Just wanted to mark down my thorough delight with the down voting caveat encouraging the voter to leave a comment. I wish that more sites would employ this. From what I recall it entreated me to add some constructive criticism in a comment.

I know this is a long shot, but I wouldn't mind having this coded to a preference which defaulted to that popup needing closed. My thinking there is that new users may be helped in curbing their down voting tendencies by having a dialogue that must be closed.

Seasoned users, of course, should feel free to forgo the advice since their level of contribution is indeed less questionable.

It's great and I give it many +1. Kudos!

2 Answers 2


This is actually standard behavior on Stack Exchange sites for people with less than 2000 reputation: see Encouraging people to explain downvotes.

As for your desire that it require a click to close, that would be something to propose on Meta Stack Exchange, since it would be a change to the software that runs Christianity SE. The importance of comments after downvotes is widely debated, however, and people have strong opinions, so anything you propose on this subject will likely be met with skepticism and/or hostility from at least some quarters. So if you do submit a feature request there, make sure you are particularly clear with what you want it to do.

  • 1
    Thank you, Nathaniel. I appreciate the answer and the heads-up advice pertaining to meta.SE.
    – user31124
    Oct 25, 2016 at 20:03
  • My caveat to this caveat is to not assume there should be a 1:1 ratio of DV:comments. Many DVs may have their criticism already expressed in a comment.
    – Joshua
    Nov 28, 2016 at 22:43

My thinking there is that new users may be helped in curbing their down voting tendencies by having a dialogue that must be closed.

There are several mechanisms in place already to curb down voting tendencies in inexperienced user.

  1. The pop-up message you noted reminds users how they can do more that just DV.
  2. New users can't DV at all until they earn 125 rep, so they have to learn the other functions of the system and contribute posts that are upvoted by others before they can downvote at all.
  3. Downvoting on answer posts costs the voter 1 rep point. This doesn't hurt high rep users very much, but presumably those guys understand what the voting mechanism is for. It does inhibit relatively new users from using the feature too much without realizing that it's serious.
  4. Voting patterns are monitored and any binge voting is reversed, whether directed at a specific user or topic.

My thought is these protections are sufficient. There has been extensive discussion about the issue of requiring comments to go along with downvotes and you will find detailed posts about why that's not as good an idea as you might think at first on this meta and the main Stack Exchange Meta site. If you feel there is something else that could be improved feel free to suggest it there.

  • Nope, that sounds pretty good to cover these sorts of things. I appreciate all those provisions. Pardon me though, because I still do like my suggestion! But acknowledged it was a longshot. :) Now understanding just how long because it was explained to me that it's part of SE proper and cannot be modded through Christianity's side of things, I can appreciate simply the act of bringing it up. I like those provisions already in place, that's why my only real solid idea now, on the other end, is simply a kudos tag, lol
    – user31124
    Oct 26, 2016 at 7:01
  • 3
    Also, voting is anonymous. Forcing a comment for a downvote would out downvoters with the probable result that the number of downvotes would plummet. That would have knock-on effects on the overall quality of the site and Stack Exchange in general. Oct 26, 2016 at 10:37
  • @AndrewLeach, knock-on effects for good! lol No, the site is already anonymous. Linking a downvote to the corresponding downvote was not what I had envisioned. Merely that the caveat be made sticky for early users.
    – user31124
    Oct 28, 2016 at 3:57

You must log in to answer this question.

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