't my position.

I was not suggesting that one couldn't explain what one liked about a post, but that such explanation was generally redundant. Those who ++ without additional comment have nothing to add or correct. Those who -- clearly do think something should be added or corrected. In some cases, other monks might already have responded, pointing out the problem; in others, better answers may have been offered, and their context makes the reason for the downvote discernible. But a number of downvotes are just drive-bys that leave the poster frustrated at being slapped without receiving any useful feedback.

Those voters are jackasses, IMO, and considering how often this topic gets raised, I'm not alone in that assessment.

---

The PerlMonk tr/// Advocate

Those who ++ without additional comment have nothing to add or correct.

Huh? Are you saying that ++ votes are meaningless? People just vote because they need the exercise for their fingers? Voting should be symmetric: downvote bad post, upvote good post. Don't upvote just because the best you can think of the post is "nothing to add or correct" - you might as well downvote such a post. If there's nothing to add or correct, it's a neutral post, and should receive no votes.

who -- clearly do think something should be added or corrected.

Yeah, but ++ voters do think the post was above what could be expected. If you want to press for a policy that -- voters tell why they -- voted, than please be symmetric, and insist ++ voters justify their actions as well.

Those voters are jackasses, IMO, and considering how often this topic gets raised, I'm not alone in that assessment.

It seems to me the topic is raised by whiners who can't stand receiving downvotes, but who never seem to question their upvotes. I never see a thread started about "I'm getting upvotes, but noone tells me why".

Abigail

You are overstating the case. Those who ++ could well have something to add or correct, but they don't. Those who -- might have nothing but their (perhaps incorrect) perception of the node, or they might be voting randomly, or they might be voting for reasons that have nothing to do with the node.

Any of these jackasses care to comment?