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.

Here's what just happened:

  • Question: "How do I do X and Y, I can't use flash"

  • Answer: "Well, use this flash player!"

  • I downvote the answer saying "yeah you're right, but the OP said no flash so -1"

  • The OP changes his question "edit: lololol in the end I can use flash"

  • I can't edit my vote unless I make a "fake" edit on the answer

  • Fail

Why not allowing changing vote on an answer if the question is edited?

share|improve this question
7  
In this case, the right solution is to downvote the question. –  random Dec 8 '09 at 11:44
4  
But the question is valid. The OP just changed part of it based on the first replies he got –  marcgg Dec 8 '09 at 11:47
    
@random sounds like revenge –  Johannes Schaub - litb Mar 22 at 15:37

3 Answers 3

If there's no other way, and the question isn't unclear, just do your fake edit and comment (in the edit summary) that it was done for vote-retraction purposes due to the changing of the question.

share|improve this answer
2  
That's what I ended up doing, but you need 2k+ rep to do that. –  marcgg Dec 8 '09 at 16:40
1  
This no longer requires 2k rep, but it does require a willing edit approver (or two, on SO) if you're below 2k rep, which may be even harder to get. –  Pops Aug 30 '11 at 20:04

Sorry, there are way too many exploits around allowing large vote undo windows.

So in this case, I agree with random: vote the question down -- as the tooltip says:

This question is unclear or not useful

share|improve this answer
1  
What exploits? Make a list, and then find a solution for those exploits that doesn't lock people out of changing their votes. You're trying to prevent harm, but causing other kinds of harm in the process. Users should be able to change their votes whenever they realize they were wrong. "Wait until you're really really sure" isn't a solution, because people can be sure and still be wrong (or become wrong). –  endolith Jul 31 '11 at 21:44
    
this is the solution. long undo windows on votes is the source of 99% of vote gaming and griefing. –  Jeff Atwood Jul 31 '11 at 21:47
1  
This isn't a solution; it's a kludge that alleviates some problems while creating new ones. The ability to change votes does not cause vote gaming. The ability to gain rep from vote gaming causes vote gaming. The "vote undo window" should be infinite, and the vote gaming should be solved at the source, by eliminating the incentives to do it. –  endolith Jul 31 '11 at 22:12
    
unfortunately, doors have to be locked because sometimes there is crime. If you need to change a vote outside the 5 minute vote window, edit the underlying post to do so. I find that many posts I need to change my vote on, it's because they were edited and improved (or made worse, in rare cases.) –  Jeff Atwood Jul 31 '11 at 22:21
2  
Locked doors don't keep people out of their own homes. Problem: A small number of users are abusing their ability to change votes in order to gain rep. Bad solution: Lock down everything. No one can change votes ever again. Better solutions: Changing vote incurs rep penalty. Voting in a suspicious manner locks you out of casting downvotes/loses rep/gets you banned. Votes aren't displayed for a time so that answers are judged purely on their merit and there's no benefit to downvoting others. C'mon, you're not even trying. :( –  endolith Aug 1 '11 at 2:18
1  
I can't get on board with random on this one. For the people who show up a month later via Google, the edit is ancient and irrelevant history. As long as the final version of a question has technical merit on its own, it shouldn't be downvoted just because its OP created it in a suboptimal way. Downvotes are not punishments, after all. –  Pops Aug 30 '11 at 20:09
    
@endolith: Reputation change when I vote is a terrible idea. It sours my experience to solve the "crime" issue that isn't perpetrated by me. Locking down with an easy work-around is 100% positive for me. I have no fear I'm going to be penalized, and if I'm too low rep on a site, it gives me something to work towards (which increases my interest and investment in said site). Fraud detection that is at all useful is not a solved problem, is not a one-time investment, quality-rots, and requires a team to maintain. I'd rather the investment be in any other feature that improves my experience –  Merlyn Morgan-Graham Aug 30 '11 at 20:36
1  
@MerlynMorgan-Graham: Your reputation already changes when you vote. What "crime" issue? –  endolith Aug 31 '11 at 19:59
    
@endolith: As you suggested, "changing vote incurs rep penalty" to solve the vote gaming and greifing "crime" (Jeff called it a "crime" earlier in this thread). I don't commit the crime, so I don't want to pay a tax when I change my vote. I'm also willing to suffer locked doors, a) because they're already there b) because they don't effect me - I have a master key. For people who don't own the key -> one more goodie for when you use the site more :) –  Merlyn Morgan-Graham Sep 1 '11 at 0:41
1  
@MerlynMorgan-Graham: I'm not sure if anyone commits this "crime", but everyone is punished for it. User "waffles" has shown that most people downvoting other answers are only doing so because the other answers are genuinely wrong, not to be "tactical" or malicious. The hacky workaround of editing a question in order to change a vote is not a "goodie". Preventing people from changing their minds makes the site's content less accurate. –  endolith Sep 1 '11 at 13:47
    
@endolith: Being able to edit a question at all is the goodie. Using that as a work-around for editing a vote isn't, but it might be the least evil of all options; taking time away from other more important features is evil (ala more advanced fraud detection). Harming my experience in any way I consider evil (rep hit for changing votes). Having a minimum rep to do anything that damages the site has been adopted in many places. If this is seen as a problem in need of a solution (the presumption made here), then it will be perpetrated by those with low rep. Locking them down makes sense. –  Merlyn Morgan-Graham Sep 1 '11 at 16:47
    
@MerlynMorgan-Graham: Being able to edit someone else's answer, you mean? Being able to edit and change things is not a "goodie", it's an important site feature. You don't get "gifts" by gaining rep. Getting rep proves that you're trustworthy and not going to abuse the site features. Locking down votes makes no sense, even if it is being abused (which might not even be true). –  endolith Sep 3 '11 at 13:31
    
@endolith: Yes I meant answer. Locking down content/features is a common reward mechanism - see video games. I know that's not how the site presents it or treats it. But that's a way users can choose view it. That's a way I've viewed it. But I've stated my point of view and I don't really have any more detail to provide. You are free to disagree with it. Both ends of our conversation are expressing opinions. There is no absolute right here. –  Merlyn Morgan-Graham Sep 3 '11 at 21:02
    
I'm not a big meta participant (something I'm trying to resolve) so I'm curious - why no downvotes on this answer if it's genuinely perceived to be a poor solution? –  cori Nov 20 '11 at 2:54
1  
@cori: it's a matter of reputation -- the sum of votes is zero, but it has had both up and down votes. Once your reputation is high enough, you can click on the number itself to see specifics. –  sarnold Nov 20 '11 at 5:32

I definitely see where this feature request is coming from, but I think it may be inadvertently treating a symptom rather than a problem.

If a question is edited so much that it makes existing good answers bad or vice versa, it's likely — just likely, not guaranteed — that something was wrong with the edit. It could be a case of an editor accidentally changing the question's intent, or it could be a confused new user trying to ask another question. In those cases, action should be taken, but resetting the votelock isn't the right action.

On the other hand, the edit could be the OP updating with an "I tried what user 124390 said, but it didn't work" message or clarifying an ambiguity/typo. In those sorts of cases, resetting the votelock could be appropriate, although it might be better to just have the answerers delete their posts.

share|improve this answer
    
This answer was originally (briefly) posted as an answer to another question, which was identified as a duplicate of this one. –  Pops Aug 30 '11 at 20:02

You must log in to answer this question.

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