I think it has more to do with how thoughtless downvoting/upvoting can be in some implementations. But this isn't inherent to the upvote system. Requiring a comment for each vote to explain the user's position, for example, can curb this tendency.
> Requiring a comment for each vote to explain the user's position, for example, can curb this tendency.
Why not just remove the vote altogether? So commenters have to say something about why they agree/disagree/feel the need to comment.
And then maybe allow interest groups to form naturally. With a standardised protocol for exchanging messages, so there was no centralised owner of all data. And everyone pays for it implicitly through their ISP fees, like they do for other basic services like email or DNS. Instead of having their data milked, processed and fed back like some grotesque combination of Orwellian fiction and mad cow disease.
That sounds like a much more civilised way to Use the Net. Maybe we could call it something like, I dunno, Usenet....?
I don't know if requiring a comment for an upvote is so necessary; but requiring a comment (or an upvote of a comment) in order to downvote seems like it could help. I think the problem with upvoting tends to exist where there is no downvoting.
I'm mostly at peace with net scores on my replies, though I feel a bit confused when the scores down without explanation. I think it is healthy to some extent to seek validation, but in order for it to be productive, I think we ought to know why people feel the way they do about what we say.
I agree, but that applies just as well to downvotes. I don't have good ideas how to run a required-comment-to-vote system, I just don't see the asymmetry between up and down.
Maybe I wasn't clear in saying that I don't think it should be necessary to comment in order to downvote, but I think it should be required to upvote a reply in order to downvote (or make your own reply).
