12 minutes ago, JoeJ said:How should we mark wrong and misleading content then?
It seems there is no misuse of downvotes here, climate is good and so there is no need for a like only system like facebook.
On the other hand there surely are some people with way too much downvotes, although that's a rare exception. Maybe a limit would do, like -10 but never below that.
I like the whole -10 maximum concept. Thumbs up on a very good reply(and help to clarify my topic question)!
3 minutes ago, Acosix said:Thumbs up on a very good reply
That's much too nice, really. But well, as you wish. I'll upvote two random posts of yours to reset this wohle thing... but after that don't do this anymore 
9 minutes ago, Acosix said:clarify my topic question
The first response did this already pretty well. I assume people downvoted because they disagreed with 'struct is no object'. And giving an experienced member the tip to comment code ofc. is much too... let's call it offtopic, at least.
That's my guess - i did not downvote. (I do one downvote per year maybe).
What i suggest is: Try to avoid sounding teaching, but make proposals that really address the topic in question.
(I often hear i sound teaching too, and i try to get rid of that by using this language for something else than learning... not sure if it works...)
3 hours ago, JoeJ said:How should we mark wrong and misleading content then?
By replying with the correct answer and pointing out the flaws of the wrong answer. I just don't see down voting being all that useful, even though I don't think it has been abused much either.
- - - - -
Perhaps if votes only applied to that particular comment, but didn't carry forward to an overall "reputation" score? That might be better? That would address your concern and Acosix's. Voting on comments works well in a Stack Exchange format, but not so much for abstract questions and answers, like here.
People who genuinely want to help others don't need constant praise for it though. However, I see the benefit of a gamification element that encourages people to use this website. Maybe that "reputation" system has helped keep GameDev.net going strong, but I don't see how removing down votes hurts that. Either, you're not an overly positive influence on others and it takes you a long time to reach 1000 votes... or you're the best thing this site has ever seen and your reputation skyrockets.
Edit: I should clarify that taking a long time to reach 1000 votes doesn't mean that you're a negative presence on this site, but I hope you get the gist of what I was getting at.
59 minutes ago, JoeJ said:How should we mark wrong and misleading content then?
This is a fair question, and maybe we can come up with alternatives to a downvote. The intent of removing downvotes is certainly not intended to make it difficult to identify content quality, and I recognize we may need to think about how to do that better.
Marking wrong and misleading content was one of the original intentions when we switched to the up/down rating system. A couple negatives we didn't anticipate though:
Any of those things alone are not necessarily bad. They're obviously manageable for the community, but I think we can do better.
Here's a few reasons we're going upvote/like only:
Possibly equally important is that we not only want to highlight quality content but members producing quality content. Reputation/upvotes is one way to assess that, but other items can be added to the equation: Bookmarks (list of quality content), Badges (mix of activity and contribution), and Pixels (activity). Together you can evaluate a member rating.
Anyway, I appreciate the discussion on this and ways to improve the platform for the community.
4 minutes ago, khawk said:Marking wrong and misleading content was one of the original intentions when we switched to the up/down rating system. A couple negatives we didn't anticipate though:
Yeah, it kept me thinking and i changed my mind. I realize the problem is that many if not most people feel personally offended or bad in any form because of downvotes. And it should not be possible to do this to someone with an quick anonymous mouse click.
So yes, removing this is a good idea.
But i have another proposal to have the best of both: Downvotes could be linked only to the message but not to the person. No consequences, no pain i guess, and still the option to disagree with content. (Not that i would presist on downvotes, but it's an idea maybe.)
21 minutes ago, Guy Fleegman said:Perhaps if votes only applied to that particular comment, but didn't carry forward to an overall "reputation" score?
Oh, i came a bit late with my ideas i see 
25 minutes ago, Guy Fleegman said:3 hours ago, JoeJ said:How should we mark wrong and misleading content then?
By replying with the correct answer and pointing out the flaws of the wrong answer. I just don't see down voting being all that useful, even though I don't think it has been abused much either.
I think there is some value in this: You see a massage with 5 downvotes, and you already know it's most likely wrong. Without the need to dig through posts, likely using many terms you do not understand well yet as a beginner. And it's a bit like coloring keywords different than strings in a code editor - just useful.
But to be honest, the main reason i like downvotes is another one: If you only have upvotes, then the whole world becomes shiny and great. Which it is not. So, this kind of forced happiness, that would not feel honest to me.
7 hours ago, JoeJ said:How should we mark wrong and misleading content then?
Taking a cue from the "like" and "thanks" expansion of the upvote, maybe the downvotes can be split into specific tags, so that, without affecting the poster's personal score, a post can be marked as "insulting," "misleading," "factually incorrect," "hostile," or some other adjectives to denote detriment to the community.
Any discussion with voting will eventually become a popularity contest / echo chamber. People will (to some degree, but still will) want to write things that get upvotes over things that are correct, or things that are "against the current". People will tend to upvote posts more if they are already upvoted a lot, and will be more likely to downvote posts that are already negative (the rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer). And no matter how you frame it, people will still use downvotes to "hurt" people they disagree with. There's no way around these things.
On 7/2/2019 at 1:33 AM, Guy Fleegman said:By replying with the correct answer and pointing out the flaws of the wrong answer. I just don't see down voting being all that useful, even though I don't think it has been abused much either.
Actually, I think that one of the useful functions of downvotes is to prevent just that.
I think we've all seen long drawn-out arguments where everyone keeps repeating the same points without making any progress. It's human nature to want to respond when somebody says something that you think is wrong, even when that person has already demonstrated an unwillingness or inability to learn. Everybody wants to get in the last word, therefore everybody keeps arguing long past the point where the discussion is productive.
A downvote is an escape from this cycle. By downvoting, I can send the message that I still think you are wrong, but I am not willing to engage with you any longer. It brings a satisfying feeling of closure that allows me to move on without having to get the last word in.
40 minutes ago, a light breeze said:Actually, I think that one of the useful functions of downvotes is to prevent just that.
I think we've all seen long drawn-out arguments where everyone keeps repeating the same points without making any progress. It's human nature to want to respond when somebody says something that you think is wrong, even when that person has already demonstrated an unwillingness or inability to learn. Everybody wants to get in the last word, therefore everybody keeps arguing long past the point where the discussion is productive.
A downvote is an escape from this cycle. By downvoting, I can send the message that I still think you are wrong, but I am not willing to engage with you any longer. It brings a satisfying feeling of closure that allows me to move on without having to get the last word in.
The thing is if you down-vote, they may not even know it's from you. In situations like you described I just usually say something like "I'm tired of going back and forth over the same ground, so I think we'll just have to agree to disagree". I've actually never liked down voting. I've only used it a couple of times and that was on the guy who claimed he had burned his hamster and half strangled an old man in some medical facility because the guy was Jewish.
