Welcome to Codidact Meta!
Codidact Meta is the meta-discussion site for the Codidact community network and the Codidact software. Whether you have bug reports or feature requests, support questions or rule discussions that touch the whole network – this is the site for you.
Post History
I know this is not a popular stance, but I agree with you. I have seen first hand the problems caused by anonymous voting on SE, especially anonymous downvotes. Whenever there is a way to do any h...
Answer
#2: Post edited
by
Olin Lathrop
·
2020-10-09T16:27:44Z (over 3 years ago)
- I know this is not a popular stance, but I agree with you.
I have seen first hand the problems caused by anonymous voting on SE, especially anonymous downvotes. Whenever there is a way to do any harm without any being identified, vandals will do so, or it will be done for personal reasons and not the intended ones. This is true in the wider world, not just on line.- We have kicked around the idea of having two types of votes, signed and unsigned. The signed votes would carry more weight. Unsigned downvotes would only be displayed in a tally, but would be unable to cause harm to the author (reducing rep or any similar metric) or the post (change the score and sort order).
- The main argument I've heard for anonymous votes is that people will feel more free to express their opinion. There is certainly some truth to that, but it is limited. If someone is not willing to stand behind their decision, then the value of that decision is diminished. Put another way, the few votes we might lose wouldn't have had much value anyway.
- On the other side, anonymous downvotes invite vandals and retribution voters. I have seen this first hand many times on SE. Some people apparently haven't experienced this at all, but that doesn't make it less real.
- Some argue that public downvotes will lead to escalating retribution votes. That is unproven since these same people refuse to even try it. I believe exactly the opposite will happen. People feel free to cast retribution downvotes because they are anonymous. If all votes, or at least all downvotes, were public, retribution voters could be seen, and they would then look stupid or petty.
- I know this is not a popular stance, but I agree with you.
- I have seen first hand the problems caused by anonymous voting on SE, especially anonymous downvotes. Whenever there is a way to do any harm without being identified, vandals will do so, or it will be done for personal reasons and not the intended ones. This is true in the wider world, not just on line.
- We have kicked around the idea of having two types of votes, signed and unsigned. The signed votes would carry more weight. Unsigned downvotes would only be displayed in a tally, but would be unable to cause harm to the author (reducing rep or any similar metric) or the post (change the score and sort order).
- The main argument I've heard for anonymous votes is that people will feel more free to express their opinion. There is certainly some truth to that, but it is limited. If someone is not willing to stand behind their decision, then the value of that decision is diminished. Put another way, the few votes we might lose wouldn't have had much value anyway.
- On the other side, anonymous downvotes invite vandals and retribution voters. I have seen this first hand many times on SE. Some people apparently haven't experienced this at all, but that doesn't make it less real.
- Some argue that public downvotes will lead to escalating retribution votes. That is unproven since these same people refuse to even try it. I believe exactly the opposite will happen. People feel free to cast retribution downvotes because they are anonymous. If all votes, or at least all downvotes, were public, retribution voters could be seen, and they would then look stupid or petty.
#1: Initial revision
by
Olin Lathrop
·
2020-10-09T16:19:44Z (over 3 years ago)
I know this is not a popular stance, but I agree with you. I have seen first hand the problems caused by anonymous voting on SE, especially anonymous downvotes. Whenever there is a way to do any harm without any being identified, vandals will do so, or it will be done for personal reasons and not the intended ones. This is true in the wider world, not just on line. We have kicked around the idea of having two types of votes, signed and unsigned. The signed votes would carry more weight. Unsigned downvotes would only be displayed in a tally, but would be unable to cause harm to the author (reducing rep or any similar metric) or the post (change the score and sort order). The main argument I've heard for anonymous votes is that people will feel more free to express their opinion. There is certainly some truth to that, but it is limited. If someone is not willing to stand behind their decision, then the value of that decision is diminished. Put another way, the few votes we might lose wouldn't have had much value anyway. On the other side, anonymous downvotes invite vandals and retribution voters. I have seen this first hand many times on SE. Some people apparently haven't experienced this at all, but that doesn't make it less real. Some argue that public downvotes will lead to escalating retribution votes. That is unproven since these same people refuse to even try it. I believe exactly the opposite will happen. People feel free to cast retribution downvotes because they are anonymous. If all votes, or at least all downvotes, were public, retribution voters could be seen, and they would then look stupid or petty.