After I downvote, I skim the replies to see if someone else already explained what had me do the downvote. If so, I upvote that explanation and agree-vote it too.
If there’s no such explanation, I write one.
Easy peasy. I seriously doubt the number of things needing downvotes on this site is so utterly overwhelming that this approach is untenable. The feedback would be very rich, the culture well-defined and transparent.
I don’t know why LW stopped doing this. Once upon a time it used to cost karma to downvote, so people took downvotes more seriously. I assume there was some careful thought put into changing that system to the current one. I haven’t put more than a sum total of maybe ten minutes of thinking into this. So I’m probably missing something.
But without knowing what that something is, and without a lot of reason for me to invest a ton more time into figuring it out… my tentative but clear impression is that what I’m describing would be way better for culture here by a long shot.
I agree with you that what you propose would be better for LW’s culture. However, I think I can answer the “why did LW stop doing this” question:
An increased prevalence, in those social circles which influence decisions made by the LW admin team, of people who have a strong aversion to open conflict.
You write a post or a comment. Someone writes a reply explaining why they downvoted—in other words, a critical reply. This is open conflict—confrontation.
You reply to them to dispute their criticism, to question their characterization, to argue—more open conflict. Encouraging downvote explanations is nothing more nor less than encouraging critical comments, after all! More critical comments—more open conflict.
Some people can’t stand open conflict. So, they use their influence to cause to be enacted such policies, and to be built such structures, as will prevent confrontation, explicit disagreement, direct criticism. (This is usually couched in euphemisms, of course, as calling such things by their simple names also invites confrontation.)
I agree with you that what you propose would be better for LW’s culture. However, I think I can answer the “why did LW stop doing this” question:
An increased prevalence, in those social circles which influence decisions made by the LW admin team, of people who have a strong aversion to open conflict.
You write a post or a comment. Someone writes a reply explaining why they downvoted—in other words, a critical reply. This is open conflict—confrontation.
You reply to them to dispute their criticism, to question their characterization, to argue—more open conflict. Encouraging downvote explanations is nothing more nor less than encouraging critical comments, after all! More critical comments—more open conflict.
Some people can’t stand open conflict. So, they use their influence to cause to be enacted such policies, and to be built such structures, as will prevent confrontation, explicit disagreement, direct criticism. (This is usually couched in euphemisms, of course, as calling such things by their simple names also invites confrontation.)
Hence, the Less Wrong of today.