I don't know why so many downvotes without reasonable explanation? and How I can find a researcher that downvote my answer and question?

Please see this question and answer:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_I_can_find_a_researcher_that_downvote_my_answer_and_question

That's indeed an interesting question. From my perpescitve up and downvote should be allowed from the very first beginning, because there is one simple effect: Lurking.

Through our long studies of discussion forums we know today, that only about 30% of all participants will be active writer in the end, but we also know that neary all of the learning community are following and reading each singe contribution. So if you just allow the 30% of active persons, you will loose the opinion of 70%.

Furthermore the upvote is a kind of like/not-like or agree/disagree - I often need it, due to the fact my opinion is the same.

On the other side, maybe the downvote could be restriceted. Facebook knows very well, why they don't allow a dislike :-) ...

I am very interested in other opinions, thanks for the question

I agree with both Ebner and Kotosz. But downvote could sometime be abused or mistakenly used.

I agree. It would be appropriate to express an opinion and not just voting that of another researcher. An upvote or downvote should be motivated.

Downvoting should not be anonymous. Each person upvoting or downvoting should have a comment to the question.

I totally agree with Alvarez that downvote should be as open as upvote which shows who actually upvoted. Thanks for sharing another great post Kamal.

I agree with some of the posts that say that 'down voting' should not be ANONYMOUS and justified. Twice I received down votes when posting a theoretical framework created by one Nobel laureate. Evidently, the down voter did not realize the doctrinal and theoretical implications of his vote.

Was I upset? Absolutely not. But, I realized that having a controversial opinion, despite its robust scientific explanation, may lead to down votes, because some people cannot understand the post or just don't take the time to reflect about it.

What's the negative effect of this form of down voting? It's a disincentive to participate in complex issues that don't have a simple, nor singular answer.

I once heard a saying: "Talent is not subject to a referendum". And I totally agree. Sometimes ignorance or ideology play a very important role in decision making.

For the sake of "Transparency and Symmetrical" information, down votes should be identified and justified.

Juehui thanks for bringing up this matter. We both know what Prof. Williamson would say about this!

PS: I tend to up vote answers, although I don't totally agree with them. Just for taking the time of participating and elaborating a response deserves recognition. I do not up vote answers when I understand that there are serious methodological or content flaws.

I again totally agree with Prof. Silva. Downvote could be discouraging for the newcomers and can't really help the original posters because they will even ignore useful information given seemingly negative votes.

Thank you for the question Juehui,

The issue of the hidden vote, anonymous evaluations, un-singed letter of complaint, emails, or phone calls just bug the heck out of me. I have had one or two in my past and my thinking and reaction was allot differant then as to know. My study area being in CST I understand the history that has made a viable solution and support it. In practice when I see it its like finger nails running down a chalk board.. I have and contuniue to believe if you have something to say own it, sign it, or stand up for it.

Anyway in this forum as been mentioned, if a down vote is cast please give the person to whom motivated the vote a short list or paragraph as to why? I know I would like to hear and research gate keep the author idenitity unknown. If the publishing companies can keep the peer reviewers idenitity unknown the it must be simple.    

Douglas

In writing an opinion on the First Amendment to the US Const., Associate US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once wrote that different views should be allowed to compete in the the market of ideas. In every field of science, there are diverse views. Active researchers must value this diversity. If we disagree then explain our differences. 

@Martin Ebner's comment about facebook's policy not allowing dislike click is well noted. That is a good model. In Researchgate forum, if there is a disagreement on points of theory or method then explain---we would all learn from members' contribution.

Frankly, I think the down-vote feature is a good thing.  Yes there is the risk of abuse, but it does not seem to happen much, and it just has to be said that while some of the answers on RG are very good, polite and to the point, some of them are actively wrong, rude to other participants or highjack discussions wandering off in irrelevant directions. It is good to be able to express this, however crudely.  Having to give a reason for a down vote from a short list (such as the above) could well be helpful however. 

Thank you Douglas and all for your valuable inputs. I hope this thread will gain RG's attention and offer some suggestions. I also suggest RG can have a review board or appoint forum moderators to monitor all the posts, which will be a good practice from perspectives of corporate governance and Williamson's TCE.

Personally, I prefer to answer and give my opinions and criticisms underestimate the production of others.

Generally, those who do that, have intrinsic problems that have not yet managed to overcome them, they do it because they suffer inside and they want to be relieved. Sometimes they want to divert the attention of others farther away, fearing that others will perceive their defaults that eat them at inside.

Someone gives me a downvote on the question, any justifications?

Hello Juehui,

So I take it the question was voted down? 

Whom ever, please send a justification to Juehui!

Thnaks

Douglas.

Definitely. Thanks, Douglas.

Thank you Francesca.

I agree with Latifa. They should implement comment into downvote.

I also agree with you, Cecilia. However, I have to use Williamson's TCE to explain such behavior better, by introducing the concept of limited rationality due to information asymmetry which requires some kind of governance mechanism or procedure for example forum moderators to deter any opportunism purely not originated from, motivated by or based upon scientific reasoning. 

Differences in opinion showed in down vote is very much ok but a response without having fully understood what is being asked may lead to a down vote without explanation. In a situation of tolerance, academics and practitioners should find a way of cleverly responding to an issues where there is evidence the author did not think through before writing.

Best, Erick

Thank you Erick for your insights on this question.

I don't like the downvote feature as that might keep some people from freely expressing their opinions here; I think criticism should always be constructive, and a simple downvote is not constructive. So I am in agreement with both Juehui and Erick, and would like to add that we should all keep in mind that Researchgate is a place just to help each other, and learn from each other. 

I again thank Singh for providing a constructive answer. Since I posted this question, I have continuously seen many down votes without proper justifications even on those appropriate answers. I hope RG can reflect on this issue soon.

No anonimous downvoting!

Dear Juehui,

It seems now as some have stated I have a down vote follower. It is interesting in the fact that I first reacted and ask for an explanation and none came. This happened three or four more times with the same silence.

My attitude has changed a bit to the point that I say to whomever, "Have a good time down voting my answers" In other words Juehui I really don't care!

Douglas 

Dear Douglas,

Thanks for your opinion. I think downvote does have downside of its own.

Richard

I don't know why so many downvotes without reasonable explanation? and How I can find a researcher that downvote my answer and question?

Please see this question and answer:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_I_can_find_a_researcher_that_downvote_my_answer_and_question

It looks like ResearchGate may be considering changes of some sort related to downvoting. I found this bit of information today:

"How does the RG Score account for quality?

"The RG Score is based on what your peers think of your work. Low-quality contributions won't attract positive feedback and recognition from the rest of the community, so they won't contribute to a researcher's score in any significant way. With this in mind, we've given you the ability to downvote and flag any contribution that doesn't reach the standards upheld by the rest of the community. We'll be introducing more ways for you to point out these contributions in the near future."

Source: https://explore.researchgate.net/display/support/Scores (boldface emphasis is mine).

As others have pointed out, some downvoters have abused this feature, as downvotes are often given to reasonable, polite, and well-written posts.

It will be interesting to see how this evolves.

Dear C. Lewis:

I tend to do what you mentioned in you last post, on questions I have posted, although I can recall times when I didn't think much of a particular answer, so by exception I didn't click on the upvote button. Not upvoting then becomes a downvote in a relative way. I suppose this is better than clicking the downvote button, which as we have seen tends to cause consternation within the ResearchGate community of scholars.

Best regards,

David

You're right, C. ResearchGate says they want their score to be taken as a serious academic metric, but they aren't doing much to make it so. It seems like mainly a carrot-dangling-from-a-stick motivation mechanism to get us to use their website more. It is possible to attain a very high score just by doing web searches for key words in the questions, then copying and pasting the answers, and some people (a minority) spend a lot of time doing this. I don't think there is any mechanism for evaluating the quality of answers other than upvotes and downvotes, factoring in the RG scores of the upvoters and downvoters.

I think downloads would be a more relevant factor, taking into account the scores of the downloaders (although the problem of the value of the scores as an indication of the relative "weight" of the user remains). Answering questions is much easier than writing papers, articles, chapters, and books.

If this forum is used for participating in discussions related to genuine research interests, it can produce excellent results. How it is used is determined by us, the users.

In a way, researchGate can be seen as a reflection of the academic world. "Point games" have been set up to motivate and reward professors and researchers, and sometimes it seems that there is more artificial and insignificant work being done than genuine research which contributes to our understanding of the universe, including humankind and all we think, do, and feel. Of course the border between these two kinds of academic activity is somewhat blurry, making it difficult at times to determine if research falls into the category of "artificial" or "genuine". I don't think citation metrics do the job adequately. They're just another game that can be (and has been) manipulated by the various players involved with it: researchers, administrators, and journal editors.

In conclusion, all rating systems should be taken with a grain of salt, and should not distract us too much from what is really important, which is expanding the frontiers of knowledge and sharing the fruits of our work with colleagues, students, and fellow humans in general.

I agree about the value of ResearchGate for making connections, C. My current research project, and a graduate seminar I initiated along the same lines, emerged from discussions on this website regarding alternative, biology-based theory, notably embodiment theory, as a promising theoretical framework for understanding aesthetic experiences. In December people will gather at the University of California in Irvine for face-to-face communication on embodied cognition and the arts. Some of them, like myself, made their initial connections here. Without this forum my advances would have been slower and less focused. This is why I appreciate this site and why I continue to invest time and energy in it.

Dear C.:

You can find more about the project and the meeting in California on the page I set up for the project:

https://www.researchgate.net/project/Sacred-reptiles-and-native-world-view-enactive-aesthetics-and-agency-in-Mesoamerican-art

What's not on that page is the bibliography, which has a lot of recent material that you will probably find interesting:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303374480_Art_in_the_embodied_mind_a_bibliography_updated_20_May_2016

(I swear I'm not fishing for points, hohoho.)

Data Art in the embodied mind: a bibliography (updated: 20 May 2016)

I never use downvotes, although I have been very seriously tempted!! I think downvotes without a clear explanation are, you know, sort of cowardly.

Perhaps the RG software can be changed to mandate a post every time one downvotes, or the downvote will not take effect? So the downvoter will have no option but to explain him/herself?

I exactly don't know who is doing this illiteracy, by downvoting the answers and the questions. Perhaps this is their habit from birth. They should to be blocked permanently from RESEARCHGATE. They actually don't know anything of science, they are really just at here to spoil the environment of this RG website. And one more strict order to the down-voters from me that, if you want to down vote any contribution of anybody, you have to give the reason for which you see that thing is insignificant. Otherwise be sure that, anonymous down voting makes you silly & insignificant to other people.