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

I have noticed something with the /review page, that I assume is happening due to the related badges. At first I was bothered by it, but I don't know if it's such a huge deal at all. I tag this as "discussion", therefore.

It seems that there are folks who are going through the /review "First Questions" tab, and up-voting every single question they find there. Too many times, I have gone there and seen a nice, pretty pattern - every single question on that page is up-voted a single time. Or, the first x questions are up-voted twice, and then the following y are up-voted once.

Of course, there are random, odd questions that are up- or down-voted independently, but the pattern is clear enough that I think it's safe to take a stab at guessing why this pattern exists: because someone wants the Reviewer badge, and has decided to spread some up-voting goodness as part of one way to get it.

(I do note that voting is not at all required to get the badge in question; they may be seeking another badge, instead. But the fact that they are doing it on the questions under /review "First Question" when listed in order seems to suggest a multi-tiered approach here.)

Initially, this bothered me an awful lot. It still bothers me a bit. Why does it bother me? Because it seems people are being careless about their up-votes, and may be encouraging bad questions as a result. I can see refraining from down-voting a newbie's borderline question, definitely. But I think up-voting bad content is detrimental.

But then I thought a little bit more; this kind of voting happens, anyway. I noted that there are other badges people could be going for. Without the /review pages, they would just randomly vote on questions, and perhaps an equal percentage of those would be bad ones.

But the /review pages also give those of us who want to vote more thoughtfully a chance to counter those votes, and also to leave comments on the posts where some improvement could come.

Meanwhile, the page I'm talking about only lists a person's first question. So, for someone using this as a quick, easy way to one or more badges - at least their 'damage' is limited to just first-time-questions. If they stick to doing it this way, they'll never issue those 'bad' votes on second or subsequent questions.

Ultimately, my own conclusion here is that it may be drawing a focus (even if just my own) onto a mildly bad practice, but I think it's also focusing that mildly bad practice, when so used, in a place where the 'bad' is restricted a bit. If someone's first 'bad question' gets an up-vote or two, but their second and subsequent ones never do, I don't think the overall effect is that horrible.


share|improve this question
If such questions are upvoted only 1 or two times, there is no so many such folks ;) – om-nom-nom Mar 30 '12 at 20:57
"I can see refraining from down-voting a newbie's borderline question, definitely." Really? I can't. Also, are you sure that votes count towards the Reviewer badge? – Cody Gray Mar 30 '12 at 20:57
@om-nom-nom But it's been regular that I've seen this solid line of up-votes. – Andrew Barber Mar 30 '12 at 20:57
@TheEstablishment I didn't mean that I would always (or ever) refrain from it - I just mean that I can at least understand the reasoning behind it, as opposed to a veteran user's bad question. – Andrew Barber Mar 30 '12 at 20:58
@TheEstablishment The votes don't count toward that badge; it's the simple act of clicking the "review" link that does. But voting is easily done from that page, and counts toward the voting-related badges. – Andrew Barber Mar 30 '12 at 20:59
@AndrewBarber You need to do something on at least 200 of your 1000 reviews, voting is one thing, commenting and editing others. – Daniel Fischer Mar 30 '12 at 21:00
@DanielFischer Oh, right; good point. I'd completely forgotten about the "action on 200" requirement, too. (I've had the badge for a bit myself, and probably "Acted" on close to 800 or more) – Andrew Barber Mar 30 '12 at 21:01
@AndrewBarber there is also Electorate badge. I guess that's why people vote, not for the Reviewer. – om-nom-nom Mar 30 '12 at 21:02
@om-nom-nom two birds with one stone – Daniel Fischer Mar 30 '12 at 21:03
@TheEstab: I definitely choose to hand out more comments than down votes to folks who are brand new. I like to think a kind word with reprimand goes further than just a whack with a stick. – sarnold Mar 31 '12 at 1:57
up vote 3 down vote accepted

If I understand you correctly you believe that the existence of the Reviewer badge is driving First Time questions to be voted on more often than they were before.

I decided to look at the data and see if that what I could do to determine if this was true or false. So I wrote a query that gets the average and standard deviation of votes counts for

  • First Questions Only
  • Questions that are only twice as old the reviewer badge or younger. So we get comparable questions before and after the reviewer badge/
  • Looks at votes for only the first 30 days after the question was asked (removing money from jam)
  • Ignore posts from the last 30 days because of the previous restriction.

The results are

Type                Avg# Votes Standard deviation        
-----------------   ---------  ----------------------- 
Post Reviewer Badge 1.731929   1.38239657740628 
Pre Reviewer Badge  1.813401   2.34092128285291 

I would say that there's little compelling evidence for your claim in the data.

However I would note that when you disable random ordering &no-random=1 it does seem to order by vote descending . Could that be the explanation for what you're seeing?

share|improve this answer
It is also possible to order them by age. – om-nom-nom Mar 31 '12 at 0:08
I'm viewing the sort by age. i.e. top post is always the most recent. – Andrew Barber Mar 31 '12 at 0:47
Here's the link of what I'm viewing As I enter this, displaying 50-per page, the entire first page are all 1 score, and some of the second page. Yesterday it was the first two pages, plus some. Incidentally, I am going to refine my conclusions about this a bit; your data seem to back up my mitigating feelings: That people were doing this voting anyway, so it's not a big deal. – Andrew Barber Apr 1 '12 at 1:54
@AndrewBarber the link you provided doesn't have &customsort=newestfirst I hate to ask this but are you sure you're not just looking at it in the default sort (Highest voted first) – Some Helpful Commenter Apr 4 '12 at 15:09
I was completely misunderstanding the sorting on that page; my bad. I actually don't even see an option to sort by time; Only by votes (I presume - it doesn't say what it is sorted by) or "random". – Andrew Barber Apr 5 '12 at 6:36
@AndrewBarber Its hard to find its between the Tag Summary and Favorite tags. When you sort that way you'll see a mix of upvotes, novotes and downvotes. – Some Helpful Commenter Apr 5 '12 at 15:28

You must log in to answer this question.

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