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.

This question already has an answer here:

What is the reason why I get -70 of Serial upvoting reversed on Stack Overflow, -70 of doing what? I read the document

Upcoming Reputation History Changes

But I want to know which why in details why I get -70. Come on this is crazy

Anyone?

share|improve this question

marked as duplicate by animuson Jan 18 at 5:19

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

20  
(From your profile) "alright this is crap see ya stackoverflow ..." - Ragequit! –  jadarnel27 Mar 2 '12 at 13:26
    
yeah i think they created a bug NOT fixing one ... –  rcs20 Mar 2 '12 at 13:28
5  
Don't blame the system, it works just fine. Blame the person who randomly upvoted your answers several times a minute. –  Bart Mar 2 '12 at 13:30
    
Well @Bart I don't know this person. ... –  rcs20 Mar 2 '12 at 13:31
    
I'm not suggesting you make a house call. Only Jeff made those. ;) –  Bart Mar 2 '12 at 13:34
9  
This issue is unrelated to the change in the rep system. The anti serial upvoting system has been in place for a long time. The visualization of the change probably has improved a bit, but you would have lost the rep either way. –  CodesInChaos Mar 2 '12 at 13:45
12  
So, is aki your sockpuppet or your friend? –  Won't Mar 2 '12 at 14:51
8  
(From aki's profile) "astalavista everybody, it was a pleasure to accept your answers, i had great time on stack overflow but this is the end of the road for me!" - the sock is ragequitting too. Good catch @Won't –  jadarnel27 Mar 2 '12 at 15:32
    
the only problem here is that you are now being notified of the adjustment. –  JNK Mar 2 '12 at 16:18
    
everybody: AKI WAS my friend, notice the WAS here, he is not here anymore with us –  rcs20 Mar 2 '12 at 16:24
2  
Seems aki has received quite some serial upvotes as well. Jan 17th for example.... –  Bart Mar 2 '12 at 16:26
    
so there's a law againts voting up your friends? –  rcs20 Mar 2 '12 at 16:38
11  
Yes, if you are mutually upvoting each other over and over again in a short span of time merely because you are friends, surely that's a problem. If you occasionally happen to stumble upon a question your friend has correctly answered and you upvote it for being a good answer, that's no problem. –  Bart Mar 2 '12 at 16:43
17  
@rcs20 If you go over their answers and upvote them, because you're their friend, then that's abuse. If you come across some of their answers and vote them up because they're good, then that's perfectly fine. I often vote up eric's answers on SO, because he consistently posts great answers, and the system hasn't complained yet. And it hasn't complained about me voting down Jeff(because he's the one who defends stupid policies) on meta quite often either. –  CodesInChaos Mar 2 '12 at 16:44
    
wow I thought up voting friends was legal no matter the time frame, of course i up vote because they are good and i sometimes also vote down as well until they change their answer/question then i remove my vote down... –  rcs20 Mar 2 '12 at 16:47

3 Answers 3

up vote 65 down vote accepted

It looks like this was serial upvoting to me. Here's the vote you have recently received:

enter image description here

That's 7 upvotes you received within 60 seconds. That's an average of 1 vote every 8.5741428 seconds. I am not a mod on SO so I can't see the details, but if all those votes were from a single user, then that's serial upvoting and those votes are not valid. The system was correcting that.

share|improve this answer
8  
Looks like the 5 votes above that should have been included as well so the OP is lucky it is not 95. –  Martin Smith Mar 2 '12 at 13:20
2  
...nevermind the question upvotes above it. In fact, looking through previous days, there seems to be a lot of serial upvoting going on unless the times are inaccurate... –  Bart Mar 2 '12 at 13:21
17  
This is not about you voting up various answers. This is about you receiving upvotes. –  Bart Mar 2 '12 at 13:23
1  
well then, it's worse .. how am I supose to control what/how people votes? I get punish because people UP vote me? –  rcs20 Mar 2 '12 at 13:27
24  
@rcs20 - You don't get punished. It just undoes the dubious votes. –  Martin Smith Mar 2 '12 at 13:28
14  
No @rcs20, you didn't get punished at all. Someone else tried to abuse the system and the system said "no" –  The Unhandled Exception Mar 2 '12 at 13:28
2  
Looks like the system didn't work well. IMO the 5 upvotes on questions should have been reversed too. And your Feb 6, Feb 20 and Feb 21 votes look strange too. –  CodesInChaos Mar 2 '12 at 13:29
1  
well -70 is good then? come on people who likes to get negative "adjustments" because the system say "no" ... am i missing something here? –  rcs20 Mar 2 '12 at 13:30
5  
@rcs20 The system invalidated some upvotes you received because it thinks they are fraudulent. It doesn't really matter if you just have a big fan, or if was real fraud. The votes are invalid in either case. –  CodesInChaos Mar 2 '12 at 13:42
8  
How is it being punished? I'm glad Stack has these safeguards in place to make sure that someone can't serial up or downvote. It improves the honesty and quality of the system. –  seanbreeden Mar 2 '12 at 13:48
2  
I'm a mod and I can't see the details either. Moderators don't have access to vote data. –  casperOne Mar 2 '12 at 13:52
3  
@casper but you can see the suspicious vote patterns tool –  The Unhandled Exception Mar 2 '12 at 14:10
1  
@TheUnhandledException Yes, but note the statement was about "details", the suspicious vote patterns tool shows very high-level information. We can't see information on the individual vote level. –  casperOne Mar 2 '12 at 14:11
3  
@casperOne sorry if I led others to believe you could. Voting details are anonymous. I am a mod on Cog Sci and so I know what the suspicious vote patterns tool shows. Specifically when I said "I am not a mod on SO so I can't see the details" what I meant by "details" was "were all these votes from the same user. Which if they were it would have triggered a notification in the suspicious vote patterns tool... right? (Not sure because the only thing suspicious about the votes on CogSci is how few we have :-p ) –  The Unhandled Exception Mar 2 '12 at 14:25
1  
Exactly @hitesh. The system is preventing users from voting on too many of a specific user's questions/answers, either up or down. It's an abuse prevention mechanism designed to protect a malicious user from downvoting all your questions, and to prevent someone artificially boosting your rep by upvoting all your content. Always vote for the post, not the author –  The Unhandled Exception May 23 at 4:46

Looking at your profile, the system didn't even reverse most of the serial upvoting you received. You probably should have lost >300 rep.

yesterday
+5 12:25 upvote php recursive folder readdir vs find performance
+5 12:24 upvote mysql separating tables
+5 12:24 upvote What are the differences between these query JOIN types and are there any caveats?
+5 12:24 upvote CSS pseudo-code is not recognised by jQuery
+5 12:24 upvote css does not work in chrome (linux and windows)
+10 12:23 upvote mod_geoIP installation help?
+10 12:23 upvote Move .htaccess content into vhost, for performance
+10 12:23 upvote SEO for PHP URLs?
+10 12:23 upvote Rewrite rule for Apache not finding URL?
+10 12:23 upvote apache .htaccess rule with dynamic pages (php) performance
+10 12:23 upvote append path directory to url using htaccess
+10 12:23 upvote Detecting colors for an Image using PHP

Feb 21
+10 15:43 upvote Move .htaccess content into vhost, for performance
+20 15:42 upvote Detecting colors for an Image using PHP
+10 15:42 upvote CSS pseudo-code is not recognised by jQuery
+10 15:41 upvote Rewrite rule for Apache not finding URL?
+10 15:41 upvote apache .htaccess rule with dynamic pages (php) performance
+10 15:41 upvote append path directory to url using htaccess
+10 15:41 upvote css does not work in chrome (linux and windows)
+10 15:40 upvote What are the differences between these query JOIN types and are
there any caveats? +10 15:39 upvote mysql separating tables
+10 15:39 upvote SEO for PHP URLs?

Feb 20
+5 11:39 upvote mysql separating tables
+5 11:39 upvote What are the differences between these query JOIN types and are there any caveats?
+5 11:39 upvote CSS pseudo-code is not recognised by jQuery
+5 11:38 upvote php recursive folder readdir vs find performance
+10 11:38 upvote mod_geoIP installation help?
+10 11:38 upvote SEO for PHP URLs?
+10 11:38 upvote Rewrite rule for Apache not finding URL?
+10 11:38 upvote apache .htaccess rule with dynamic pages (php) performance

Feb 6
+5 01:38 upvote What are the differences between these query JOIN types and are there any caveats?
+5 01:38 upvote php recursive folder readdir vs find performance
+10 01:38 upvote Move .htaccess content into vhost, for performance
+10 01:38 upvote Rewrite rule for Apache not finding URL?
+10 01:38 upvote mod_geoIP installation help?
+10 01:37 upvote SEO for PHP URLs?
+10 01:37 upvote Detecting colors for an Image using PHP
+5 01:37 upvote mysql separating tables

Some more votes for you look a bit strange too, but less blatant, so I'm not sure how many of those are abuse.

share|improve this answer
    
so the system has bugs then? –  rcs20 Mar 2 '12 at 13:44
26  
It's a heuristic, and a heuristic can't be perfect. In your case it probably erred on the side of being too generous. –  CodesInChaos Mar 2 '12 at 13:46

I just had this happen to me, too. Yesterday, someone voted me 100+ points in about a minute. Today, about half of that was axed. I think users who respond negatively to points being taken away somehow are thinking that the points being taken away is a bad reflection on the user him or herself, which leads to negative feelings and a negative response.

Really, though, the points are being taken away because of the dubious actions of someone else. At least some of the points should never have been there--another person put them there in a dubious way. Focus not on the fact that points were taken away from you, but that the dubious actions of someone else were at least partially corrected.

This should not be taken personally, unless you were involved in collaborating with someone to rig getting a bunch of points for yourself. Then you should take it personally: your hard work of scamming the system just got undone. Bummer.

But otherwise, you had nothing to do with this, someone else was screwing around and that was fixed.

share|improve this answer
    
+1 for an insightful reflection on the psychological impact of the notification. –  JBCP Jan 30 at 15:59

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