Why are there so many meta questions about how so many main questions are being downvoted or closed?

Question

Why are there so many meta questions about a supposed recent uptick in downvoting, closing, and/or bad questions themselves?

Also, why are these questions so presumptuous, assuming that there are lots of bad questions? Or assuming that the rate of closing or downvoting is steadily increasing lately?

Also, why aren't any of these meta questions reflecting on the possibility that their meta question is itself closable as non-constructive (speculative) or too local (depending on that one person being downvoted), offering only the existence of their question as justification for their meta post?

Do you suppose that some of these meta questions are rhetorical? Or that some of these questions are thinly (or not so thinly) veiled peeving?

There is definitely a grain of truth in the assumptions by the questions, stated as bald assertions but with little obvious self-reflection.

Actually we probably could take the energy to turn around/edit questions that don't fit our stated rules for downvoting/closing and just make something substantive out of them, but would that teach the author anything? And why do these meta questions end up eliciting really long answers that express a truth that addresses the question but that's a lot of work and probably won't be appreciated anyway?

Answer 1

In the interest of discussing facts rather than speculation, here's some recent data on posts and votes:

As you can see, there has been a slight increase in down-voting recently, following shortly after a small jump in questions posted. This would seem to jibe with J.R.'s observation of a short burst of poor-quality questions.

Answer 2

Here's my take on what happened this week:

1. For whatever reason, EL&U was hit with a lot of inferior questions, all in a matter of a couple of days.
2. Many regulars in the community, somewhat irked by a flood of poor questions, responded with a flurry of downvotes.
3. Many onlookers and askers, taken aback by the outbreak of downvotes, came to meta, to wonder aloud why this community seemed so negative and unwelcoming. Some of these questions were about their particular question, while others were about the overall trend.

4. Some regulars tried to respond by offering their opinion on what happened, or explaining how the community worked. This has led to a lot of discussion about some recurring themes, like:

   • When is it okay to downvote?
   • Is it okay to downvote without leaving a comment?
   • Why did my question get closed?
   • I think my question is great! Why is someone calling it "too localized"?
   • How can someone new be expected to know how to ask a good question?
   • I did a Google search before I asked – what do you mean, I didn't do any research?
   • What gives with all the moderators here? Who do they think they are?

My hope is, by the time the dust settles, everyone will have a better idea of how the community works, and everyone will be all the better for it.

I don't know if I answered very many of your questions, Mitch, but I think I answered the first one.

Answer 3

We tell users to downvote whenever the “question does not show any research effort; it is unclear or not useful”. But frequent downvoting seems to be perceived by some commenters as bad.

I am a frequent downvoter. I wish to champion free use of downvotes. More people should use their quota of downvotes, because they make the site better.

Downvoting is my last resort when I cannot fix the question.

When I run across a question which fits the description, I may be unable to fix it, for good reason:

• I may not have time to do the necessary research that the OP should have done: we are currently overwhelmed by large numbers of very basic questions which lack even an elementary dictionary citation. In many such cases, the question is also simply unclear or otherwise impossible to improve. This situation is why I am currently a frequent downvoter. Support the proposal to create English Language Learners.

• I may not have the expertise to fix it.

• The question is off topic and so fixing it would be moot. (Note, though, off topic is not sufficient reason to downvote a question. Any good question gets my upvote, even if I have to turn around and recommend it be closed for general reference, duplicate, or off topic/migrate.)

Downvotes are helpful, not only to the OP but also to other volunteers. This is true even when downvotes are not accompanied by an explanation. Downvotes signal the community: they draw attention to a problem that somebody else may be able to fix. I am often alerted to problematic questions when they attract downvotes, and sometimes I am able to fix the question.

I don’t delay my downvote even when I make a suggestion for improving the question. My vote signals the quality of the question now. It is not good for the overall quality of the site for bad questions to accumulate upvotes. When a question is improved to the point where it no longer fits the description, I remove or reverse my vote.

I hear a concern that downvotes may turn people away from the site. I hope so! In my experience first-time posters come in two flavors:

• Those we don’t want: the ELLs and the Nortonns. Earnest English language learners need the assistance of the proposed ELL site, not English.SE. Peevers, spammers, emotionally disturbed, or those who are just too self centered to read and follow the FAQ need to just go away.

• Those we do want: the Rachels. Experts or experts-in-training with enough enthusiasm that nothing you do will keep them away. They'll learn from the experience and the FAQ, they'll come back better, and they'll contribute.