What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 130 Stack Exchange communities.

I generally do up-voting to the good questions/answers on regular basis.
Recently, out of curiosity, I just checked few users' profiles who were in high reputation cap (10k-100k), say "big cats". I noticed that many of them generally don't participate much in voting even though they are actively answering in SO for long time. They have voted only few hundred times.

We all know that most SO users want their reputation to go high. Isn't it selfish/miserliness on their ("big cats") part that they don't want to vote to other's posts, but still secretly they desire that others to upvote their answers.

If someone argues that, "they are choosy about quality of answers", then we can counter-argue that their answers are not always perfect.
SO is not everything about reputation, but one should understand their responsibility also.

After all these description, is the title question justifiable ?

share|improve this question

2 Answers 2

up vote 8 down vote accepted

...but still secretly they desire that others to upvote their answers.

How do you know they want that?

If someone argues that, "they are choosy about quality of answers", then we can counter-argue that their answers are not always perfect.

Yes, of course their answers might not always be perfect, but they'd probably tell you that those answers don't deserve to be upvoted.

In general, most of the users with high reputation scores don't care much about reputation, and it's not just because they already have more of it than they know what to do with.


Should I restrict my up-voting for the users who generally don't do much voting?

More to the point, I find the implicit notion that you should punish other people for their behavior (or what you think they are thinking) by withholding votes from their answers to be a perverse one.

If you find a high quality answer, upvote it. If it's not a good answer, downvote it. Otherwise, do nothing. Same rules for everyone; remember that you're voting on posts, not on users. The primary purpose of voting is to rank and order content in terms of its usefulness and technical validity.

SO is not everything about reputation, but one should understand their responsibility also.

Yes, agreed. These users who do not vote regularly on content are probably failing to uphold their responsibility to the community. But I don't think attempting to punish them is the correct solution.

In fact, if you avoid voting for answers just because of who contributed them and what you assume about those people, then you would be just as complicit in failing to fulfill your responsibility.

share|improve this answer
    
+1, agree on your many points. But my sense is not of "punishment". And "voting on posts and not users" is not entirely true, because ultimately the votes adds into user's reputation only. –  iammilind May 3 '12 at 3:48
2  
No, votes don't go to users. They go to the post. This is a fundamental principle of the Stack Exchange network. –  Cody Gray May 3 '12 at 3:48

No, we are voting posts, not people.

If you feel a question and answer is worth your up or down vote, go ahead and vote, who the author is and what their voting patterns are is completely irrelevant.

share|improve this answer
    
And everything else The Establishment said. –  Yannis May 3 '12 at 3:57

You must log in to answer this question.

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