For some reason, people downvote my decent questions for nothing
Can you admins/mods do something for this by monitoring decent questions and reprimand the people that downvote for fun or for that "Critic" badge ? (I Will ask something about that badge in the stackexchange.meta)
So, please do something ! I don't want to lose reputation for some people that don't agree with me! (I Am not talking about people that downvote my badly written questions, I am talking about people that downvote good questions like this Can a F-35 shoot while hovering?


We have discussed in the past similar behaviour, the thing that sets you apart is that you are not a new user, people expect you to have understood which kind of question are appreciated around here, and which not.

We mods can intervene only if someone actively hunts your posts to downvote them, but we cannot check if that is happening, the system will automatically tell us after it checks every day.

The situation is nevertheless not without options. If I have a look at your downvoted questions (and these are a minority, because you also have quite some well received ones), I can see a common thread:

  • there is some "fiction" involved (mostly a videogame)
  • you don't edit/format your post, the text is a stream of consciousness that is extremely difficult to parse and to understand.

For the first point think if you really have to mention where you got the idea. Is it essential to know that you have played this or that videogame? Wouldn't the question be clearer without it? For example, for your F-35 question, do we need to know that you were playing that videogame? Do we need to read your opinions about a fictional character that we don't know anything about? Wouldn't the question much better if you simply stated "I was wondering about this, could you help me figure out if it is possible?"

The second point is simply an extension of what I said just above. Look at the first version of this question of yours, do you see that those are simply your thoughts, without any kind of refinement? And that without being in your head they are quite difficult to read? Spend a few moments explaining exactly what you mean and I'm sure you'll get much better reception, like you did here (even if it took 4 edits to get there).

  • $\begingroup$ "there is some "fiction" involved (videogame)" First: No fiction was involved, I just wanted to write where that idea came from and I asked about F35 Second: That scene had some "flight maneuvers" that I wondered If a F35 (Not a F38 that question never included that plane but I just said, F38 just looks like an F35 thus telling that question should have been answered for the F35),could do that, If I did'nt include that, the aviation.stackexchange.com/a/46364/26701 wouldn't include the flightstick controls part (AKA, that maneuvers in that video were an important part of my question) $\endgroup$ Dec 7 '17 at 4:17

Jonathan - that F35 question is slightly better now after the edits, but I would politely suggest it was a bad question. It was badly written, with poor grammar, no clear point, and had a strange rant in it about an in game character, which is nothing to do with aviation. That one was "dissed" for very good reasons. When you have multiple people downvoting or commenting, it is safer to assume you need to change, not that they are all malicious or wrong.

This is the same all over the Stack Exchange network. Remember that although there are exceptions, almost everyone votes the question, not the poster, so a bunch of downvotes or negative comments should be taken as constructive criticism.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Eh, I would debate the point that downvotes (without comments) are "constructive" criticism. For me it is "constructive" when an alternative is proposed, else is only "criticism". $\endgroup$
    – Federico Mod
    Dec 7 '17 at 8:47
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I agree it is more helpful when a comment is left, however we explicitly have reasons attached to a downvote so we know it means things like "shows no effort" etc. I'd agree with SE's view that requiring comments on downvotes would break the system in bad ways so it is not worth trying to mandate a downvote $\endgroup$
    – Rory Alsop
    Dec 7 '17 at 9:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This would be true if the community was always clearly objective and users never abused the system. Yet there is abuse in SE, people often downvote good questions just because they sound dumb, and a question may be downvoted for many reasons not obvious to the asker, such as opinions, presentation, and grammar. While there's no smoking gun here and extreme cases are rare, I think that moderators need a more nuanced position than the simplistic view presented here of "trust the downvotes and improve your posts". $\endgroup$
    – Cody P
    Dec 7 '17 at 22:34
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @CodyP Look at the downvote button tooltip, which is as close to a canonical downvote reason as one can get. "This question does not show any research effort; it is unclear or not useful" If a question "sounds dumb" then it probably "does not show any research effort". If a question is poorly presented, or written with poor spelling and/or grammar, then it may very well be "unclear". "Useful" should IMO be seen in light of the site's scope, and different sites have different standards in that regard. A single downvote can happen for spurious reasons, but a pattern likely indicates something. $\endgroup$
    – user
    Dec 22 '17 at 19:48
  • $\begingroup$ @MichaelKjörling I agree with most of your comments about why questions are downvoted, but the main point of my comment is that there's a lot of mismatch between how a question is perceived by the asker, how it's perceived by the viewer, and how well it will add to the body of knowledge on this site after edits. Reddit is a good case study in these kinds of issues. $\endgroup$
    – Cody P
    Dec 22 '17 at 20:55

On a recent post of yours (What are the differences between VORTAC's and NDB's?) you commented:

@mins anybody can compare VOR-DME, I wanted the difference between a VORTAC and an NDB ! and for some reason everyone dissed this question again ! (Bitcihng about questions ep1)

Do you realize you added a useless spam video link? (Despite the advice here which you accepted.)

Also try to use line breaks (double Enter after a paragraph). Make it easy for people to read your posts.

We don't mind simple questions (as long as they are properly worded). And we've established before that we are patient with young users: How to treat young users?

We can fix some problems through editing or inviting the user into chat for extended discussions (which are often a more effective way of exploring their curiosity than a bunch of hastily-written questions on the main site).

Feel free to join the chat to discuss before asking. But, based on my time here, any post that falls below -2, is indeed a problem with the post. In the example I attached: a spam video, no line breaks, no context, and no simple research shown.


You have some very highly upvoted questions and some heavily downvotes questions. You need to try and spot the difference between your well received questions and badly received questions.

Hint: Badly worded questions mostly based on something you saw in a video game or read about on a conspiracy website are going to attract downvotes.

Just put a bit more effort into your questions. You could also ask in chat if you’re unsure about if it’s a good question.

  • $\begingroup$ Video game ones arent about the planes in the video games, In The F38 vid, I wanted to know If an F35 could do that, And they wanted to remove that vid because it was fictional, but IF they removed that, I would never know If an F35 shoot like that, so yes, I have bad questions but good ones are downvoted for nothing (F4 takeoff with folded wings/How does the USA name their AIRCRAFT MISSILES (Its about aviation and they tell me, missiles used on the aircraft arent part of the aviation !) So aviation.stackexchange.com/users/26701/jonathan-irons?tab=reputation and tell me the downvote reasons $\endgroup$ Dec 20 '17 at 18:26
  • $\begingroup$ Regarding the F35 question, you could have asked “Can the F35 defend itself while hovering?” Then in the body ask if it can use its missiles/cannons/flares etc while hovering. The video game stuff is irrelevant. $\endgroup$ Dec 20 '17 at 18:31
  • $\begingroup$ I dont waste my time to ask questions in detail, I simply ask, "Could an F35 do these stuff shown here" and every single detail comes from the answers, and now, can you tell me the reason, AIRCRAFT MISSILES didn't considered an part of the aviation and got closed ? $\endgroup$ Dec 20 '17 at 18:35
  • $\begingroup$ @JonathanIrons regarding the missile questions, just because it’s on a aircraft it doesn’t make it about aviation. I think it’s borderline if that one is on topic. I personally think off topic because it’s essentially about a companies choice in naming conventions. Not an aviation specific question. $\endgroup$ Dec 20 '17 at 18:36
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JonathanIrons I dont waste my time to ask questions in detail and that’s exactly why you get downvotes. $\endgroup$ Dec 20 '17 at 18:40
  • $\begingroup$ Missile one: For me, anything that is designed to be flied or part of an flight system means aviation for me ----------------------------------- F35 one: Its not the only reason, instead of asking an pinpoint question, I just ask about that plane/missile etc, and put it simply by saying "Is it possible ?" I dont like putting too precious questions and can you tell me how I could be more detailed and precious about that question ? $\endgroup$ Dec 20 '17 at 18:43
  • $\begingroup$ ----Yes my P51 Question is shit but what about the F35 one ? $\endgroup$ Dec 20 '17 at 18:43
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JonathanIrons I’m not going through every question, the point is a little thought and effort to make your questions more specific and on topic will go a long way. $\endgroup$ Dec 20 '17 at 18:58

You must log in to answer this question.

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