Timeline for Does a script exist to reverse serial downvotes that aren't targeted at a specific user?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 18, 2021 at 12:17 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://data.stackexchange.com/ with https://data.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| May 23, 2017 at 12:36 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 9:43 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackoverflow.com/ with https://meta.stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| Apr 24, 2014 at 14:02 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Migration of MSO links to MSE links
|
|
| Apr 24, 2014 at 14:01 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Migration of MSO links to MSE links
|
|
| Mar 11, 2014 at 1:56 | comment | added | jscs | The problem is that you're being vague, @Emracool; yes, there's just the one voting-inspection script. But you're asking "does this thing exist?" without saying what exactly that thing is. What is a "series" of downvotes that isn't pointed at a user? Or what's a "random" downvote? This wouldn't even be answerable if there wasn't only one script. I believe that you're not advocating for anything (though note that future readers who come across this might be), but your presentation(s) are definitely suggestive -- in particular, unwillingness to define terms often covers a hidden motive. | |
| Mar 11, 2014 at 1:36 | history | edited | user213963 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 964 characters in body
|
| Mar 11, 2014 at 1:22 | comment | added | user206222 | @Michael Er, no, that's not what I'm implying at all. I'm literally just asking to know if such a script exists. This isn't an answer to this question. | |
| Mar 11, 2014 at 0:36 | comment | added | user213963 | The misunderstanding that this answer tries to correct is that down votes are somehow wrong or bad and that people need to be protected from them as implied in the question title. | |
| Mar 11, 2014 at 0:34 | comment | added | user213963 | It is an attempt to show that down voting is as much part of the system as up voting is. There is no need to protect anything from mass "random" down votes as there is no need to protect anything from a mass "random" up vote. They are two sides to the coin - one is as essential as the other. Serial up votes is as much an issue as serial down votes and in all cases, they should be taken with equal importance. That there is no script for serial "random" up votes for when someone casts 40 up votes in a day, there is likewise no script for a serial "random" down vote. | |
| Mar 10, 2014 at 21:12 | history | edited | gnat | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
explanatory links for roomba, 20Kers, 10Kers
|
| Mar 10, 2014 at 19:32 | history | edited | user213963 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 46 characters in body
|
| Mar 10, 2014 at 19:25 | history | answered | user213963 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |