Timeline for Why does voting down decrement Reputation
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 25, 2014 at 14:41 | vote | accept | Nandhu | ||
| Mar 25, 2014 at 14:41 | |||||
| Mar 23, 2014 at 21:01 | history | edited | Lucio | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
fixed point of view
|
| Mar 23, 2014 at 20:56 | comment | added | Lucio | Yeah, now that I read it again I think the same. I explained it on a different (wrong) way. Edited! | |
| Mar 23, 2014 at 20:54 | comment | added | Eliah Kagan | That seems like a totally different (and far more plausible) reason for the system to take away -1 from downvoters, than the reason given in your answer above. After all, a user who downvotes many, many times per day is still not serially downvoting unless they target a specific user with the downvotes (rather than distributing them based on the content of posts they dislike). With that said, if we think a post is not useful to anyone, we certainly should downvote it! | |
| Mar 23, 2014 at 20:53 | comment | added | Lucio | The lose of reputation make you think twice. Whit that in mind you won't be voting every single post that you don't find useful, but you will use that power with poor quality posts. | |
| Mar 23, 2014 at 20:51 | history | edited | Lucio | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
fixed grammar
|
| Mar 23, 2014 at 20:50 | comment | added | Eliah Kagan | Is this really why? Serial downvoting is automatically caught and reversed by the system; in the rare cases that it isn't, posts can be flagged for moderators who can look into it. Furthermore, the rep loss for downvoting is very low--once someone has a couple thousand rep, or even a couple hundred, the -1 for downvoting someone else seems mostly symbolic and I have a hard time believing it would deter anyone who is already willing to break the community's social norms and rules by targeting another user with downvotes. | |
| Mar 23, 2014 at 19:15 | history | answered | Lucio | CC BY-SA 3.0 |