I have make factual statements anyone can find doing the research themselves.

However, I have also been down voted for making those factual statements, how is this in any way helpful or positive?

I mean, what the point in voting, if you can vote for the moon being made of cheese?

  • Even asking is down voted, this must be personal :D haha – Goat Apr 12 '16 at 18:29
  • 2
    I downvoted this question. Per the voting hover text: Upvotes == "This question shows research effort; it is useful and clear". Downvotes == "This question does not show any research effort; it is unclear or not useful". Also, in Meta.Photo.SE, up/down votes do not affect site reputation. They have a different "meaning" than on the main site. – scottbb Apr 13 '16 at 3:36
  • Then your downvote is as stupid as the rest downvoted. A debate about this system is very useful, for me and I assume others as well. Maybe not you, be you are not the whole world. – Goat Apr 20 '16 at 15:43
  • 1
    Check your assumptions. You assume that everything you say is "facts", and that any disagreement with you is therefore invalid because you only say facts. Your assumptions are wrong. You say things some things that are correct and factual, and other things that are opinion, and therefore arguable. And then you say some things that are factually wrong. – scottbb Apr 20 '16 at 16:44
  • 1
    But no, a debate about this is not useful (you have to first define terms and... clearly identify "facts"). As it is, you want to debate how community voting on Stack Exchange works. It's not a worthy debate — the preponderance of existence of several SE sites, 10's or 100's of thousands of total questions and users, establish it is working. The existence of far outlying exceptions, such as yourself, are not evidence that anything is broken or dysfunctional, other than your perception and inflated self-opinion. – scottbb Apr 20 '16 at 16:47
  • We can agree to disagree, simply calming it's factually wrong doesn't make you right. – Goat Apr 20 '16 at 22:25
  • 3
    And simply claiming you are factually right, in posts where you said most of the other answers are wrong or don't know what they're talking about, doesn't make you right either. Hitchen's Razor: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You have made the claim that many long-timers here don't know what they're talking about, or couldn't pass undergraduate optics class, because your "facts" disagree with their long history of well-written, reference- and citation-supported answers. You have made the bold claims; the burden of proof is on you. – scottbb Apr 20 '16 at 22:55

A. Your facts are not always, actually, facts. Some of them are... interesting opinions. Some of them are wrong.

B. Even when you're right, you're not always presenting your case in a way that's very convincing. This is especially important when you're going against conventional wisdom.

C. You are very argumentative, which attracts downvotes. And, not "argumentative" in the good sense of making counterpoints, listening, informing, and adjusting. Argumentative in the sense of telling everyone that they're wrong and just repeating your statements. Again, this is a social community, so... if you want to participate constructively, you need to figure out that aspect, too.

  • As I said, you can vote the moon being made of cheese. However, what you say about being argumentative and presenting my case is noted. Although fearing sounding like Donald Trump, I have to say, I am hardly ever wrong about facts, you simply are not educated enough in the subject in question when making that claim. The problem with "conventional wisdom" is, it's based on false assumption and lack of real knowledge. I do not question your or others skills as photographers, your knowledge about optical engineering is however insufficient to pass an exam at university - that I can grantee. – Goat Apr 11 '16 at 22:16
  • 7
    Yes, that's exactly it. – mattdm Apr 11 '16 at 22:22
  • So you care more about how it is said, than what is said? – Goat Apr 12 '16 at 13:54
  • That isn't the question you asked, nor what I said. But in general: I'd like the site to be factual and helpful. – mattdm Apr 12 '16 at 14:03
  • So do I mattdm, so do I. Unfortunately even facts can be misread, and what seems helpful is very subjective. If we take my take on "Can I increase effective focal length with both the crop factor and an extender?", then I was helpful and factual to the OP. However I was also down voted, because I said stuff some people clearly don't like or agree with - yet it is as I said, I can only deduct facts presented that doesn't correspond the popular opinions, will be down voted. – Goat Apr 12 '16 at 14:37
  • 4
    It's becoming increasingly clear that you are strongly overestimating your own expertise. As I and others have noted, the answer you reference actually has a number of incorrect and misleading statements, and your comments following up have many more. Repeatedly claiming that your errors are facts does not help make them any more true. – mattdm Apr 12 '16 at 14:49
  • Prove me wrong then, repeating I am wrong doesn't make you right. But be specific otherwise, it's difficult to know exactly what you think is wrong. – Goat Apr 12 '16 at 18:19
  • 1
    @Goat - you seem to miss the point, we don't need to prove you wrong, you need to prove that you're right. The burden is not on us. – John Cavan Apr 12 '16 at 19:16
  • @John Cavan then you need to be specific, and can't correct you misunderstanding or claim, when uncertain about what it is. – Goat Apr 12 '16 at 21:38
  • 1
    @Goat, your statements on the answer that has most frequently been linked are INCORRECT and MISLEADING. You need to reevaluate your assumption that you are correct here. You don't quite seem to understand the difference between a full frame sensor and an APS-C cropped sensor when used with the same lens. It's called a cropped sensor for a very darn good reason! You are getting downvoted because your answer does NOT contain factual information. That is the simple reality here. – jrista Apr 20 '16 at 7:11
  • @jrista Actually, I know you think so, but YOU are wrong. The point is, it's not about crop or not, it's about the relationship between the section of focal length used or not, this is what constitute the FoV - as you already know. DoF, FoV and image noise based on total light gather with same light intensity (f-stop or t-stop to be exact), are BASED on sensor size, as well as focal length and aperture. Either no sensor size is a crop OR they are all crop from larger sized sensors (imaginary or real). – Goat Apr 20 '16 at 15:57
  • The term is used solely to calculate an equvelant and we use 35mm for that, but it's still not a crop is any other cases then lager sized lenses on smaller sensors. An APS-C lens on a APS-C body is no crop of anything, that was actually the point. The word "crop" is merely an abstraction for better understanding the concept, it's not physically a crop unless you consider any lens a crop, since no lens have full coverage of reality and all sensors make crops of the image circal since it's a circal and not the same format as the sensor. – Goat Apr 20 '16 at 15:57
  • 1
    Nonsense, Goat. A 10mm lens is a 10mm lens, always. The only thing a smaller sensor does is record information from a smaller region of the center of the image circle that 10mm lens projects. Outside of that, the sensor has ZERO impact on the behavior of the lens. If the lens is an f/2.8 lens, then the entrance pupil is 3.57mm wide, ~10,02mm^2, and the focal distance the light that passes through that lens travels is 10mm. THOSE are facts. A larger sensor used on that lens, at a given distance to the subject, will see more field of view, nothing more. SNR will not improve with the large sensor – jrista Apr 21 '16 at 5:44

Try backing up your "facts" with actual evidence and citations rather than asserting that you're correct and that everyone else is wrong. Part of the premise of this site is that people garner reputation through demonstration of knowledge and skill, backed by solid information, over time, and not through simple assertion of their mastery and everyone else's lack of wit to comprehend.

  • It shouldn't be necessary since everyone can freely google it and find the information themselves, or read about it the old way. Demonstration of knowledge and skill is done by showing them, not by google them for others, I give answers , I am not dong other peoples research for them. I have made eo assertions, just prove me wrong once? The solid information is available for you and all others to read. This is personal based on the fact I correct you view, and perhaps the way I say it as well. – Goat Apr 12 '16 at 13:53
  • 4
    @Goat - The people that have been responding to you, from what I see, have massive amounts of experience and have demonstrated that on this site for a significant amount of time. You're dismissive of that and yet expect them to take your word that you know better just because you said so. Sorry, but, the attitude that needs to change isn't the one that you think it is. – John Cavan Apr 12 '16 at 14:10
  • I understand what you are saying, they are presumed right because they are experienced. What I say it's simply claims, undocumented. However, it's only undocumented for those who don't sped the time researching about it, I do not have access the any secret informations you don't. How do you propose I back it up, by linking to already known facts? – Goat Apr 12 '16 at 14:29
  • 2
    Dude, I'm not going to debate the reputation based model of the system. They are presumed likely to be right because they have demonstrated expertise and when a preponderance of them weigh in, there's validity to it. Anyways, I'm not interested in further discussion on it, you clearly feel you are being wronged and so I can only suggest that you probably won't enjoy the model here if that is the case. – John Cavan Apr 12 '16 at 14:38
  • I guess you are right, the only way is to only say what others want to hear, otherwise keep it to myself. – Goat Apr 12 '16 at 18:21
  • 1
    @Goat say what you want to say. People will vote how they think your answers seem legit. If you think the people here vote as a bloc, nothing I or anybody else says will convince you otherwise. It's my observation that most of the people who stick around here are more interested in answering as completely and accurately as possible, are willing to correct their answers when confronted with evidence they are wrong, and most importantly don't assume people who disagree with them are incapable of meeting their intellect. – scottbb Apr 13 '16 at 3:45
  • @scottbb I never said anything about anyone's intellect, and yes people down vote based on my name alone for sure - clearly I have pissed some of you off. – Goat Apr 13 '16 at 13:26
  • @Goat:"I never said anything about anyone's intellect" here's what you stated in another comment: "your knowledge about optical engineering is however insufficient". – null Apr 13 '16 at 17:44
  • Knowledge being insufficient is not the same as intellect, one is lack of factual knowledge or education, the other a lack of ability to learn. – Goat Apr 13 '16 at 19:50

I was reading your downvoted answers. The problem I think was specifically on the Crop-factor-Aperture relationship. Thoose are the statements that are not acurate.

  • It actually is true, but please prove me wrong? – Goat Apr 12 '16 at 18:17
  • Yeap. photo.stackexchange.com/questions/55885/… Remember. I am refering Fnumber vs crop factor. – Rafael Apr 12 '16 at 19:29
  • You are right and wrong at the same time, the aperture is obviously fixed physically. Never the less the reason crop factor influences f-stop is practise, is because of the FOV and physical sensor size. The increased distance to subject results in increased DoF equal to f-stop * crop factor. The sensor size influences the total light gathered at any given light intensity, it's true SNR is not completely the same as f-stop*crop factor but it is as close as we can come, without messing with exposure. That said, I don't actually remember having said this before here. – Goat Apr 12 '16 at 21:34
  • 1
    @goat: Here is a specific example: "it doesn't crop an APS-C lens, but magnifies the focal length differently than a 35mm sensors does." - whatever you have meant to say it is unclear for me. "effectively the same as digital zoom (only it's done optically)" - another example. The only differene between "optical" and "digital" zooming is that one is optical and the other is digital. – Euri Pinhollow Apr 13 '16 at 17:47

I have read one of your downvoted answers: people are downvoting not the facts but your inaccurate usage of terms which warps the facts so that they do not look like facts anymore.

Why is it ok to down vote facts?

  • My English is broken for sure, but otherwise I use the terms accurately. Just because it doesn't appear to be facts as you know them, doesn't mean it isn't true. That is why you ask for an explanation or come with a counter argument, to simply down vote is more like bulling or display of ignorance in the case of down voting provable facts. – Goat Apr 13 '16 at 19:53
  • 2
    @goat: you may take downvotes as a downvotes not for facts but for your usage of english then. People use SE not for utilitary purpose but mostly because then enjoy answering questions and questioning answers. If they see answer which is confusing in many ways they probably won't bother with trying to unroll the mess and will downvote instead. – Euri Pinhollow Apr 14 '16 at 8:48
  • I suppose it make sense, why bother to unroll a mess if you feel confident your are right. – Goat Apr 14 '16 at 13:31
  • @goat: in most communities which I participated in grading up language and logic skills was considered the business of participants. Not trying to say something offensive - I was laughed at because of my usage of English two or three years ago. I never hear remarks about it nowadays. – Euri Pinhollow Apr 14 '16 at 15:10
  • Or rarely, at least. – Euri Pinhollow Apr 18 '16 at 13:38
  • I'll see it as popularity then, nothing more. When I am unpopular and say unpopular things, I'll get down voted, it's the name of the game - I do not respect those people, but hay it's a free world. – Goat Apr 18 '16 at 18:11

The ability of users to downvote content is part of the system. The content itself has no influence on the existence of this ability.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .