Actually I think, downvotes don't do much. Half of the new threads are stupid "which engine?", "Unity or Unreal?", "DX vs OGL", "Should I learn language X or Y?", "What is the BEST ...?", "Fix my error I'm too lazy to C/P!!!11" and so on, which are not even worth wasting a point for a downvote on, because its oblivious one-time-posters (or occasionally trolls?).

If these were instantly closed/deleted, it would at least be easier to see more interesting, deeper questions.

I actually wonder how people can get so many points atm, if there are such a low amount of interesting questions/answers worth upvoting, though I guess the answers to abovementioned repeated topics get many?

People having issues in the areas of database, image processing, web design, general programming...others... are more likely to visit Stack Overflow. Whereas gaming issues would visit gamedev

Surprised? Why are you surprised?

I'd speculate it's the advent of Stack Overflow that makes GameDev.net less visited.

The overlap between Stack Overflow and gamedev doesn't justify this statement. Stack Overflow is more generic (jack of all trades) and gamedev more specialised. People having issues in the areas of database, image processing, web design, general programming...others... are more likely to visit Stack Overflow. Whereas gaming issues would visit gamedev

Many newbies who come to GameDev.net just want an answer to their immediate question. Stack Overflow provides that.

The majority of gamedev discussion over the years have been programming or API related, not game-design. GameDev is primarily generic programming questions being applied to game development.

Stack Overflow is better for googable questions.

GameDev.net is better for indepth discussion.

Stack Overflow also has specializations: ([Edit:] Oops, didn't see that Hodge had already mentioned that)

gamedev.stackexchange.com, writers.stackexchange.com, worldbuilding.stackexchange.com, programmers.stackexchange.com

(These are less trafficked though, and in my opinion, not really the best format suited for discussion)

As an extremely active and long-time GameDev.net member, I find that Stack Overflow has made it easier to find easy-to-understand answers to basic questions, reducing my need to create a thread on GameDev asking for help. However, I also find Stack Overflow does not satisfy the need for discussion of more open-ended technical topics. This is why I think Stack Overflow has taken some of the traffic: I previously came to GameDev for two needs, but Stack Overflow is a format that better serves one of those needs. I'm not "active" on Stack Overflow in the community sense, but I frequently google and Stack Overflow is almost always in the top results.

I don't know if GameDev's traffic has actually decreased, but I find it much easier to believe that any decrease has come from the rise of Stack Overflow which has personally decreased my asking of questions, instead of saying the rating system caused the decrease, since we've had the rating system since I joined the community over ten years ago.

The overlap between Stack Overflow and gamedev doesn't justify this statement. Stack Overflow is more generic (jack of all trades) and gamedev more specialised.

StackOverflow is already satisfying and answering very game development related questions, just see for example post history of user "Nicol Bolas", who is an extreme in depth provider of knowledge and facts.

I know gamedev is non profit organization, but I lately have found its up/down voting system as quite unprofessional, as opposed to SO, and the system is perhaps not providing intended trace and result in topics.

It has come to my attention that often down votes exhibit only at some sort of politeness/behaviour stuff, but in even much more extent than the case of the OP.

I cannot tell how to make voting system to target its purpose more, I can criticise only.

I know gamedev is non profit organization, but I lately have found its up/down voting system as quite unprofessional, as opposed to SO

Stack Overflow reputation is mostly a "feel good" popularity contest designed to encourage people to keep participating, in the same way Free to Play games encourage users to get addicted and keep coming back. It's an extrinsic motivator. It's designed to encourage continual participation. It tries to encourage participation in helpful ways, true, but it doesn't create a very friendly environment. It creates a very "correct" environment, where privileged people can have their power trips on newer users if they didn't cross all their 't's and dot their 'i's.

GameDev's reputation is designed to encourage friendly behavior, discourage unfriendly behavior.
The reputation systems are designed to do different things. You feel Stack Overflow's is "professional" because it makes you feel good. It's designed to make you feel good.

Stack Overflow is a question-and-answer format. GameDev.net is a discussion-centric format. They serve different purposes.

Saying that GameDev's system isn't working is perfectly valid. Suggesting GameDev adopts Stack Overflow's system, is suggesting GameDev stop focusing primarily on community friendliness, and instead focus on extrinsic gamification to encourage participation.

GameDev.net and Stack Overflow both try to crowd-source moderation. Stack Overflow does this by empowering users to become moderators, and act like moderators, which leads to power trips because higher ranking users have more power and authority than lower-ranking users, and use that to moderate rather than help, newer users. New users get beat down based on the format of their questions. You can act like a jerk on Stack Overflow, and you get uprated for it, as long as you're not going too overboard.
GameDev instead of making community members into moderators, still keeps a moderator team for extreme situations, and lets everyone in the community, regardless of reputation, participate in informing each other when behavior is incorrect.

This leads to an unfortunate side-effect that when one or two people downvote improperly (based on incorrect knowledge rather than behavior), people flip out, until the community as a whole balances it out.

This doesn't mean GameDev's system can't be improved, but the only "flaw" in it I see is when people get their feelings hurt that they were downvoted by a few of their peers, before everyone else jumps in and balances things out by undoing the improper downvotes. <- This is something I, and others, do on a regular basis. If I see downvotes I disagree with, because they are voted down knowledge rather than behavior, or because they misinterpreted the behavior, I upvote to undo the downvote.

Another downside I see, is when someone is really misbehaving, being exceptionally rude, then people "dog pile" on that user and they get pummeled by a stream of downratings. Maybe a cap of a net of -10 downvotes would help that.

Or when someone goes on a "spree" to downvote every post by a user in a thread... though again, that's usually self-corrected by the community - I, and others, have corrected many situations like that when they are undeserved. And when someone goes to unrelated threads to continue downvoting, that's dealt with by moderators.

A rating system that doesn't force people to improve their behavior is a failure. Stack Overflow's rating system makes people feel good, and encourages more participation. GameDev's system makes people feel bad, but encourages them to grow as individuals to their own benefit.

I cannot tell how to make voting system to target its purpose more, I can criticise only.

That's where I am also. I'd like the system improved, but I don't know how to improve it.

However, I feel like the current state is acceptable, and is more good than bad, and I also dislike the Stack Overflow "feel good about nothing" model. I'm not the only one who dislikes the SO reputation system.

Saying that GameDev's system isn't working is perfectly valid. Suggesting GameDev adopts Stack Overflow's system, is suggesting GameDev stop focusing primarily on community friendliness, and instead focus on extrinsic gamification to encourage participation.

I have two neat picks here, that caused my opinion to lean towards SO absence of too trivial downvoting.

First is, community would miss a very present hostile mechanism against "unwanted" behaviour, what would cause the community to be actually more friendly and trusting (it is like carrying a gun saying we need friendly community).

Secondly, SO has resulted in a very effective voting system, where solid answers earn 10+ up rates, majestic answers earn 30+ rates, while missleading answers dwell with 0s, and not very targeted answers earn few points if still providing an interesting offtopic fact.

My only suggestion to improve down voting, that I am a little concerned about, is that down vote would be penaltized by -3 points, what would then become a privilege of only very core members of community, so they could target the missinformative and incorrect statements, to guard the value of informations and community know-how posted all around (I post bollocks myself). And it also might get more hidden, to not scream we are a bunch of paranoid nerds all around here, and it would also open up a way for more free discussions, where the right point oposition will have to make clear reasoning even to less informed observers of the thread. I would also not benefit up-vote at all.

Even with absence of negative voting, SO has still became a provider of knowledge bonity in the pro-sphere to its members of large reputation.

Gamedev surely needs to change something to become more attractive, I can only make those assumptions, but I cannot tell how they would turn out though.