Timeline for Please hide "serial upvoting reversed" entries in the public reputation history
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
35 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 12, 2015 at 14:40 | comment | added | Lodder | @AndrewT. done ;) | |
| Apr 12, 2015 at 14:40 | vote | accept | Lodder | ||
| Apr 12, 2015 at 13:12 | comment | added | Meta Andrew T. | I'm not usually requesting like this, but would you consider to accept Shog's answer on Mar 25, since it's the current status? If it doesn't satisfy you, then feel free to ignore this (since OP has the freedom to choose the answer to be accepted). Thank you. | |
| Mar 25, 2015 at 19:45 | comment | added | Habib | It is not 43 any more . 176 to date. | |
| Mar 25, 2015 at 15:17 | answer | added | Shog9 | timeline score: 20 | |
| Mar 25, 2015 at 15:00 | history | edited | Shog9 |
edited tags
|
|
| Feb 19, 2015 at 23:04 | comment | added | Jeffrey Bosboom | 43 Meta Stack Overflow users agree with BoltClock that "It's not like this information is useful to anyone else except for public shaming anyway." | |
| Jul 24, 2014 at 20:52 | history | edited | Lodder | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 4 characters in body
|
| Feb 12, 2013 at 22:23 | answer | added | AndrewC | timeline score: 7 | |
| Dec 11, 2012 at 13:23 | comment | added | AndrewC | I can report back that it was reversed, but only 9 were reversed (perhaps 2 were someone else). I found -90 much more demotivating and confidence shattering than I expected. I felt people would think I had cheated, and I generally answer fewer questions since then. :( | |
| Nov 26, 2012 at 22:16 | comment | added | AndrewC | stands up my name is Andrew and I think some serially upvoted me about 8 hours ago (11 votes across different questions in max 1 hour), and I don't want to be labelled either. sits down | |
| Sep 13, 2012 at 0:06 | comment | added | Kermit | stands up Hello everyone, my name is Norbert. I have been serial upvoted and I do not wish to be labeled sits down | |
| Jul 12, 2012 at 3:19 | vote | accept | Lodder | ||
| Apr 12, 2015 at 14:40 | |||||
| Jul 10, 2012 at 2:08 | comment | added | Uphill Luge | This requires a very substantial change to the code that makes the correction, it now has to change history dynamically to make it look like nothing happened. Tough ask, don't hold your breath. | |
| Jul 9, 2012 at 17:33 | answer | added | Shog9 | timeline score: 76 | |
| Jul 9, 2012 at 16:51 | answer | added | Some Helpful Commenter | timeline score: 22 | |
| Jul 9, 2012 at 14:10 | comment | added | BoltClock's a Unicorn Mod | @animuson: They're not really wasting our time as much as people who go witch-hunting for that kind of thing. | |
| Jul 9, 2012 at 13:10 | answer | added | JimmyPena | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jul 9, 2012 at 1:54 | comment | added | user7116 | Meta has taught me that addition and subtraction are hard. | |
| Jul 9, 2012 at 1:50 | comment | added | Aaron Bertrand Staff | @animuson ok <shrug> of the two, I think the mass one-liner showing a reversal is a much more negative looking mark on someone's history than the scattering of individual votes that caused them. Like I said before, anyone checking up on my rep history already can't make the math work unless I've never down-voted an answer. My point being, I'll take removing only the reversal if it's a significantly different and more cumbersome task to remove the old votes. Plus removing the old votes may change things like rep cap earned on previous days, which currently I don't think they do... | |
| Jul 9, 2012 at 1:39 | comment | added | animuson StaffMod | @AaronBertrand: Encourage what behavior? By hiding it you're preventing the behavior. You don't see any advantage listing the reversal, and I don't see any advantage listing all the reversed votes. They both cause just as much confusion as the other. I'm not saying that having to hide the votes is a reason not to complete this feature, just that if it is completed, they should also be hidden. It only makes sense. | |
| Jul 9, 2012 at 1:32 | comment | added | Aaron Bertrand Staff | @animuson So we want to encourage that behavior, instead of having a moderator decline it? Since the serial reversal message gives absolutely no indication of which votes they're correcting, how is the line item going to suppress these flags from glorified babysitters concerning themselves with other peoples' rep? A reversal doesn't mean it's a correction of the post the busy-body is complaining about. I see no advantage to other users seeing this reversal and I suspect the users you're talking about are an absolute minority. | |
| Jul 9, 2012 at 1:28 | comment | added | animuson StaffMod | @AaronBertrand: because then you'd get people flagging user's posts as "this user had n upvotes within 2 minutes that didn't appear to get reversed, can you look into this?" - but they did get reversed, so we'd be wasting moderator's time, and there are users out there who flag for reasons such as this. | |
| Jul 9, 2012 at 1:23 | comment | added | Andrew Barber | I hadn't considered this but yes, it does take some knowledge of the ins-and-outs to take such a message and not think it is a negative thing that the user themselves did. | |
| Jul 9, 2012 at 0:40 | comment | added | Aaron Bertrand Staff | @animuson why? I can see changes in my reputation that others can't see (e.g. the fact that I have down-voted an answer), and that aren't reflected in the public view of the reputation I've earned in a given day. Why should this be any different? I should be able to see it but other users shouldn't. Why would another user need a 100% accurate picture of my history (which already isn't possible anyway)? | |
| Jul 8, 2012 at 23:20 | comment | added | animuson StaffMod | Just to note, if you remove the serial voting statements, you also have to go back and remove all the actual voting events that caused the reversal in order for the history to make any sense. | |
| Jul 8, 2012 at 21:31 | comment | added | Mat | @RobertHarvey: the big fat red lines in the graph & history don't look real good, even if it is easy enough to see the details - but then you also have to know how to interpret that "serial upvoting reversed" message (it's not that obvious that this user (usually) has nothing to do with it). It's a rep event that doesn't indicate anything about the user's participation, but a correction of actions done by someone else. I think the request has merit. | |
| Jul 8, 2012 at 21:13 | comment | added | user102937 | Why does it make you look bad, exactly? Those who examine the reputation history of users understand how this works; those who don't understand it don't typically care enough to look at it, so. | |
| Jul 8, 2012 at 21:11 | history | edited | Lodder | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 13 characters in body
|
| Jul 8, 2012 at 21:10 | comment | added | Lodder | sorry, yes, I was referring to serial upvoting on multiple answers I have made. I will update my question. thanks | |
| Jul 8, 2012 at 21:08 | comment | added | user176326 | @charles i think the OP was serially upvoted, not down | |
| Jul 8, 2012 at 21:07 | comment | added | Charles | Wait, so you're asking that the restoration of rep taken away by serial downvoters be hidden? Anyone that can understand the reputation tab, or would even care about it, is likely to understand serial downvoting... | |
| Jul 8, 2012 at 21:06 | history | edited | John | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Jul 8, 2012 at 21:01 | history | edited | Mat | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 7 characters in body; edited title
|
| Jul 8, 2012 at 20:56 | history | asked | Lodder | CC BY-SA 3.0 |