Shorter version: downvotes are more likely to be thoughtless.
Shorter version: downvotes are more likely to be thoughtless.
This is why democracy + free speech (in theory, at least) works. No matter how unpopular, a voice cannot be silenced. If you don't like a person's viewpoints, you can't shut them down by downvoting them; you can only upvote the viewpoint you do like, and / or present your own position yourself, if no one else has done it.
For example, in my Facebook application Wildfire stories are up voted only if you pass then on to your friends. As you mentioned to me yesterday, delicious/popular is interesting because it's based on pages people bookmarked for themselves.
John.
Comments are useful, but that slants towards controversial topics.
Personally I miss having the option of a downvote. Yes I agree downvotes can be an uninformed reflex, but removing any voice of disagreement seems overly harsh.
I'd say have upvotes that count as 10 points, and downvotes that count as 1 point or something like that.
Wouldn't it be interesting, then, if instead of editing a metadatum, clicking the arrow made a duplicate of the post (or, rather, a Post object with the votee as its prototype), which then stacked under the original...
"'A stacked comment' posted by bob, joe, fred"
Should I upvote every other article to express my opinion? :)
People who agree with an article/think it's important/useful have an immediate way to express that in a useful way - an upvote.
You don't have the same capability if you strongly disagree with an article, see it as unimportant, not relevant, or off-topic. I still think that's a shame.
Do other people find the same thing?