What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 129 Stack Exchange communities.

I'm a 30k+ user, and I work on Stack Overflow in bursts, voting judiciously.

Can we — either all of us, or just us high-rep users — have more than 40 daily votes please?

share|improve this question
    
Perhaps change "Can I" to "Can we" or something. (I can't make the edit, I don't have enough meta rep and I can't suggest single-character edits.) –  BoltClock's a Unicorn Oct 11 '11 at 15:39
    
How about just some extra downvotes, is that what you're really after? :) –  Wesley Murch Oct 11 '11 at 15:59
1  
@WesleyMurch: About half and half nowadays, to be honest. –  Lightness Races in Orbit Oct 11 '11 at 16:01
7  
You're one of the brave ones, keep it up! Someone needs to do it! I've seen you around and you always have constructive criticism to compliment the DV. That kind of voting pattern I think is reasonable for someone who mostly answers questions. Off topic, but see my third post on meta: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/87695/… –  Wesley Murch Oct 11 '11 at 16:04
    
@WesleyMurch: Thanks! It's nice to hear that once in a while :) –  Lightness Races in Orbit Oct 11 '11 at 16:26

1 Answer 1

up vote 14 down vote accepted

The daily vote limit used to be 30 votes per day; we’ve increased that to a maximum of 40 votes per day (provided some of those votes go to questions).

Already, it is so exceedingly rare for users to even hit the 30 vote daily cap, most users are not even aware that there is a limit. Still, there needs to be a limit.

Reputation is awarded by the community to the users for good content. There is an "economy" to the site with reputation as its currency, and voting drives that economy. But for that currency to have value, it has to be a limited resource. Users have to apportion their votes to their favorite content. That's what gives the award value.

Why are there voting limits?

If you are routinely using your daily allotment, that puts you well up into the +99 percentile of users. That's fantastic; I'm glad you are a conscientious voter. But if the limit was 50, somebody would want 60. If not 60, then 70. You see where I am going with this. There needs to be a limit, and 40 seems just about right, or the apportionment of voting would become increasingly skewed from a small minority of users.

share|improve this answer
2  
"Users have to apportion their votes to their favorite content" - well, that, or their least favourite content. Is increasing the number of votes available depending ones reputation really such a bad idea? Why? Are they not supposed to be trusted by the system, and thus able to make good decisions on content quality –  Pëkka Oct 11 '11 at 15:05
2  
But the value of the currency does fluctuate according to activity levels. If I only read 40 posts per day I can afford to vote indiscriminately. If I read hundreds I need to be much more discriminating. –  Martin Smith Oct 11 '11 at 15:21
    
perhaps change it to 40 upvotes + 40 downvotes. –  Lorem Ipsum Oct 11 '11 at 15:22
2  
We could maybe have something like "if I didn't vote for one week, give me some more votes in the next day". But this gets complicated. –  Paŭlo Ebermann Oct 11 '11 at 15:23
3  
What @Pekka said. I don't want more votes than everybody else. I think the limit should be raised, possibly only for high-rep users. I hardly see how that would make them "meaningless". I use the site longer than some lower-rep users do, and my votes certainly carry plenty of meaning thankyou very much. –  Lightness Races in Orbit Oct 11 '11 at 15:26
    
@TomalakGeret'kal: My mistake. I updated my answer. –  Robert Cartaino Oct 11 '11 at 15:56
    
@RobertCartaino: Your new answer is fair :) –  Lightness Races in Orbit Oct 11 '11 at 16:01
    
Yeah, this admittedly makes sense. –  Pëkka Oct 11 '11 at 16:22

You must log in to answer this question.

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