There's a question[^] at the C# forum where I disagree with Pete O'Hanlon. (No, I did not beat the swordmaster[^])
The pain is here; initially, one only has the option to call the answer a "good" or a "bad" one, only later we get to grade it on a scale. I did not read the question very well, disagreed with Pete. Still, I'd like to be able to vote some post a "3", as in, "requires clarification".
Where did the rationale to limit the rating originate from? I'd even settle for expanding the "good" and "bad" option with something like "tell me more".
it doesn't feel right to downvote someone simply because you disagree
There are no feelings involved.
When IMO a reply is wrong, inappropriate, misleading, lacking essential information, not touching the crux of the matter, in short: anything but really good, what I do is provide my reply (provided I have one); and possibly also cast a vote, which could be anywhere between 1 and 5 when those possibilities are offered. If only good/bad are available, I will sometimes click "bad" when a "2" or "3" would be adequate (it isn't just "1" that turns into "bad"), and I will typically NOT click "good" when it doesn't deserve a "5". Luring people into voting "good" for so-so answers doesn't work with me.
Excuse me, but when an apprentices' gut says he should do his homework, chances are..
Luc Pattyn wrote:
If only good/bad are available, I will sometimes click "bad" when a "2" or "3" would be adequate (it isn't just "1" that turns into "bad"), and I will typically NOT click "good" when it doesn't deserve a "5". Luring people into voting "good" for so-so answers doesn't work with me.
Yup, I could go for that. Would always require an explanation on the motivation of the rating, of course.
The good news is that you will soon be able to buy as many 1-votes as you want. Even better, with the paid 1-votes, you will be able to 1-vote a post as many times as you like (until you run out of 1-votes, of course).
I don't feel a need to ask for clarification on an answer to a question that wasn't mine to begin with, unless the subject would happen to be very relevant to me. A reply should be clear and correct; if IMO it is wrong, then it is considered "bad".
And I am inclined to vote on things I have spent time on, i.e. the relevant messages in a thread that I have read and thought about. The voting system should not be such that it dissuades or refrains me from voting.
I did not doubt; it was an incorrect answer as far as I was concerned, and I wanted to mark it as such. Partly, the result was as desired; the answer was no longer marked in green, indicating that it was not agreed on by everyone. It became nice green again after I corrected the vote.
Instead, leave a question/reply/comment.
Sounds like a good strategy to avoid arguments and downvotes. Doesn't fit me, though.
There has been a lot of posts recently about univoter stalkers, etc. Let's face it: when John gets rolling about the IQ level of QA posters, it's fun to bitch-slap him with a 1-vote. But this can obviously lead to less-benevolent uses of the 1-vote, so here is my proposal: CP starts selling 1-votes for 10 for a dollar. So when you get 1-voted, you can feel good that you have helped CP's financial situation. Of course, 1-voting will also be seriously diminished. Who wants to spend money on such nonsense?
If articles had a "Related Articles" section it would be easy to link articles that are a series (part 1, part 2, etc...) or just articles that deal with the same subject. It would also be nice if this section could be edited by high level users so that we can add links to related content.
Reason this comes up is because a user is asking me about references to a topic, it would be easier to send him to one link that gives him more references than to try to search all of them out myself.