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

Today I found one instance where downvotes on CW posts are being counted and shouldn't be, and one case where CW up/down votes are being counted but maybe shouldn't.

You can see the votes I refer to on my reputation history on Programmers

  1. Earlier today I received a downvote on a community wiki post. As expected, my rep did not go down.
  2. Later on, I hit the reputation cap, so my rep was stopped at 10107 for the day.
  3. After I hit the reputation cap, I received another upvote. This vote was counted as +2 to make up for the downvote as if it was a regular downvote, not a CW downvote.
  4. My reputation is now 10109, though the reputation audit still shows the correct value of 10107.

In addition, it looks like the reputation history is showing this rep gain when it shouldn't — yesterday it shows +77 (8 up, 2 down, and one of my own down votes) when really I gained +39, but also took in 4/2 no-rep CW votes. (But this may be by design?)

share|improve this question
up vote 3 down vote accepted

Update: this is no longer the case, a reversed downvote will give the reputation it actually took away.

This is a by-design bug in the current system, a reversed downvote will always give 2 rep, unfortunately this doesn't play well with the reputation cap or daily/weekly/etc. totals. It's not ideal, but it's also not cheap to check on each vote, at least not at this point in time.

If you trigger a recalc of your reputation, it'll fix these discrepancies...but we're not at the point of keeping this 100% perfect all the time yet, so these slight differences (between your running total that's shown and actual) will creep in. We are talking about this internally lately, but it's by no means a simple problem - so it will remain this way for at least a little while.

share|improve this answer
"by-design bug" Oxymoron much? :) Perhaps you mean "accepted bug". – GManNickG Apr 8 '11 at 3:47
@GMan - I would say "by-design tradeoff" would be the most apt description here, for cost vs accuracy :) – Nick Craver Apr 8 '11 at 3:51
@Gman I've always called them "known issues". @Nick, thanks, that's good info. Just wanted to make sure it was known in case it was new. – NickC Apr 8 '11 at 3:51

You must log in to answer this question.

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