Timeline for A minor gripe about upvoting things that have been downvoted [pity upvotes]
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 18, 2021 at 8:31 | comment | added | Nij | No, it isn't. Upvotes significantly outweigh the downvotes in both number and rep value, despite long-standing issues of quality and the high proportion of closures on Math SE compared with other sites. If anything, upvotes are where we have a "quality control" issue. Almost nobody posts a comment saying what they really liked about a post either. | |
| Nov 18, 2021 at 6:28 | comment | added | user2661923 | @Nij Ignoring the issue around unexplained (i.e. anonymous) downvotes, it seems that the mathSE reviewer should have some rational reason for downvoting a mathSE posting, even if they don't tell anyone what that reason is. This begs the question: is quality control on anonymous downvoting on mathSE articles (not meta-mathSE) a problem? | |
| Nov 18, 2021 at 6:26 | comment | added | user2661923 | @Nij Yes, I think that your point is very well taken. I was hoping to avoid controversy by glossing over an issue, but now I have to bring it up. There seems to be a clear trend on mathSE (not meta-mathSE) that there is no quality control on anonymous downvotes (i.e. where no explanation is given to the OP). Interesting how this meta-answer is now at $(-4)$ and yet no one has said (in response to my meta-posting): "I think that the original mathSE question is defective because...". ...see next comment | |
| Nov 18, 2021 at 5:58 | comment | added | Nij | "Does not deserve to be downvoted" is completely separate from "deserves to be upvoted". You only get one vote per post for a reason - you determine your own vote for yourself. The score is the net result of all individual votes for a reason - it is not the ends that you should be seeking to manipulate. | |
| Nov 18, 2021 at 4:15 | history | answered | user2661923 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |