-5

If there was a place to report instances of overzealous downvoting, maybe the admins could initiate some action. Is there such a place?

  • 2
    Could you provide more detail? What do you mean by "overzealous downvoting"? Post some more relevant information. Thanks. :) – Alenanno Aug 25 '12 at 9:59
  • 2
    Two downvotes is overzealous? On a question where you ask about a job title? Per the FAQ: "Please, don't ask questions about naming, including naming programming variables/classes." I would think the name of a job title could easily fall into that category, and thus make the question subject to downvotes. – J.R. Aug 25 '12 at 10:54
  • @J.R. Overzealous is not so much about the number of downvotes as it is about the zealousness with which the guidelines are enforced, even on a single down vote. Your interpretation is a case in point. You object saying the question is about naming whereas the person who closed the question said it is too localized. And now, after my protest, someone has deleted the question altogether, thereby implying the question was extremely off topic or very poor quality. – ottodidakt Aug 26 '12 at 8:52
  • 2
    @bagheera: Don't be too "overzealous" in interpreting why a question is closed. When voting for a question to be closed, users are presented with a multiple choice screen, forced to choose between one of five reasons why a question gets closed (you can see a screen shot HERE). There is no "Other: please explain" option. So, I mentioned naming in a comment as a possible reason why some may have voted to close, and "too localized" is simply, of the 5 possible reasons, the one that most closely mapped to the reason some saw fit to close it - no zealotry. – J.R. Aug 26 '12 at 9:54
2

Yes, there is such a place; this meta site. But before we are overwhelmed by disgruntled questioners, I have to define 'overzealous'. If one person downvoted a large number of your questions in one day, it's a fair bet that it is unrelated to the quality of your posts; this is 'abusive downvoting', which is banned, and should be reported here if the automatic systems don't catch it. But if a large number of people downvote one of your questions (remember that they are each sacrificing a point of rep to improve the site, as they see it), that is probably a sign that the question doesn't belong here. This doesn't mean "You're stupid"; it means that a site to do with English is in constant danger of being diluted to the point of uselessness, so we have strict guidelines about what questions are allowed here. You haven't put a link to your question, so I'm guessing; but the minimum expected is that the questioner should have: checked the FAQ to see whether it's on-topic: consulted authorities (dictionaries, grammars, Google for usage), and explained how the answers there are insufficient: and put as much effort into framing the question clearly as he expects from an answerer. If other users of the site think you didn't do this, you will be downvoted, and there is no comeback against commmunity moderation; either improve your posts (improve here meaning make more suitable to EL&U rules), or find another site that suits you better.

  • 3
    Downvoting questions is free. Downvoting answers is not. :) – Alenanno Aug 25 '12 at 11:57
  • 1
    @alenanno: Really? I feel an episode of question-downvoting coming on :) – Tim Lymington supports Monica Aug 25 '12 at 11:59
  • 2
    I mean, it's free for the downvoter, of course. The OP will get a -2 rep instead. Should downvotes on questions be "free"?. – Alenanno Aug 25 '12 at 12:01
  • 1
    @TimLymington, I know you were half-joking, but please don't do that. I was just looking at some of the new highly-downvoted questions, and not a single one was really that bad. They're not exemplary, certainly, but they don't deserve the vituperation they've received. – Marthaª Aug 25 '12 at 14:50
  • @Marthaª: perhaps quarter-joking (and for the record, I didn't downvote any of them). But the serious point remains: unlike closevotes, downvotes require no justification, and this is status-by-design. So (absent abusive voting), any new user with 125 rep (who may not know/care about etiquette) can downvote anything he personally dislikes. Above a certain level, we can shrug this off (and in the long run sympathy upvotes will probably cancel it out). But new users will undoubtedly be discouraged: so the more new users we have, the fewer new users we will have. A most ingenious paradox. – Tim Lymington supports Monica Aug 25 '12 at 15:13
  • The question in question has since been removed by the powers that be. The question was "Is there a more suitable title for someone who is head of both HR and Finance?" It was downvoted without comment, closed saying too localized and now is removed (upon my protest I believe). The custodians of the OED have a more inclusive attitude towards what counts as English than what the powers that be at english.stackexchange have towards what's an acceptable question here. – ottodidakt Aug 26 '12 at 8:32

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .