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.

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, Shogging through the snow 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

3 Answers 3

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. –  Shogging through the snow 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. –  jmfsg 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 .