The whole Stack Exchange concept is great. But there is one thing I do not understand.
A small logic chain would be:
A new user creates a poorly written question. Very specific. About ~100 views. Let's face it: This happens all the time.
I see the question and downvote it. That's part of the concept to use downvotes for bad questions. This should encourage users to improve their question.
A new user comes back after some days. He wonders why he got -1 and edited the question. In fact, the question is now fine. The SU system has worked - wohoo
And here comes the system flaw in my opinion. I will never notice this edit and so I will never withdraw my downvote
- The user comes back after some month and notices that his question still is at -1. He's frustrated and decides that edits are worthless.
There is actually a five-years-old, similar question at meta.stackexchange which has the status-declined tag. It has no accepted answer and the most upvoted answer is a good idea too
Or you could have a passive listing in your recent history area where you can see a recent list of edited questions [and answers] of things you have
"upvoted", "downvoted", "commented"
Passive means: No notification
My question is: If we should use downvotes to encourage users to improve their content, why do we not reward them if they do? It's rare enough. Explain this to me.
Edit: Wow. This is the second most wanted feature which got rejected (448 upvotes).
meta.stackexchange » tag:status-declined » sort by Votes. That's an interesting list