Do you think that every time you/somebody down-rates something, they should also comment on it explaining why they think it is a bad answer?

Yes, if it’s done anonymously, and in this answer, I’ll tell you why. Except where noted, the user names (below) came off the top of my head. Although these events did take place, and the people involved were top-ranked Answerbaggers who are still active members, their real user names are unimportant. Please remember, too, that this is not an official version of what happened - it's simply what I remember.

An Answerbag History

Background info - Unlike now (Answerbag 4.0), all negative ratings required a comment from the rater. Negative ratings were calculated into a user's overall rank, which was represented by a letter grade. If people downrated your answers often, you'd have a ranking of say, B or B+. In other words, Baggers had a valid reason for becoming upset about unfair low ratings - they affected your overall rank, and therefore, reputation. Most "regular" Baggers were ranked as A-, A, or A+. The top Baggers, like Kim Siever and Andersen777, had an A++ rank, no small feat. (Those are simply two examples I remember. They were uninvolved in the Ratings War).

Part One: The Ratings War

In 2005, someone asked a question about the legality of selling pornographic movies that portrayed certain acts of a violent nature.

User Silver answered, "Yes. It's legal. Free speech." User Mars presented an opposing POV. "No, it's not legal, but it is reprehensible." on the same day and the rest, as they say, is history.

Soon after, user Platinum hopped on Silver's side - the "Yes" side, although it might be more accurate to characterize that as "hopping on any side that was anti-Mars". (Apparently, bad blood already existed.) Mars was joined by another planet, Jupiter.

Whether Silver and Platinum disliked Mars and Jupiter because M and J were affiliated with one specific religion, or loathed that particular group because the two planets were members, Platinum began trashing all Mars' answers related to his denominational beliefs. That brought others into the fray, naturally. If you’re unaware of the enmity that's inherent in asking and answering questions in the Religions categories, by all means, take a look. Oh, the irony.

Silver saw Platinum as an ally, since neither liked Mars or Jupiter. Heck, for all I know, S and P flat out disliked astronomy. Each group's members stuck up for each other and argued about anything and everything. Both sides had valid points and argued them well, if not always rationally. Two more top users, sympathetic to the "It's reprehensible" faction, joined the downratings free-for-all, which further polarized the groups' members. Other people got involved on both sides - an unpleasant time for Answerbag and its users.

A series of passionate "debates", I'll euphemistically call them, ensued about First Amendment rights, the Founding Fathers, God, morals, ethics, and movies. As the arguments grew more passionate, the atmosphere got uglier. Since comments were required when leaving negative ratings, the Planets and the Elements knew who'd left negative ratings on which answers. The ill feelings grew sicker -- and out of control.

Keep in mind >> back in those days, Answerbag was a different place. There were only a few AB staff members. They were understandably concerned with the normal, day-to-day site administration rather than acting as the Bag's police force, which hadn't been needed anyway, until then. There were also fewer Answerbaggers than now and the Bag's graphics interface was less crowded. The latter factors made it somewhat easy to spot arguments, so there was a noticeably disruptive atmosphere throughout the Bag. Also, now, with Community Leaders, there's a sense of "anger management" that was more or less absent then. It was the Answerbag version of the Wild West.

I'm not sure how long the Ratings War lasted. I didn't realize what was going on until the gloves were off. By then it was a "duck and cover" situation for everyone not directly involved. Nerves were so raw, you just hoped you didn't inadvertently set someone off.

Part Two: Answerbag 2.0, May 15, 2006

Taking lessons from the Ratings War, AB HQ adopted a "Comments Optional" policy on negative ratings. We'd all seen what happened when people got mad about "Not Useful"s, so predictably, nobody left comments. The Bag was much smaller then, and things moved along at a slower pace, so maybe anonymity was a good solution. It did stop ratings wars.

The only problem >> retaliatory negative ratings had never been a big issue until the Ratings War, and, although dozens of answers were affected, fewer than fifteen people saw "combat". Most people took downratings in stride - for example, I became friends with a couple of users who downrated my answers because they were intelligent people who stated valid reasons for disagreement. I found "Why I downrated your answer" comments to be very helpful - when I'd follow up with an edit, I'd use the comment to write a better answer.

"Comments Optional" was "Not Helpful" because it seemed more like a knee-jerk reaction than a solution -- "CRAP!! Stop ratings wars at all costs!!" At times, "no accountability" seemed as bad as its opposite.

"Anonymous comments required" sounds like a good solution, imho. People are more interested in why the answer was slammed than in who slammed it. Even when I'd like to know the downrater's ID, it's to get an idea about why. "Ohhhhhhh. So that’s who dinged. OK, that explains it - he never likes anything."

I've seen so many ridiculous ratings on opinion or poll type answers, it's become almost funny. I usually either edit my answer so that the downrater feels downright silly if he re-reads it, or just ignore the low rating. What else can you do?

To read more Answerbag history, go here:

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/41395

I hope this helps.