What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 134 Stack Exchange communities.

As it stands a reviewer working in the Late Answers/First Posts queues can choose to vote on a post, hit 'I'm Done' - with +1 to review count - then revisit the item and rescind the vote before it is locked. The review count doesn't appear to be revised down when this happens.

This "feature" could be used to circumvent voting-related daily limits while trying to get .

That doesn't seem quite right, perhaps the voting should be optional as suggested elsewhere, or the review count should reduce if the action is undone.

share|improve this question
1  
FWIW, the status tag is meant to indicate that you're supposed to be able to retract votes when you've made a mistake - penalizing folks for paying attention and correcting their errors would be bad. Using this to systematically cheat your way to victory though... –  Shogging through the snow Dec 14 '12 at 17:29

3 Answers 3

The review count doesn't appear to be revised down when this happens.

No, but I can detect it, and the folks I've seen doing it so far have been blocked from reviewing.

share|improve this answer
1  
You just decided to make everyone happy today didn't you? Lot's of review blocking goes down well with this crowd. –  ben is uǝq backwards Dec 14 '12 at 17:07
1  
I've been doing this for a little while now; I guess it's starting to have some effect. Bigger, hopefully more effective changes in the works. –  Shogging through the snow Dec 14 '12 at 17:13
    
In that case, I'd retag this as a [feature]. –  Bill the Lizard Dec 14 '12 at 17:14

If I understand this suggestion, you want to undo someone's review progress if they rescind their review vote.

I don't think that the feature would create a desirable incentive.

As things stand, the gaming you describes causes badge grinders to get undeserved badges. This is mildly annoying to those of us who actually take time and review the posts, but if you (just) make rescinding the vote reduce their review count, this group of grinders will split into two categories:

  • People who won't grind.
    • This is good, but it won't be too terribly noticed.
  • People who will just upvote, but will, instead, not rescind their downvote.
    • This would cause a lot of grief here on Meta Stack Overflow, and it will very likely outweigh the good of the first category.

I don't know if it's more desirable to have less, but worse gaming.

share|improve this answer

Surely this is only an "issue" if they reviewer is down voting an answer? Down voting a question has zero cost to the reviewer, while down voting an answer costs 1 rep point. That rep point will be regained if the question/answer ends up being deleted.

If the reviewer up votes the item, why would they then return to the item to negate the vote, unless it is to game the system but they have a conscience?

I would suggest that this isn't an issue. But just to make sure maybe there could be a script created to identify repeated vote cancelling by users which also checks if the item the vote was cancelled on was part of a review queue.

share|improve this answer
3  
I was indeed referring the the issue mentioned in your second paragraph. I'm not sure about the 'having a conscience' part! This feature could be used to circumvent voting-related daily limits while trying to get review badges. –  martin clayton Oct 10 '12 at 6:23

You must log in to answer this question.

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