What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 131 Stack Exchange communities.

In the past week or so, I've been serial down voted twice, and the system handled both instances fine. It brought up a question, though.

In both cases, I guessed who it was based on who I'd been chatting with, and therefore also took note of their reputation scores. I was expecting that when the votes were reversed, they would get their rep back too, but it seems that is not the case.

I guess that makes sense; I'd just not been aware of that, and a search didn't show anything (almost all down vote threads here are more about the people worrying about their own, lost rep, understandably).


EDIT: Incidentally, I'm not asking this question because I wonder if I may be wrong about who down voted me. In both cases I had subsequent chat/comment contact with the people who confirmed the down voting, and hopefully resolved any animosity that existed, too. (I may have learned I could stand to be a bit more diplomatic at times, when dealing with answers I think are incorrect.)

share|improve this question
3  
I think the votes are simply removed from the system altogether, so the downvoter would also get his rep back. But as reputation scores are cached, this might not take effect until the next recalculation. –  hammar Nov 25 '11 at 5:03
    
Maybe it's cached pending a rep recalc, true. I did get my rep back right away in both cases, though. –  Andrew Barber Nov 25 '11 at 5:11

1 Answer 1

up vote 7 down vote accepted

When the serial voting scripts run and reverse the votes they also perform a reputation recalculation on both parties.

Given that at any time your reputation as displayed on the site won't match your actual reputation due to post deletions or migrations this will result in the final reputation score being different to what it was before the serial voting spree.

Also don't forget the question down-votes don't cost the giver anything.

share|improve this answer
    
That's what I figured on the first time, but the second time got me wondering; I only have four questions, and he had down voted just one of them (and 29 answers). And this user only had about 180 rep before, then 150 after. He is back up to about where he was before, but that's due to subsequent upvotes he has gotten (including from me). hmm... –  Andrew Barber Nov 25 '11 at 11:19
    
The automatic re-calc is like a double whammy for the recipient, imho. I know there's no other way to straighten it out. For someone that was ~200 off due to migrations, that's a steep hit (in addition to the frustration of being serially downvoted). –  Tim Post Nov 25 '11 at 11:26
    
@Tim, the ~200 in your example shouldn't have been there to start with? I'd say the flaw is that reputation is not recalculated when needed. –  Arjan Nov 25 '11 at 12:00
    
@TimPost & ChrisF : Oh, wait; I think I see what you mean vis-a-vis a recalculation... meaning that the user's reputation was not originally 'correct', and a recalc would have lowered it anyway. So the recalc could have actually hidden the fact that the reputation was all added back to both parties? --- in my case, I'd actually been recalced fairly recently, though it did seem a little bit off afterward. But that could explain what I saw with SDV'ing user #2 not appearing to regain his rep. –  Andrew Barber Nov 25 '11 at 14:11

You must log in to answer this question.

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