Who's the largest Marvel super-hero?
Who is the physically-largest Force-sensitive being in Star Wars?
These two questions basically ask the same thing. One question has got 5 upvotes so far and the other one has got 6 downvotes so far. Why is that? Why are the reactions totally opposite?
For the record, I down-voted each question due to lack of research. I would expect your question was down-voted by others for similar reasons.
Furthermore, you asked a second question asking who the smallest force user was, again with no research involved. While each question I am sure has a reasonable answer within canon, the posts come across as mere whims of thought and therefore in my opinion not useful.
You had several comments on the question asking you to clarify what you were actually asking and what research you had done. You rebuffed these inquires stating...
"If you don't like the question, simply downvote and move on"
...which in my experience is not good way to attract positive attention to your post.
As to why the other question was up-voted. I can only guess that because a least a semblance of research (acknowledging other large character and stating thing they were not looking for) was shown. It also seems that question attracted an answer quicker than yours. Questions with a quality answer tend to attract up-votes regardless of question quality.
ETA
You seem to be now going on a spree of asking simple, un-researched questions about the sizes of characters in different comics. I am not sure what you hoping to accomplish here, unless your goal is to attract down-votes? All of this seems to be not constructive at best and actively harming the site by spamming questions at worst. As seen in your newest meta question, the system itself seem to think you are doing something wrong. My advice would be to quit while you are behind to avoid potential escalation of negative outcomes.
Let's take a step back for a moment. The OP of this meta thread has a problem: they got downvoted. Instead of trying to answer the question as asked, I think it would be more helpful to focus on solving that problem.
(Given some of the other stuff going on with this user, I'm sure some of you feel I'm beating a dead horse at this point, but I think we can learn something here, even if OP does not, so please bear with me.)
Why do questions get downvoted? A downvote means that the voter feels something does not belong on the site. That's it. It does not necessarily mean that it was a bad question, that it was poorly researched, or any other concrete issue. It's just an expression of one person's opinion.
What "belongs on the site" is necessarily subjective, but a good starting point is the top-voted questions in the tag. Browsing through these, you will notice they have a few qualities which OP's question lacks:
If you want to ask better questions that don't get downvoted, focus on doing these things more.
But isn't it unfair that the other question got upvoted?
Although CreationEdge has repeatedly denied it, the upvoted question does contain references to specific elements of canon and demonstrates a familiarity with the subject matter which is lacking in OP's question here. I am disinclined to call this specific instance unfair on this evidence.
But let's cut to the chase: Are votes influenced by the asker's name? Yeah, probably. Is that unfair? Yes, obviously. Can we fix it? Not really.
Blatant cases of serial voting are detected and reversed automatically, and moderators or SE employees can also take action where appropriate. However, this is not a serial voting case. Serial voting does not result in a single heavily downvoted question, but a pattern of slightly downvoted questions. So, to the extent that this case is unfair at all, it is so because this user has annoyed a lot of people at once rather than just annoying one person a great deal.
Downvoting people who annoy us is not a good voting strategy, of course. It ultimately results in a level of cliquishness which many of us rightly view as toxic. But at the same time, we must not bend over backwards to tolerate problem users. If a lot of folks are simultaneously annoyed at the same person, there is probably some reason for that. Maybe it's a good reason, or maybe it's a bad reason. But in real life, angry mobs do not just magically appear when a Disney villain needs a crowd song. There is a history. I don't know the facts of this history, so I won't comment on them, but I would encourage the OP, and anyone else involved, to reflect carefully on the interactions which brought us to this point.
A downvote means that the voter feels something does not belong on the site. I disagree, that's what a close vote is for, but a down vote is something different; in fact, It does not necessarily mean that it was a bad question, that it was poorly researched, or any other concrete issue. is exactly what a down vote is.
I downvoted your question for a few reasons;
As the title reads, who is the biggest (w.r.t. dimensions, obviously) force-sensitive character in Star Wars?
I wasn't sure what dimension you were talking about.
You've indicated that you want a star-wars answer, but not offered any indication what level of canon you want.
I don't know if you're happy with EU or just want Disney canon.
As an aside, your question demonstrates zero research effort.
Because people on this stack are very much biased by who the user is in how they vote - sometimes consciously (as per comments I saw, not guessing anyone's mind), sometimes unconsciously.
(i myself experienced it both ways, both with getting imho-way-undeserved upvotes just for being me; and with getting serial downvotes with people literally going down my old questions in order and downvoting every one they see on a page slowly enough to avoid script detection. Or, downvoting every new question I post for some period).
It just so happens that for reasons I won't bother elaborating, the ratio of people biased against you as a user compared to "for"/neutral, is significantly higher for you than many other users.
Just to address the "points" raised by other answers:
The question was not in any way "unclear".
It was crystal clear what "dimensions" mean (size) and i'm not even a native English speaker.
This thin excuse not only doesn't work, but flies in the opposite direction of supposed inclusivity of SE, where people aren't supposed to be punished for not possessing a perfect ability to speak Her Majesty's English without any regional accent.
The question was indeed not showing any research. BUT:
While nominally it is a valid reason to downvote (especially on SO, to avoid help vampires), it can be easily shown on 1000s of examples that on SFF.SE people do NOT get downvoted for "lack of research" - never mind getting 8 downvotes - unless the answer is 100% crystal clear obvious from a trivial research like first page of a book, or main Wiki page for the topic. This question was nowhere near that (heck, I wasn't even aware of the offered answer, despite my star-wars gold badge.
Not specifying canon level.
OK, you owe me a new keyboard. And a cup of juice. Don't make me laugh. Do you honestly mean to tell me that there are 8 downvotes (or even one downvote) on every star-wars question that does NOT specify level of canon?
This is just a transparent excuse to find some reason to justify a downvote. Congratulations, you passed the ham sandwich test.
P.S. For the record, this tendency to punish un-favored users regardless of the post's quality was on of the few major reasons why I have chosen to largely disengage myself from the site. So, anyone who sincerely told me "sorry to see you go" but downvoted the linked question, should really look hard at themselves at the mirror and realize they were part of the problem that pushed me out.
