🎉 Celebrating 25 Years of GameDev.net! 🎉
Not many can claim 25 years on the Internet! Join us in celebrating this milestone. Learn more about our history, and thank you for being a part of our community!
Down voting others reduce my rep?
It's by design. To stop people from giving downvotes too frequently/easily. After a few days you will have regained these points.
Just to make sure I understand - everytime I downvote something it reduces my reputation? Or only if the system detects an abuse?
Every time you downvote your rating goes down by 1. Every time you upvote it goes up by 1.
If a post is really abusive, report it instead and get +5 unless it is deemed to be spurious! (Dunno what happens then, I think you lose 10 for net -5?)
EDIT: I think there is a limit to how many posts you can up or downvote a day, I'm stingy so I don't know.
Every time you downvote your rating goes down by 1
Strictly from UX POV - isn't that a poor design choice? Let's say I thought an answer was wrong - shouldn't I downvote it?
Or am I missing what the downvote if for?
Since I think most people here deserve ratings in the positive, and since there would probably be a lot less positive points among members if negative rating was encouraged and people were getting rated down as much as they were up, I think the system is fine the way it is.
Every time you downvote your rating goes down by 1Strictly from UX POV - isn't that a poor design choice? Let's say I thought an answer was wrong - shouldn't I downvote it?
Or am I missing what the downvote if for?
It's not a poor design choice. For example, StackOverflow does it as well (though they don't give you a +1 for up-voting someone else).
If an answer is wrong, or as the mouse-over text states: "Not useful and does not improve the conversation" then yes, you should vote it down. You sacrifice a rep point for the greater good. You can easily earn that 1 point back by either up-voting someone else or just by logging in daily (you get +1 for each day you log into GDnet).
Some people go on a down-voting spree, and the fact that you have to sacrifice a rep point to down-vote helps to deter abuse of the system. If someone decides to abuse the system anyway and go on a down-voting spree, then at least they lose some rep for their abuse as well.
Losing a point every once in awhile for a deserved down-vote really isn't a bad thing.
Edit: I was typing this while you replied.
Every time you downvote your rating goes down by 1Strictly from UX POV - isn't that a poor design choice? Let's say I thought an answer was wrong - shouldn't I downvote it?
Or am I missing what the downvote if for?
The tooltip on the downvote button says "not useful and does not improve the conversation". A wrong answer can, in fact, be useful and improve the conversation since it opens up for more interesting discussions on the topic.
So no, the downvote is not for wrong answers. It is for useless answers.
I'm wondering if the -1 really is useful after all? I've no problems with it personally (as has been said, I'll log on tomorrow and get it back) but thinking about it, a good member of the forum isn't going to go on a wild downvote spree, so it doesn't serve it's purpose there. A bad member isn't, I think, going to give two hoots about losing rep anyway, so can it be called a deterrent in that case?
