Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 153 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

Possible Duplicates:
cast multiple votes with cost
Should we have a small number of Supervotes per day?

In a recent comment, brian_d_foy said :

I've often wished that Stackoverflow would let us spend more than one vote on answers

... and I agree, so here's a modest proposal -- for really exceptional answers, allow people a second up-vote, but at an expense to their own reputation. To prevent abuse, you could make it cost 2 11 reputation (or more), so people can't use multiple accounts to try to game the system.

If it's something that would only be used for truly great answers, I could even see spending 5 20 reputation (which is more than 0.5% 2% of my current rep on any of the sites) to give them a +2 upvote.

Of course, I have no idea what it'd take to actually implement something like this, and there might be other social issues that I hadn't considered, but I just thought I'd toss it out there for discussion.

update : okay, I should've verified the amount of reputation gained by upvotes. My goal was to make it cost 2 to 5 times the benefit gained from an upvote, so I screwed up.

share|improve this question

marked as duplicate by ChrisF, perbert, random, mmyers, Shog9 Nov 28 '09 at 2:25

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.

1  
I clicked the downvote button twice, but it didn't work. :/ – mmyers Nov 27 '09 at 18:26
2  
duplicate - meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9709/… – ChrisF Nov 27 '09 at 18:47

One man, one vote.

Otherwise, the score is utterly meaningless: a +6 answer might have garnered the approval of 6x more people than the +1 answer... or it might just have one really dedicated fan.

share|improve this answer
    
Which is why I said a 'second upvote', not 'additional upvotes'. I probably should've made that more clear. – Joe H. Nov 27 '09 at 18:16
1  
Same problem, with slightly reduced severity. Now the +6 answer needed 3 people with rep to burn, vs. the +3 answer that had the same number of conservative up-voters. – Shog9 Nov 27 '09 at 18:20

hmm... spending 2 reputation for providing 10 reputation... no, I don't see any way to game the system

share|improve this answer
    
crap ... should've looked at the docs on rep given for upvotes to verify amounts before I posted – Joe H. Nov 27 '09 at 18:23
4  
You should try using the system a little, seeing how it works, before proposing new features. – juanformoso Nov 27 '09 at 18:42
1  
seems like he's used it "a little". he probably ought to use it "a little more"... meta.stackoverflow.com/users/139598?tab=accounts#sort-top – quack quixote Nov 27 '09 at 19:23

I'm from Chicago, and even I see the problems with this. One vote per person per post is just right -- any more, and we are open to all kinds of gaming. Not to mention screwing some people into the rep cap even more quickly than normal (coughJon Skeetcough).

share|improve this answer

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