Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 158 Stack Exchange communities.

What is meta?
Here's how it works:
  1. Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
  2. The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
  3. Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates

If I create a a good question that receives 100+ upvotes, what is stopping me from then editing the question to make it completely different and a lot worse, thereby making a mockery of all the upvotes that will still remain attached to the question?

Isn't this a real problem with allowing editing of questions? Shouldn't up-voters be alerted to an edit of a question to allow them to reconsider their up-vote in light of the edit?

share|improve this question

The question would get bumped to the homepage, where a bunch of people would see it, and somebody would revert the change. If you kept doing it a mod would lock the post and yell at you. You can find cases where any feature can be abused -- that doesn't make the feature broken. You can use sockpuppets to upvote a post, but that doesn't mean we need to get rid of voting. There's no need to alert upvoters because completely changing the meaning of a question isn't allowed; if it happens the fix is to change the question back, not to manually have everyone retract their upvotes

share|improve this answer

what is stopping me from then editing the question to make it completely different and a lot worse, thereby making a mockery of all the upvotes that will still remain attached to the question?

The revision history page and rollback functions. It’s no different from vandalizing (and fixing) WikiPedia entries.

share|improve this answer
    
Incidentally, last night it occurred to me that you could do exactly this sort of abuse with ratings and reviews on a lot of websites because they don’t have histories. For example, if you hate an awful show that for some baffling reason happens to have a lot of dumb fans, instead of giving it a low rating and writing an honest, panning review of it which then gets a lot of thumbs-downs, give it a good rating and glowing review, wait for a bunch of thumbs-ups, then change it to what you really feel about it and suddenly it looks like a lot of people agree with how awful the show really is. – Synetech Feb 26 '14 at 17:42

You must log in to answer this question.

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