Although I have been a short time as an active member, I have been reading questions and answers for several years.

Now as part of the community I have had some "discussion" with a member with much more prestige. Which has led me in some cases to take negative votes for not agreeing with another opinion.

Am I the only one who believes that members who have the less time are treated worse? How do I manage these "problems"? I have to be always giving in to more experienced people in the forum even if they are not right?

PS: I mean the reputation differences between accounts for eg 400 points one and the other 2000. In no case do I mean members who have 1 point.

  • 5
    Ew, pleb problems :D. You may want to read Is this site "cliquey"? My opinion is that this is the way rep was intended to work: it's the same underlying logic that grants high-rep users access to moderation tools and statistics. Regarding downvotes: I feel you, this too is by design. People are allowed to vote however they wish, and it's of no use to try and change irrational behavior. This has been discussed many time both here, main meta, and I guess pretty much all of child metas. Commented Apr 7, 2017 at 10:48
  • @Gallifreyan If I already read some post on the down votes, but I have the feeling that it is easier to vote down or or criticize the more "new" members without any impact ... than other members
    – Gawey
    Commented Apr 7, 2017 at 11:25
  • It's also the case when an old user posts a half-baked answer and then updates it with more info in the course of an hour or so. After some time one learns the habits of more frequent posters, and dismisses some blunders. Commented Apr 7, 2017 at 11:28
  • 9
    @Gawey What do you mean by "impact"? Downvoting or criticising other users, provided you do so constructively and politely, shouldn't lead to any repercussions from them; revenge downvoting is something we take seriously. It's true that more experienced members will likely know better what makes a good answer here, and thus be less likely to have their answers downvoted; but everyone gets some downvoted posts occasionally, even the highest-rep user.
    – Rand al'Thor Mod
    Commented Apr 7, 2017 at 12:50
  • 2
    @Randal'Thor - Cheers for pointing out all of my crap answers.
    – Valorum
    Commented Apr 19, 2017 at 17:59
  • Yaaay, now I have a starting base for my targeted DVs on Valorum ;-)
    – Möoz
    Commented Aug 17, 2017 at 23:29

1 Answer 1


I can't speak to how other users feel about their interaction, but to take one of your answers (the most heavily downvoted) as an example, I can see a few problems starting to occur already.

How did Voldemort breach the protective enchantments around Nurmengard?

  • Your answer has a source, but that source is a fan-written wiki. It's preferred to have answers that give primary references, not secondary ones

  • When Kabagage asked you for a citation, you told him to go check for himself (which could have come across as dismissive)

    "Do it, you an check it now in the name of Nurmengard."

  • When he asked you a second time for a cite, you accused him of not having read the answer correctly.

    "You don't read well the text for similar to hogwarts not only refer the anti-apparition or you don't saw the comma?"

  • When ibid advised you that we prefer primary sources, you replied with sarcasm.

    oh yes, who reference a wiki on you can check the source, amazin.

  • When ibid (again) tried to explain the difference between primary and secondary sources of information, you said that the question was the problem, not your answer to it.

    So the problem here is the question, not my explanation because actually this answer can't be response with a canon answer, no?

  • Downvotes then followed.

So what could have been done to improve this engagement?

  • You could have responded more positively to the requests for info.

  • You could have made the answer less definite and admitted the lack of primary sources (e.g. "The wiki says x, but without citation")

  • You could have responded less aggressively to those who were attempting to help you.

  • The problem comes when I see the same answers with sources in wikis, I even receive them in questions, but as they are by more experienced users, I can't say nothing.... example: scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/156487/…
    – Gawey
    Commented Apr 7, 2017 at 11:08
  • Here a member responds to me in the comments with a link, response on a wiki, I reply the same to what I am told in the other post (in addition the sources are very old and the information incomplete). Another user accuses me of speculating about the future, when it really is the background of the question is not relatable, as argument uses the wiki ... It really leaves me confused that on one site I am told not to use wikis and in another use it As argument.
    – Gawey
    Commented Apr 7, 2017 at 11:15
  • 10
    @Gawey Comments =/= answers. An answer based on a wiki might be badly sourced and worthy of downvotes, while a comment based on a wiki might be helpful. Answers are held to a higher standard than comments, since they're meant to actually answer the question while comments are just meant to provide useful feedback.
    – Rand al'Thor Mod
    Commented Apr 7, 2017 at 11:23
  • @Randal'Thor Yes, I understand the difference between response and comment. But in that case the wiki is used as "here you have the answer". Since the user says: "As Neo already put a link up regarding what exists you can clearly read that you are missing", when I already said it is incomplete source.
    – Gawey
    Commented Apr 7, 2017 at 11:32
  • @Gawey If that was the situation, then someone should probably reply to the comment with a correction. Commented Apr 7, 2017 at 16:07
  • 6
    @Gawey In that Warhammer question, a user cited Wikipedia, not a wikia wiki. Wikipedia is generally more reliable, has sources, and isn't filled with fan-based speculation. Wikias, on the other hand, are well-known here for having poor quality control and unsourced "information" that often can be nothing more than rumors or someone's pet fan theory. We're especially critical of the Harry Potter wikias, for this reason, as we've encountered numerous quality problems with them over the years.
    – user31178
    Commented Apr 7, 2017 at 17:17
  • 2
    @CreationEdge - I feel I am at least partly responsible for users taking a more critical eye to the Harry Potter wikia/wikis, as I started complaining about the quality factor of these sites back in early 2012. In order to qualify a source, one really has to know his/her canon -- you can't pick out errors in sources if you don't know your canon. This can lead to argumentative behavior ("You go check the source, even though it's my answer!") and, sometimes, downvotes. Know your canon; if you don't, at least listen to those who do. :) (I'm kind of just speaking generally here) Commented Apr 8, 2017 at 5:30

You must log in to answer this question.

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