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.

If I made a mistake downvoting or upvoting a post, there's no way for me to fix that unless asking the person to edit its answer.

Let's say I downvote something, then explain in a comment thinking that I'm right and the user's wrong. The user convince me that he was right in the first place and that I should not have downvoted him (everybody make mistakes or it could have been a misundertanding on words... whatever). Then I can't undo my downvote.

I get the point of forbidding removing up/down votes without edit, but in some cases it gets annoying.

Could it become so that one can undo his vote if a comment is left by someone else (to avoid dummy comments just to rollback a vote) ?

EDIT: Added a bounty to get more feedback

share|improve this question
6  
+1 Excellent case-scenario. –  Jonathan Sampson Sep 3 '09 at 17:17
19  
Good work, marcgg. I detest the new voting "window rules", and am happy to support any request for relaxing them. –  Shog9 Sep 3 '09 at 19:58
4  
This exact scenario just happened to me. Its messy that I have to leave another comment asking for the answer to be edited just so I can undo my down vote. –  Matt Casto Aug 20 '10 at 16:26
2  
I came across this after 10 months of being a member. I thought it was a new feature. Happened twice with me, once downvoted a question, wanted to undo it. The second time upvoted an answer wanted to undo it. –  Dave Apr 20 '12 at 18:04
1  
I just ended up in a similar situation. There are comments like Sampson's above, but why should a scenario be required at all? What is the reason for not being able to change one's mind even years after voting? One might be tempted to create another account just for correcting mistakes.. –  LGT Sep 25 '13 at 12:32
    
Votes should never be locked, period. Even if everyone is perfectly careful and only upvotes things they absolutely know are correct, they can still become incorrect at a later date when the real world changes out from under them. If you want to prevent "tactical voting" then do it with rep penalties, not by locking in incorrect votes forever. –  endolith Jun 6 at 23:31
    
My opinion is that if you have a question then you should comment with the question prior to down voting. –  Blam Jun 13 at 16:40
    
@Blam Yes, but you can not assume quick feedback in general, so it's not feasible to have a full discussion before downvoting. –  Volker Siegel Jun 18 at 5:07
    
stackoverflow.com/questions/25884761/… is an example of this case –  Rishi Dua Sep 17 at 10:41

6 Answers 6

up vote 62 down vote accepted
+75

This has bothered me the last couple of days too, but I think you provided a solid case of why we need things to be different. Votes usually do lead to discussions in the comments, and if you get convinced that your vote was in error, you should be able to reverse it.

share|improve this answer
    
automatically accepted even thought I guess the real answer is Jeff's saying that you need to edit the answer to edit your vote: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/19940/… –  marcgg Sep 15 '09 at 16:42
1  
Note that Jeff's answer is the one that has been downvotes 13 times... –  Tyler Carter Jan 18 '10 at 3:40
21  
But some of those who downvoted Jeff's answer may have changed their minds... –  Charles Bailey Feb 26 '10 at 20:58

It might be helpful to change the tooltip for the voting buttons from:

This answer is [not] helpful (click again to undo)

to something like:

This answer is [not] helpful (click again really fast to undo)

share|improve this answer
4  
That would definitively fit how the system works :) –  marcgg Sep 16 '09 at 15:35
3  
It probably should read: "This answer is [not] helpful (click again to undo (but by undo we don't mean going back to before you voted, what we really mean is that the lock-out time still applies from when you first voted))". I have a feeling that the reputation loss also occurs even if you undo your vote - but I haven't found confirmation of that yet. –  Richard Corden Oct 8 '09 at 12:49

I asked for a slightly different solution for the same problem, by letting me neutralise a vote I cast (not rescind it), which got declined. Jeff suggested in a comment to one of the answers:

earn 2k rep, edit the question, then change your vote. – Jeff Atwood♦ Sep 5 at 13:08

so I guess this is something you could do. I personally don't feel comfortable with this approach, but as it comes from Jeff you certainly won't be accused of gaming the system for doing this.

share|improve this answer
19  
I don't like this approach since I might have to change something random in order to be able to change my vote... That's weird that jeff recommended that –  marcgg Sep 10 '09 at 19:01

Would this problem not be solved by increasing the time-out value? Five, ten, or fifteen minutes is very short and not reflective of how long people take to write defensive comments.

If we made it 24 hours, most reasonable votes changes could occur and yet naughty behaviour on old questions is blocked.

share|improve this answer

This particular solution wouldn't work because it would effectively allow the "too old" vote detection to be bypassed. Just comment, reverse your vote, and you could then even delete your comment.

Vote reversals should be addressed by adjusting the time window where reversals are allowed, not by tying them to a user's comment activity.

share|improve this answer
1  
Only if the comment is not yours then. I'll update the question –  marcgg Sep 3 '09 at 17:23
    
updated. I guess that addresses your answer –  marcgg Sep 3 '09 at 17:24
    
I still don't think it's necessarily that useful, because all you have to do is wait for someone else to make a comment, any comment, and the time window is completely removed. It opens far too wide a window on the restriction, you might as well remove the window completely, or as I suggested, change it back to a less strict timeframe. Tying a "free pass" on changing your votes to other people's comment activity seems strange and unintuitive to me. –  ベレアー アダム Sep 8 '09 at 14:42
6  
@Adam: The basic issue is that the vote lock is fundamentally broken as a solution to people gaming the system. Yes, it fixes that problem, but it raises a whole different set. To restrict people gaming the system, it also restricts people who want to do right by the system. Are you arguing that macgg's scenario isn't valid, or that macgg's solution re-opens opportunities for gaming? –  nagul Sep 10 '09 at 18:24
    
@nagul: That is a false dilemma. The scenario is valid, but the means proposed to deal with it are not appealing to me. Personally, I don't find that gaming is a significant issue, no. But if we accept that, then it makes more sense to deal with the scenario by allowing votes to be rescinded for a decent period of time regardless of whether or not edits take place. –  ベレアー アダム Sep 10 '09 at 18:42
    
@nagul: And by edits, I mean comments. Oops. –  ベレアー アダム Sep 10 '09 at 18:43
    
@Unknown Yahoo: You must have missed my next comment, so I repeat: I think it makes more sense to deal with the scenario by allowing votes to be rescinded for a decent period of time regardless of whether or not edits take place. Or to answer you more directly, I think basing it on edits is equally weird. Just because the system is, to some, arguably broken now doesn't mean that this is a good idea. In my view, it would just make it more broken. –  ベレアー アダム Jan 19 '10 at 0:19
2  
it makes total sense to allow vote changes on edit; if someone edits their answer from "you should do {foo}" to "you should do {bar}" the answer is fundamentally different and thus eligible for re-voting on that basis. –  Jeff Atwood Feb 12 '12 at 1:20

If you have doubts, reserve your vote.

If you feel so strongly that you've made a terrible mistake with your vote, earn 2k rep, edit the post, then change your vote.

Based on all the "vote too old" feedback, I modified the text to make the timed vote locking a bit more clear:

You last voted on this question

Mar 28 at 7:55

Your vote is now locked in

unless this question is edited

Where "question" and "answer" are substitutions.

share|improve this answer
43  
What if the post doesn't need editing? And is it good to have all users with <2000 rep not able to fix a bad vote? –  tnorthcutt Sep 15 '09 at 2:55
24  
If enough people do that the post becomes a wiki, IIUC, and that's hardly the intention... –  Assaf Lavie Sep 15 '09 at 5:06
25  
Agree with above comments; editing someone's post to be able to change your vote is just silly. See also: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/23701/… –  Jonik Sep 29 '09 at 10:19
14  
Just had to edit a post to revoke a downcast which was unwarranted, after the question was clarified. That is not a good solution for this scenario. -1. –  Grundlefleck Dec 3 '09 at 12:26
11  
I have sufficient rep to edit and have just applied this tactic to undo a downvote, but having to edit a post that doesn't need editing just to allow yourself to change your mind is stupid, and retracting a vote should be possible without any rep. –  donroby Jan 12 '11 at 15:14
2  
Recently, I endured a 160 rep rollercoaster dueto this, as I refuse to play those infantile games, I left that site having 2.3k. this encourages petty bullying. –  user226423 Aug 30 '13 at 21:08

You must log in to answer this question.

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