if the internet egos of people lacking any other persona are being crushed, then by all means! i hate to feel i am taking away someones only chance to feel like someone is listening...

No. But we should be able to see who likes or dislikes our posts. Similar to facebook likes where you get a list by clicking on the like count of who they are. 

I would suggest also that dislikes should HAVE to come with a comment/reason so that the tools who at times just click the button can at least state their case.   

I say don't waste you precious cat time messing with it.

I don't see why anyone even cares about the down votes.  If you answer gets compressed, people are still gonna take the time to open it and read it (or maybe I'm just the curious one that does it).

We're on a public forum on the internet, nobody should have his/her pride hurt just because someonebody doesn't like him or at least his answer.  Toughen up and if we stop reacting to the serial downvoters, they'll get bored and give up.

I dont think the points thing comes into it.
the thing that gets me going is if somebody writes a neutral of factual comment it attracts unwarented negitive attention.
by all means limit the down votes
but when you add the number of personalities of one user it will not change anything.
you are welcome to any points I have accumilated as others will also no doubt could care less about.
I like to have my 2c and I also know that not everybody will agree or like what I have to say.but put your name to it and give a resson.

I do however object to the anominous Questions that are there clearly to insite other users.
we know You cant be everywhere all the time but get rid of faceless people
and you will cut back your work load.

If a question is that bad that you cant put your name to it either re word it or dont post it

Thank you for the oppertunity to respond 

No. There are a bunch of big babies on here and if they don't like downvotes then they need to get off the internet. Grow up. This section was cool but it's starting to turn into a kindergarten. Leave the system as is and weed out the weak. 

Downvotes can serve a very good purpose to echincities trolls and others whom I have noticed come here to write less than charitable things about others.  Generally speaking, this is a great forum and it is very helpful but it remains a little rough around the edges.  Personal attacks, obscenities, crude sexual remarks really should have not place here -- but then again that's IMHO only.  Leave the downvotes as they are -- they are a good, silent semi-deterrent.

if you dont like the crude sexual obscenities you might want to stay clear of the new joke  tab .

In my opinion, limiting to 10 per day will not solve any of the existing problems, they will continue as they are, pissing some off, ignored by many others including myself.

Cat, the only way to place an effective control will be, as suggested already by others, that in order to cast a downvote, the one doing it must be logged in, and sign with his handle and explain in a short paragraph his reasons for the downvote.  Either resolve the problem, or do not change a thing.  If that is done, you will see a lot less downvotes casted, and the poster will know better why his comment was not liked by at least one.

I don't see a need to limit the down votes.  But it would be cool to see the names of the vote casters listed when doing a mouse hover over the up or down vote buttons.  (That would also discourage the multiple personalities down/up voting every time.)

I think down votes should be eliminated, like Facebook. All they are doing is causing drama and taking focus away from the purpose of this forum. And several of us are giving up votes to offset the down votes, whether the answer is deserving of a point of not. 

This might encourage better debate when there is an actual disagreement with the answer, thanks to the ability to make comments within each answer.

As far as showing the names of the down votes, again, all that will do is cause more arguements and retaliation with more down votes.

Limiting down votes will give the serial down voters reason to create even more logins.

Otherwise, keep it as it is.

It really doesn't bother me. In fact, if I get a lot of down votes, that means I've really pissed someone with multiple personalities, and that sort of makes me feel like I've achieved something for the day.

Naming each person on each comment seems a little intrusive, and might deter genuine posters who disagree for genuine reasons. Maybe instead, on each persons profile, you could have a count of how many down votes they did in total each day, week and month. Then we could work out who the serial abusers are.

First of all, I don’t against any rules this site has. Votes or not doest make a sense to people like me. I don’t do votes generally because I like to join the talk more.
 
But I found “all of my posts” (you can have a check) got down votes very quickly from “special person” around here. You can say they are some under-aged kids maybe, but the truth is some uneducated, unstable, inexperience, shameless persons do it on purpose without reading my posts at all. What to do with this kind of situation then? Every well-educated people can see this situation happening lively on here. Just today I wrote an irrelevant words in one of my posts, I got be stalked in over 10 posts on here by our “special person” with personal attacks and irrelevant words. This behavior did not only pollute an entire thread but also make others relaxing time felt awkward.  In my opinion, it already infringe the site rules!
 
Restrict the down votes quantity wont make any difference because they just do it on purpose to people they hate. This is a problem, a responsible site should make their effect to fix it up.
 
I agree with above mentioned ID exhibitions, but I still think make the down votes quantity to 10 points would work more functionally and reasonably. 3 down votes don’t make any sense to a post, 10 votes will definitely make the poster realize the bad quality of their posts.

Everyone has some good ideas.
I would say that you either kill the down vote all together or show who is giving them....no explaination needed.  Would you want to explain everytime you gave an up vote?  Although this would also create anomosity, it would also make people think twice before giving everyone thumbs downs.
I don't think setting a limit will stop anything, as most people have said.
I know I have posted about this before, mostly for fun, but I am suprised that some people complained about this privately.
Another solution would be to raise the bar for a collapsed answers (maybe to minus 5) to counter the trolls that seem to pick on certain people.
The only time down votes matter is when an answer is collapsed as Mr. Cat says.
That's my 2 cents.

I think the whole idea of voting is stupid as it all just becomes a popularity contest, people here have people that don't like them and will down vote them whether they are helpfull or not so as my mate The Dude there said get rid of the voting, as it is being abused by the  weak minded idiots.

I remember that the NBA had to take the only average Chinese player off the All Start vote list because of the over whelming stupid Chinese voters that only wanted Chinese player in the game, just like the Chinese would ruin a game to get a Chinese player in the game, this voting thying here is the same.

I don't like the compressed comments or posts. It's easier to read or skip them when they are left open.
I think someone does blanket negative vote and they think they are somehow getting their jollies.

Again, some interesting suggestions raised!

I see a thumbs-up as an indication (generally) of agreement with the post - someone has read it, and likes what was said.

But down-votes can simply be "I don't like your username", or "I will just thumbsdown anything you write"...

Thus, if the voting system does remain, I think it needs to be with a reason/comment. Because a thumbs-up indicates general agreement with the post, there's no real reason needed to explain it. But, for a downvote, there could be numerous reasons why - general disagreement, one point in particular, cos that person is a dick in general and just deserves it.

I suggest (possibly quite wrongly) that those who post intelligent, well-thought out and reasoned arguments (or just general suggestions, advice, or points) would actually wonder what the downvote was for... if it comes from one particular personayaya, then it doesn't really matter.. but if it's from someone who has read the post, and disagrees - why?? (remember, there's no direct link between a downvote, and any subsequent answers, so you don't know if the person disagreeing with you is the one who downvoted you!)

Well, I know this hasn't been an issue lately, but in November and early December a *certain person* had an army of multiple accounts. It was common, then, to click on a thread and everyone would have five downvotes, except Mattaya who would have four upvotes. It was extremely subtle.

So, I say, either get rid of downvotes or get rid of sock puppets. I don't downvote anyone anymore, but I have no problem with the system in concept, except it was so badly implemented.

Personally, I have been surpirsed in the past to see some of my comments have elected a "thumbs down," mainly becaue there was nothing I could find, upon re-reading, that a reasonable person would disagree with, the post having been written from as neutral a voice possible. Sometimes, my answers are a little "on the edge," so I can understand how someone would disapprove.

On the issue of anonymity, my own feeling is, if someone isn't brave enough to sign their name to a question or response, then they don't warrent being taken seriously. Being required to identify yourself is hardly intrusive, but it will make one accountable for what they comment on.

Unfortunatly, the internet is full of children posing as adults, and find joy in the prosepect of insulting others from the safety of their own screens, engaging with words that they would never use in a face-to-face encounter.

To that end, I think that in order to post a "thumbs-up" or "thumbs-down," one should have to identify who they are. If an explaination follows, that would be fine. At least the original poster would have a chance to see why one objected.

Now, if you disagree with THIS post and give me a "thumbs-down," take a moment and write a comment, so at least I know the reasoning (or lack, thereof) of your opinion! Step up to the plate, and hit a home run! Just my thoughts.

Make it so you can only vote on a post if you comment on it.

Don't bother changing it. It's funny to see how worked up the guys around here get over a few internet thumbs down.

I don't think it really matters....I mean if you think about it people get downvoted all the time in society...Lebron James got downvoted by the entire city of Cleveland it seems for abandoning them and their hopes of winning an NBA championship. It's like what his mother said afterwards: 'you will see who your real friends are and the people who care for you and the people that are after you' or somthing like that. It never affected his decision to play ball or switch teams so it's a free country where I'm from. I'd say let people have the freedom to vote and like you say it's better to ignore than to join an argument that you won't win.