Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 158 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

There was a SO question in C that I up-voted.
I made an answer and got quickly +1 (C arrays start at 0 not 1).
But the author made a unfair comment to my answer, and I thought legitimate to remove the +1 to his question. However it was 12 minutes old, so the request was canceled.

I think that delay should be larger. An hour.

share|improve this question
I don't get it. You gave him +1 on his question because you knew an answer? Or because giving him +1 would make your answer get upvotes? You know, you should vote on questions if they are well written, explains the problem in details, and is a good question, something others would probably end asking as well. – BrunoLM Sep 25 '10 at 6:52
What was so bad about the OP's comments anyway, in contrast to the question itself (which you seemed to think was originally worthy of an upvote..)? – Tim Stone Sep 25 '10 at 6:58
@BLM get upvotes? How the owner would know I was the one giving him a +1? (unless there is a hidden feature somewhere?). – ringø Sep 25 '10 at 9:09
@Tim maybe you are right, after reading the q again, it was not that bad. Anyway, the solution is probably to wait a bit, read again the texts, and then upvote if relevant :-) – ringø Sep 25 '10 at 9:14
I've added links to the "credible and/or official sources" to the first answer... – Arjan Aug 15 '15 at 11:51
up vote 7 down vote accepted

The main reason locking in votes exists is to try and limit strategic downvoting (where you downvote all answers on a question except your own so yours is at the top of the list, and once you've gotten a couple upvotes you remove the downvotes to get the rep back and cover your tracks). I thoroughly dislike vote locking, but if the time limit were extended to an hour it would be almost useless for those purposes.

(In February 2010, it was extended from a very short time to 5 minutes, to match the editing grace window.)

share|improve this answer
I didn't have any strategic intent. And I agree with the system. But that delay should be bigger. – ringø Sep 25 '10 at 8:56
@ring0 I didn't say it was meant to stop you specifically, although retracting question upvotes because of something the OP said in a comment is kind of wrong; it's meant to stop people who are blatantly abusing voting to try and get rep, and your suggestion would massively undermine that – Michael Mrozek Sep 25 '10 at 9:12
@MM in my mind, I see SO people being responsible persons. The system must follow some rules, and also it must believe in members fairness. Downvoting may be relevant in some cases: because, the abuse may also come from the current locking: someone waits for the votes up, then does some other comments that make the upvoters regret their choice. Again, votes must be locked, otherwise it would be too easy to abuse it, but the lock-delay should not be too short, as many events may happen after the couples of minutes preceding the lock (my longest comment, with an iPhone!!) – ringø Sep 25 '10 at 9:24

This vote locking feature was explicitly added to discourage what you are trying to do: using votes for a purpose other than what it was intended for. You've demonstrated that this feature works very well as-is.

You could ask the OP to edit his question so that you can downvote it again. Good luck with that.

share|improve this answer
What was I trying to do? You still didn't answer my previous comment question: do you play chess? – ringø Sep 25 '10 at 8:52
@ring0, you should know better than me but it looked like you are using an upvote to draw attention to a question that you have an answer for and a downvote to punish instead of rating the question. Very inappropriate if that's anywhere near accurate of course. Yes, I play an occasional game of chess in my son's chess club. About half a mile away from my machines, I didn't think it relevant. – Uphill Luge Sep 25 '10 at 14:20
Oh, I thought you would know the Pawn "hans passant" :-) – ringø Sep 25 '10 at 14:36
Right, completely irrelevant as I thought. There's a certain risk to posting your real name on a web site, there's always a clown that thinks making fun of it is hilarious. I'm however rather attached to it, anybody doing so within a 3 feet reach has to buy a new pair of eye glasses. – Uphill Luge Sep 25 '10 at 18:28

Your voting pattern is bad.

First, why did you upvote the question? Was it clear, did it show enough research effort? Was it an interesting question? If so, your upvote was okay. But if it wasn't all that, why did you upvote? It seems quite an obvious answer to me, and maybe the question wasn't that good.

So you decided to upvote the question, that is your assessment, which is fine. Why do you need to retract that vote once OP commented? Was the question suddenly not useful any more? Or was it to punish OP? In that case, your voting is really bad and the community should be lucky the vote was locked.

If you don't like OP for the comment (which is totally okay in my opinion), just leave the discussion. Keep your answer for future readers who do think your post is helpful and they will eventually 'correct' the 'issue'.

share|improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

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