Timeline for Should the weight of question upvotes be reduced?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 23, 2017 at 12:36 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| Mar 22, 2010 at 3:52 | comment | added | waffles | @Henri by analyzing an old data dump, my guestimate was pretty close percentage wise. | |
| Mar 22, 2010 at 2:18 | comment | added | unlobito | How did you calculate this? | |
| Mar 19, 2010 at 15:29 | comment | added | RSolberg | OUCH! Taking nearly a 20% hit! | |
| Mar 19, 2010 at 13:49 | comment | added | Kip | Wow, I'm number three among 10k+ users? Even still, it looks like I only stand to lose 1010 rep, which keeps me over 10k. Now, on Meta, I stand to lose a lot more... | |
| Mar 19, 2010 at 13:44 | history | edited | Kip | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
moved your headers into your pre tag so they would line up with the columns
|
| Mar 19, 2010 at 12:51 | comment | added | sth | It totally ignores that upvotes != reputation. If you get many votes on a day that doesn't translate into equally much reputation. Also community wiki posts (which are often highly upvoted), are probably not accounted for correctly. | |
| Mar 19, 2010 at 11:42 | comment | added | waffles | @Daniel not 6 months, maybe 3 or so. have not gotten around to loading latest, but I suspect the trends and affected users still hold | |
| Mar 19, 2010 at 11:07 | comment | added | Daniel Vassallo | The data is about 6 months old, isn't it? | |
| Mar 19, 2010 at 10:14 | comment | added | Casebash | Considering I'm facing a back-of-the-envelope 60% penalty (silly bounties), I wouldn't really call 12% that harsh | |
| Mar 19, 2010 at 10:10 | comment | added | ShuggyCoUk | Wow - I'm on a list higher than Eric Lippert, it must be wrong! ;) | |
| Mar 19, 2010 at 8:21 | comment | added | Benjol | Glad I'm not in that top list! I think I'm going to take quite a hit for this as well, though I don't think I've often asked questions that weren't for a real problem I needed to solve. | |
| Mar 19, 2010 at 8:13 | comment | added | Casebash | -1 for incorrect figures - your calculation ignores bounties/downvotes. The later are negligible for most users, but the former are not. | |
| Mar 19, 2010 at 8:04 | comment | added | ripper234 | So now I'm a "problem user" ? I have no problem with the change, I will probablly still use SO as I do today. For me, it's an invaluable tool for finding answers, and I rarely have the time to post answers (very rarely there's a question that my skills alone can help. Usually there are dozens of people ready to write answers, so I don't feel this is hurting/leeching the site). | |
| Mar 19, 2010 at 5:49 | comment | added | Gnome | Thanks for putting numbers to the issue. As someone affected by it, does it really feel like punishment or is there some "questions were slightly overvalued, and this corrects that"? Either way, also as someone significantly affected, do you think it would be an improvement to SO? | |
| Mar 19, 2010 at 5:44 | comment | added | Jeff Atwood | @dmckee that's percent of votes that are question votes. If it's 100% you would lose half your rep, roughly. | |
| Mar 19, 2010 at 5:43 | comment | added | Jeff Atwood | thanks for putting this together -- it actually looks fine to me. At least, the effect is what I had in mind. | |
| Mar 19, 2010 at 5:43 | comment | added | dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten | What does the penalty column represent? Percent of votes affected? Percent of reputation lost? Would some people actually get crushed entirely? Yikes! | |
| Mar 19, 2010 at 5:32 | history | answered | waffles | CC BY-SA 2.5 |