Every now and then an answer is (fully or partially) based on a myth.  Myth, as in: there is literally zero evidence that supports it, yet many swear it is true  This of course leads to a certain amount of agreement and upvotes. Depending on the popularity of the myth and the amount of good counter-evidence, the amount of upvotes can be much higher than downvotes.  What can we do in such cases when the "myth believers" are in majority?   Write a comment that there is no evidence for the claim? Edit the answer? (remove the false claim? or maybe leave it and note that it is a common misconception?) Ask for supporting evidence? (this is basically same as 1) Something else? (give up and let the myth grow, as SE is a quite popular source of information?)   An example of a myth, for the sake of argument:     pigs can fly   Zero evidence for it (also, I hope, nobody really believes this).  I'm not giving an actual example for the reason to avoid responses like "hey, but that is actually true!"  I am referring to technical discussions, like on Super&nbsp;User, Server&nbsp;Fault and Stack&nbsp;Overflow.
17532
These 2 questions have clearly wrong answers with upvotes. And they're still getting votes.  The log file one especially could be tried out, it would fail, but someone still voted it up. A downvote and comment has no effect.  Like we have "vote to close", what about a "vote to delete" for answers. I'd suggest a fairly high rep limit. Or badge ownership realting to the question tags (eg SQL Server)   (SF)   (SO)  Could be similar to this meta question:
19606
I've seen this so many times and it drives me crazy. The latest was the actor Paul Giamatti setting some story straight in the press about him: "It's unfortunately an incorrect fact about me and it's all over the place."  I've seen this written so many times, in magazines, books, but surely a fact is, by definition, true. So there cannot be any such thing as a "false" fact. Right?
26623
I always wonder if I read questions and nobody ever focused on one special point - I constantly think if it is worth the time to answer them.   They usually do not get any upvotes no matter how good the answer is and so remain in the mostly unread lower part of the page.   So should we consider a question as a knowledge base for a topic, or just a way to answer one single person?
74237
Takeaway: Are 4 inexperienced users more reliable than 3 experienced users? A high rep doesn't ensure you are smarter, but it makes you the safer option.    I went to SuperUser to see what suggestions can be found for different Malware-removal Applications.  was right on target, and sported five answers, with a total of 9 up-votes.  All of the answers were provided by low-rep users, and that leads me to recognize that the up-votes may be a similar case. Just as answers aren't always equal, neither should up-votes be. The top answer currently has 4 up-votes, and the second most popular answer currently has 3 up-votes. The people who voted in the 3, may be more reputable than those who voted in the 4. Am I communicating this clearly?  I'm not asking that we be told who voted for a particular question, but I am asking that we be told what type of reputation they had. If the 4 votes come from 4 users with less than 300 rep, and the 3 votes came from two users with 300 rep and 1 with 10k rep, the 3 votes should appear stronger by the standards of the system.  Right now I'm worried about accepting the top-voted solution simply because I fear the up-votes may be from people with similar rep to those providing the answers - that doesn't make them wrong, only less-reliable by the standards of the stackexchange engine.  Can we see the sum of rep for  the votes? (Data in parenthesis would not be visible)   4 Votes (Ted • 72 | Bill • 183 | Carl • 423 | J • 100) = Power of 778 3 Votes (Bob • 19,123 | TJ • 283 | Mike • 8,923)       = Power of 28,329  So in this case, you wouldn't see who voted, only that their rep-sum was 778 and 28k.   4 Votes : 778 3 Votes : 28k  I'm not tied to this way of indicating the vote-power, but some method is better than no method.  Another concern is that higher-rep users (having been around longer) participate in voting less-frequently than new-comers do. After all, we're not trying to gain badges, build rep, etc. As a result, it's more likely that a low-rep users will cast a vote than it is a high-rep user. Does that follow logically?    Rebuttal     Reputation (From the SO-FAQ)      Reputation is a (very) rough measurement of  how much the Stack Overflow community trusts you. Reputation is never given, it is earned by convincing other Stack Overflow users that you know what you're talking about. (emphasis added)    "Rep has nothing to do with credibility, competence or knowledge!" - John Smithers     I agree. But it does have to do with "how much the SO community trusts you." Granting that, some votes are more trustworthy than others. Because they come from users who have convinced "other SO users that they know what they're talking about."  "The purpose of anonymous voting is that all votes are valued equally, whether they come from Jon Skeet or from some new person." - devinb     That is clearly not the case though. If SO operates by labeling some users more "trusted" than others (which it does), then that would mean some votes are trusted more than others. I would trust Jon Skeet to suggest a good programming book than I would two freshmen. It's irrational to suggest Jon Skeet will offer the best recommendation but that isn't what is being argued here. Only that Jon Skeet is the safer choice given his reputation.  "Just because a person has reputation does not mean they have more technical knowledge." - yshuditelu     I agree, but it does mean they are the safer source than somebody with no rep. That is, according to the SO-system.
14580
I've found many questions here regarding this 'feature' and many answers explaining how it works, but none showing any 'philosophical' concept behind it. i.e., why is it here? Is it helping to make site better?  For example, just now I made a downvote, retracted it to think a bit more, left a comment with explanation and tried to downvote again. No game. And this is not the only real-life situation when value of this 'feature' is doubtful. There're plenty on this meta.  So, what was the primary reason to introduce it? A flow of people who change all their votes on daily basis?
111096
This has always been a bit of a puzzle to me.  I generally upvote every question I answer:   if it seems a good enough question to take time answering, it seems a good enough question to upvote I want to encouraging people to ask more questions about topics I'm interested in, especially since I work on some of the less-common areas here. Pragmatically, if I upvote a question, it seems more people may have the chance to read my wonderful answer.
80725
I have posted different suggestions in the recent days, that many users didn't like. Although some are common practice in other forums, and some even if you don't agree are true (ie, new users get "bullied" by higher rep users many times).  I see that if users with a different way of seeing things, come and ask something here, and it gets downvoted, how is this different way of seeing things will ever affect this forum? I have been downvoted so much, I have each time less "voice" in here. I am not sure even if you can run risk of being banned here.  SO is a highly developed site, many things already implemented, it is hard to suggest something that everyone that has been here for long while will agree, something ground breaking. I suggested things that I as a responsible SO user, but with low reputation, I haven't asked many questions.  I think people on SO should be nicer to new users, I am not saying to allow them do whatever they want. Just be nicer.  So what should I do —    Quit in my attempt to participate in Meta because I will continue being downvoted?  just never propose any new idea, try to harvest Reputation by posting bugs, trying to answer things that are not too controversial so I don't get downvoted? Then when I finally have tons of reputation I can go and shutdown the reputation of new users that suggest new Ideas.   I think it is fine not to agree with me. But why do I lose reputation on meta because of a question that is proposing something new? If most people deem something not good for SO, well my question was useful. I mean my very downvoted ideas got attention, it was a useful discussion. The result was "we don't want that here", but it was useful, in the future other people won't need to ask the same. So is it really right to lose reputation because of that?  Edit:  I am adding this, because I think that by putting myself as example my point was a bit lost.  The FAQ says:     Are upvotes and downvotes different on meta?      Voting here works a bit differently from other Stack Exchange sites.   On Meta Stack Overflow, voting is often used to express agreement or   disagreement, not to point out a lack of quality or helpfulness.   Please don't be concerned if you receive downvotes – members of the   community may simply disagree with your bug, feature request, support   issue, or the nature of the discussion.   Some people in the comments have stated they don't even look at the reputation because of this very reason, which totally makes sense. But basically it means they are ignoring a part of the website's functionality, because it is not useful for that.  So does it make sense to lose reputation for something that people doesn't seem to consider?  I mean it is not the same to be downvoted on SO for posting "nonsense" and to be downvoted here for posting something others don't agree with. And I am not even talking about me, I am sure this has happened to everyone.  If it worried me that I am losing reputation, as it is I would have deleted the posts that are making me lose reputation. That is not my point.
84998
I'm not a fan of the downvoting feature in general; frankly, I think it should be removed from all of the stackexchange sites.  Negative feedback leads to negative results. I recognize that the intent is not to provide a means of giving negative feedback, but that's what downvoting does. "The community's way of telling peers that their content can be improved" isn't an accurate description of downvoting: people who downvote other people with no explanation as to why (the usual practice) generally consider them not their peers, but their inferiors.   I fear that the downvoting feature panders to the worst aspects of human nature, to an extent that far outweighs any possible benefit that it can provide. I recognize that the intent of downvoting is to make a form of constructive criticism available, but that it fails to do. It simply says "this is bad" without any explanation. If someone really wants to offer constructive criticism, he can do so in the comments, or by closing questions with an explanation of how to bring them up to par. If he does that, it is that that has the value, not a downvote that might or might not go along with it.  I submit that the increasingly negative "elitist" reputation of many of the stackexchange sites (stackoverflow, the "bread and butter" site, in particular) is due more to unexplained downvotes than anything else: downvoting is (much) more often than not a way of telling new people that they aren't welcome in the club. This isn't conducive to growth.  It seems to me that the recently introduced admonishment to "be nice" to new members acknowledges the problem without really doing anything about it. It would be given more teeth if the downvoting feature were removed entirely — people have to give a lot more thought to a comment than a downvote decision. Furthermore, the (apparently many) "serial downvoters" who contribute little if anything else to the site would take themselves elsewhere.   Thoughts? What are the positive contributions (are there any?) that downvoting makes to the stackexchange sites?
8046
What do people think of the idea that as soon as a question or question title contains certain key words (perhaps a volume of key words), in much the same way it suggests that your post might be subjective, it suggests that perhaps you're on the wrong site?  E.g. on ServerFault, every time someone uses the words "Home Network" or something similar, it popups up a little box "If your question is relating to a home PC or a home network, it belongs over at Super User." (obviously the phrasing needs to be worked on).  Or on any of the sites, if the question contains the name of the site (e.g. Super User Colour Scheme hurts my eyes), suggest the Meta site.  This would obviously catch the question before it gets voted to close 5 times (which on SF can take quite a while, as there's only about 35 3k users, and obviously even fewer on SU).  Thoughts? Ideas?  Prepares for a flurry of downvotes and "Exact Dupe" even though I can't find the dupe
124075
Possible Duplicate:          Is down-voting on SO supposed to be anonymous? I ask because it does not seem to me to be.  Example:   I asked a question today. I got 3 good and 1 mediocre responses. I voted up the two that helped me and accepted the one that worked best. A while later, several new comments from one person appeared, to which I responded (since they were questions for me), and then that same person posted a new answer. This answer was crap. The person missed the whole point of the question and gave vague "pseudo-code" (and calling it that is generous) that basically restated my question.   Though I try to use down votes sparingly, especially when someone takes the time to answer a question I asked, I really want to down vote his answer. However, if I do, then my "reputation" will report "-1 downvoted" today. Since we've been going back and forth in the comments (in my failed attempt to explain the question to him), it's fairly likely that he'll peg me for the down vote.   In rumaging through the his reputation, I noticed that he gets down voted a lot. Moreover, he often votes down things on the same day as he gets down voted. Looking at a few recent questions where he posted an answer that was down voted, it's pretty clear that he (often successfully) down votes questions or competing answers when he is down voted, perhaps based on comments or, as is easier, based on profiles where down votes are recorded.  In this particular case, it's worth it for me to down vote him because (1) it's a stupid answer, (2) I don't live and die by my SO reputation, and (3) it really wasn't a great question that I asked. However, this does bring up the larger point that perhaps a date should not be associated with a down vote.
56882
The belief that everything is relative is obviously self-refuting, because it holds to an absolute.  However, in my experience, people who believe this (or some form of it) such as some Buddhists and atheistic materialists, or people who have an even more radical belief that permits no knowledge at all, such as nihilists, still actively resist those who suggest that there are at least some absolutes. In their discussing what reality is like and whether one idea corresponds to reality better than another idea, aren't they admitting that reality itself is an absolute and that at least one thing is absolutely knowable (a way in which reality is or is not, to which certain ideas correspond more or less closely)?  To put it another way, this very desire to show others that "some-absolute-truths-exist" is wrong seems to destroy their own "all is relative" or "nothing is knowable" positions. By taking a stance against any truth claim at all, they are making an ontological claim about what reality is not like and that this should apply globally—thus making a truth claim, admitting to at least one absolute. That seems ridiculously inconsistent, like someone going around and yelling at random passersby, "I'm not yelling at you!" and "You can't hear me yelling!"  I think that someone who believes in absolutely comprehensive global relativism (to me an impossible bit of nonsense, like square circles) has no business arguing with anyone at all. Any discussion they engage in cannot be intended to find truth together with their discussion partners, because they're either insane, lying, or the discussion was undertaken solely for their own pleasure—why else would someone who doesn't believe anything is true argue with you about whether something you think is true actually is? And pleasuring oneself in public at the expense of other people's comfort and in violation of basic human propriety (I don't know how to put this more delicately, it honestly seems like a very apt analogy) seems like a pretty reprehensible thing to do.  What kind of basis do relativists and their more extreme nihilist friends have for arguing against anything at all? And why do they seem to never, ever admit that when they do argue with others about the truth of any claim, that this is mistreatment solely in pursuit of their own offensive pleasure and amusement (since it can't be an attempt to discover truth, and their argument with the other person can't be an attempt to discredit an incorrect idea, since neither correct nor incorrect ideas exist)?
62041
A good question will receive many answers, and much more views than normal.    This level of activity is not reflected in the upvoting of said question. I recently encountered several such questions, which until I pointed this in the comments () stayed in the lower 0-2 upvotes.    My two suggestions:   Automatically upvote any question you answer, with the ability to cancel this up-vote. This makes sense to me, as I answer only questions I like/are good (and I suppose others too). Display popup message similar to:       Have you considered upvoting this question?    Addressing comments given so far: Answers do not mean a question is good, but it does imply you have an opinion on it. So why not prompt any one who answers to express their opinion by voting? (Similar to what happens when you upvote an answer to your own question).
95416
I just failed . This post looked good; very concise. However given that the question had 5 other answers, I thought the odds of this post being just a repeat of information in another answer was quite high.   I opened up the question, and the very first answer was the same as this one, word for word, and highly upvoted. Aha! I thought to myself, someone plagiarising for cheap rep. And I went to flag.  But as it turns out, the duplicate answers were one and the same, anonymised for the review.  I tried to have a think of ways to prevent this occurring, but I have to admit I'm drawing a bit of a blank. Does anyone else know of a way?   n.b.: I'm aware that a small amount of false positives as a price for catching more robo-reviewers is pretty reasonable, so if this isn't easily fixable I guess that's fine.
22187
I read in the FAQs that voting is done to express agreement or disagreement over here:     On Meta Stack Overflow, voting is often used to express agreement or disagreement, not to point out a lack of quality or helpfulness. Please don't be concerned if you receive downvotes – members of the community may simply disagree with your bug, feature request, support issue, or the nature of the discussion.   Then why is there a rep threshold for down vote? The first thing that comes to mind is that if we allow down voting from the start, we may get trollers who would keep down voting stuff. However, there are other ways to deal with it. For example, we could check the activity of the user in the discussion (measure by number of questions/answers/comments and also number of times upvoted (this is different from rep)) before enabling this privilege.  EDIT  Use Case(unfortunately my own):  When I first saw meta, I knew nothing of it and nothing about Area51 and got a lot of down votes for that question. I lost a lot of reputation for a starter that day and was paying for that first timers mistake for some time before I got that reputation back.  EDIT  Please condider the discussion of thread as a feature request. I think there are mainly two suggestions from the various comments:   Remove down-voting all together  OR Change the down-vote reputation threshold to 15(same as up votes)
15743
I've come across this problem recently when trying to find a solution to a problem on Stack Overflow. It was a common question to which there were already literally dozens of highly rated answers.  In my view, these answers were not good, or did not address the question (in this case the solutions simply didn't work for me).  I have gone about this by posting my own question, outlining why the answers didn't work, and hoping for a response. Is this how things should be done? For anyone interested, here is my new question:
27366
When reviewing whether or not to reopen a question, I came across .  What surprised me is that, IMO, if someone asked that today, they would be all but crucified (endless downvotes, and most likely closed within minutes).    It's not like the post has a few upvotes and downvotes; it has 21 upvotes and 0 downvotes.  So, are all questions equal, but some are more equal than others?  Or were the rules just different in 2010?    I don't really think that it just slipped through the cracks, because there are 0 downvotes...
86760
The other day I saw an answer which was ok. Not great but not bad. So no reason to upvote or downvote. However the answer already had a single downvote. I felt this was unfair so upvoted the answer to keep it at what I felt was a fair score. It wasn't until afterward that it occurred to me that I should have perhaps solely voted on the content of the answer.  Is this a reasonable reason for an upvote or should I have left the answer alone?