My job requires clear engagement and communication amongst employees. If, for instance, someone dislikes a procedure or performance during a monitored activity, the person observing must issue a notification. The notification is an electronic report of an observed deficiency. The expectation of that person's report is to state the observed issue and why it is an issue.
The person receiving the deficiency must acknowledge it and prepare a resolution to address the problem or speak with the originator to discuss further. The goal here is to resolve either the deficiency or someone's knowledge error to prevent its recurrence. Also, you have to be professional about it, or you could be cited or lose your job. I've learned this part from experience.
I see downvotes similarly. I see it as a mark against performance. I instinctively want to address the issue and record it, so I don't have to do it again. A common problem, however, is that it's difficult to trace the origin of the downvote. I only wish the voter added an explanation other than just the vote. I don't see downvotes as some horrid experience or something to worry about. I do see it as an underutilized tool with great potential to improve and align content to the platform's goals.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
It is good to have accountability when it comes to communication and performance. The difference with downvotes is that a lot f them are just made for nuiance purposes, especially the smaller ones. There used to be trails of downvotes from some users who were just doing it to be annoying and get a reaction. For the most part, big or small, best to ignore. Often, the large downvoters will give a reason for the downvote - but not always.