Absolutely not. Should users also be notified when there are comments on posts they have upvoted? Why not? Why should downvotes be any different?

Thanks for the dupe link, I honestly couldn't find it... though I'm a bit sour that the dupe link had a general "okay" reception while mine is currently sitting at -4.

You're making it seem like downvotes are a bad thing, which shows a misunderstanding of their purpose. Downvotes are not toxic. Never have been. The dupe is asking for an option to be notified, which, while something I still don't agree with, at least doesn't force it down curator's throats.

@rene I would have suggested a "subscription" kinda feature where you can unsubscribe from a post you feel is irredeemable, but seeing the dupe link's comment I can understand why adding more layers of features on this is not ideal.

@fbueckert quite contrary, I think downvotes are a good thing. It helps promote what's good and what's bad content to the community. The problem as I feel is that once we downvoted on something, it's done deal unless you personally follow up with the post. I did see a few occasions where the questions/answers did redeem themselves but still sit with negative votes, and I feel that isn't fair to them either. I do concede forcing it upon the curator is not necessarily the solution, but I feel we should own our votes as well... at least an option would be nice.

Then why are you saying it would promote a better voting ratio and reduce toxicity? That shows you see them as a bad thing. The premise is very flawed.

@rene I frequent StackOverflow and as most developers know it can get a bad rep amongst other communities, and I feel that is an unfair representation of the site as usually people just misunderstands the purpose and fail to adhere to the guideline. Still though, I do see downvotes unnecessarily pile up on bad questions (that's a separate issue), and I feel at least being a bit more responsible with our votes can help the community own up to our actions. I'll admit it's not the prettiest solution.

...What's wrong with downvotes on what you said are bad questions? That's...literally their purpose. To signal that this question isn't good. How is that in any way unnecessary? Users misunderstanding the purpose of the site doesn't mean their posts are automatically immune to curation or anything else of the sort.

@fbueckert see meta.stackexchange.com/questions/168563/…, where I'm referencing cases of downvotes piling up needlessly on questions. People can be harsh on bad questions, but sometimes the question itself is just misinformed and deserve a chance. Why ask people to edit their posts if we aren't given a chance to retract our downvotes?

See the most upvoted answer. It's not needless, it's not harsh, it's curation. If you believe a question deserves a chance, edit it. Don't expect someone else to fix it. Curation is just that; a post lives and dies as it stands, not how we think it might turn out.

@rene with all respect that is not what I meant, and I apologize if you feel that way. But are you suggesting that once you voted on a bad content, even if the content has been amended, it still deserves the same vote? Are we suggesting these users to delete their questions/answers and create new ones to neutralize their votes? How are we (not just you) truly responsible to our downvotes in those scenarios?

@fbueckert fair enough, I suppose I didn't really consider it from a curation point of view and all the old posts can definitely clutter up the notification box. I would have suggested only being notified on posts within a certain age, but it seems my view is of the minority here so I'll withdraw gracefully while I can.

As a sidenote, deleting and reposting to shed downvotes is generally going to end badly for the user; users will just undelete their original, dupe and delete the new one, and now they've got more downvotes for their trouble.

@fbueckert Not necessarily... for instance I'm contemplating deleting this question to shed the (IMO not entirely deserved) downvotes since I already got an idea of how the community feel about this and don't feel the need to pursue this any longer. Re: the point of downvotes: I did research, couldn't find the dupe from StackExchange (perhaps should have googled). The question is not unclear, and while perhaps misguided, is not entirely the opposite of useful. And yet here we are, and it's discouraging me to ask more questions even though I believed I have thought it over well.

You can't delete it; you have an upvoted answer. You asked for a feature that is disagreed with, so it got downvoted; that's the system working as intended. You might want to read What's Meta? for some additional information.

I am unaware however that other users have the options to undelete a question? Perhaps I'm just not that far up the totem pole to know of this option. In general though, I'm not suggesting users to delete and create a new question of the same low quality... but more in line with "my question was badly received, and editing makes no point any more since it's unlikely to attract answers. I will make a new question (with improvement) to start fresh".

That's what editing is for. If you're deleting for no other reason than you don't like the downvotes, then you're going to get a chilly reception; it's seen as an end run around the curation process. Editing always has a point. Very rarely is it ever going to be justified to delete it and repost instead. At 10K, users get the ability to see, and vote to undelete, deleted posts. They can also vote to delete closed posts.

@fbueckert At the risk of sounding pendant, maybe I'm not understanding the purpose of downvotes in general then. Because the helptext suggests only when a question is not well researched, not clear, and/or not useful then it should be downvoted. In this case, yes, it is close to a dupe. But it is clear, and while the solution is not optimal, it attempts to address an issue that exists. Downvote is not to suggest "I disagree", but more the quality of the question. I'm unsure what I can edit to improve it besides deleting due to a dupe, so I'm stuck with downvotes? Doesn't seem fair.

Again, you can't delete it. It has an upvoted answer, so you no longer have that ability. And Meta is different; people can, and do, vote much more liberally, especially on questions that they disagree with. Some additional reading is What's Meta?.

Again, at the risk of sounding pendant, I can delete it. I do get a warning that repeated deletion will be punished with a block.

Try it.

It won't work.

I will thank you however for the "what is meta" link, as I am again going through it to make sure I do understand the purpose of this site (as I thought I did).

I linked that earlier as well; I guess you missed it.

I have a feeling it would, based on the text suggestion. I don't want to risk a strike though so I will refrain from deleting at this moment and take your word for it.

The specific wording I received is: Repeated deletion of answered questions can result in your account being blocked from asking. Are you sure you wish to delete? with a Delete Question button available.

SE's user interface leaves a lot to be desired; it's very hard to surface features and introduce them to users.

This is a pretty prime example of that.

Regardless of our disagreement I do wish to thank you for entertaining this inquiry up to this point.

I can't say I know for sure, either, but my understanding of the deletion action is that it will block you from doing so because you have an upvoted answer.

But it only does that once you confirm you want to delete it.

It's the difference between client side warning, and server side confirmation; it'll come back with an error message, which the site will dutifully relay back to you.

On posts tagged feature-request, voting indicates agreement or disagreement with the proposed change rather than just the quality or usefulness of the post itself. I guess that is the key part I missed. I concede this is my ignorance.

You're going to get a really rough reception whenever you link downvotes to negativity; most heavy Meta users are super tired of it, and won't really be up for yet again explaining why that misunderstanding is wrong.

I think that wraps up the last bit of clarity I required out of this line of inquiry. Again, I don't think downvotes are negative by themselves in a non-Meta post, but I feel it does prevent edited questions from getting the visibility they might deserve.

That's part of the cost of bad posts.

This is my first Meta question so I suppose I still have yet to get used to Meta's way.

Right, but my point was, bad posts should also deserve some chance of redemption. Though evidently not a lot of users feel that way.

We're trying to build a large repository of knowledge. If your post initially doesn't meet the standards, it's a rough climb to make it.

Redemption comes over time.

That is the cost of posting a below standard question.

I suppose you've got a point, though I feel over time questions also get less of a chance to be redeemed so it basically comes down to do-or-die at the initial posting. IMHO not ideal but I suppose that's how the system is designed.

Thank you for taking the time to respectfully engage in this conversation even though we are at disagreement.

You'll find that the SE network isn't like most sites, and most users crash into it headfirst due to mismatched expectations. That's where most of the, "toxicity" issue comes from.

SE should do a better job of making those expectations crystal clear. It needs improvement, and it has to be handled by the system.

Most of the disagreement here comes from those misaligned expectations.

If you had a better idea of how SE worked, I don't think we'd've had nearly this much of an issue.