> users (usually those with high rep) are very quick to vote down posts.

Please provide numbers for that. Can you show us that high rep users are more involved in all of that than others? And even if they were, why is it a bad thing to vote down posts?

I ask again: Do you complain about posts getting downvoted for reasons that are *explicitly* mentioned?

![][1]

Here are the two reasons you think people vote down posts for:

> - Simple question (that maybe people think is a waste of a post)
> - The question is poorly structured.

Simple questions are usually easily answered by just doing *basic* research. Doing a web search. Reading documentation. I can't stress enough how important this is. If you expect people to answer your question, they also expect *you* to help yourself first. This whole site is not about being your research assistant — it's about learning to solve problems yourself once you're stuck.

Downvoting questions that don't show research effort is even *encouraged*. Downvotes on questions don't "cost" any reputation since the community managers felt it was more important to downvote content that isn't a good fit.

See here for more: [Optimizing For Pearls, Not Sand – Stack Exchange Blog](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/06/optimizing-for-pearls-not-sand/)

> That’s why we’re determined to keep question quality high, even at the cost of refusing a little sand. It’s true that you can’t have Q&A without questions, but having the wrong sorts of questions is far more dangerous. 

> **The fastest way to kill any Q&A site is to flood it with low-quality questions.**

And that's why we downvote. Because it is – apart from closing and deleting questions – the *only* way for us to filter between the good and the bad. The interesting questions and the ones that can be answered by going on a 10-second Google adventure.

If I downvote, in most cases I'll leave a comment explaining *why*, unless it's completely obvious. And for you, as the OP, getting a downvote is *not* a personal stab in the face, but it should make you think if you really took time to ask a good question and research a little, or if it totally makes sense (or, if it complies to the FAQ). If you then find out that one of these reasons mentioned in the downvote hover tooltip apply to your question – what exactly would you be complaining about?

Granted, nobody likes to have their posts downvoted. Emphasis on *their posts* though, not *them personally*. **We never vote on persons**. We vote on content that we deem good or bad for the site we wish to make the most awesome Q&A site on the internet. And we'd like to keep it that way.

Therefore, your second argument doesn't count. If a question is poorly structured, it *might* attract downvotes. But before I downvote a post, I'd rather go ahead and fix it if it's salvageable. I've now edited almost 7000 posts. Not for the fun of it, but to help those who maybe have troubles expressing themselves to get better answers, or a better response altogether.

Of course, there's no point in *bashing* new users if they can't formulate a good question or do some basic research. But in order to keep the signal to noise ratio up on this site, it's just something we *have* to do. All of us.

And that brings me back to the beginning: If you really think it's high-rep users who do this, then maybe only because they've understood the necessity and importance of voting, or engaging in the community altogether.

  [1]: https://i.sstatic.net/4Iadn.png