Timeline for Reduce the reputation earned by answering a question you haven't upvoted
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 5, 2013 at 19:23 | comment | added | Mike Pennington | Your question is not asking about a subjective-but-nonetheless broadly agreed-upon metric. Your question suggests that those who answer questions should upvote (presumably so good questions get more votes). My suggestion accomplishes the same | |
| Aug 5, 2013 at 18:53 | comment | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | The goal is not purely to encourage more question voting, otherwise the software could just add N votes per question automatically. The votes still have to rate questions according to a subjective but nonetheless broadly agreed-upon metric. | |
| Aug 5, 2013 at 18:50 | comment | added | Mike Pennington | if the goal is to encourage more question voting, one could consider it an acceptable outcome if a person randomly upvotes to get their daily "vote points". If we truly desire to limit random voting, optionally implement a vote rate-limiter (perhaps no more than 30 votes in as many minutes), to keep people from gaming the system just for points. The rate-limiter should not apply to the ability to cast a vote, just the ability to get points from voting. | |
| Aug 5, 2013 at 18:41 | comment | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | When you get reputation from someone voting on your post, the decision that grants you reputation (the vote) comes from an external source (the voter). When you get reputation for a suggested edit, the decision (acceptance) comes from an external source (the reviewer). If you got reputation from casting votes, there would be no other user involved, and even no way for anyone other than a handful of employees to see why you got that reputation. How can anyone control that you did something desirable, as opposed to, say, randomly upvoting 40 questions? | |
| Aug 5, 2013 at 18:37 | comment | added | Mike Pennington | When are you proposing that an audit would be required by non-SE mods? | |
| Aug 5, 2013 at 18:37 | comment | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | A handful of SE employees cannot audit millions of users. | |
| Aug 5, 2013 at 18:33 | comment | added | Mike Pennington | @Gilles, stack exchange employees can do such an audit as required... | |
| Aug 5, 2013 at 18:18 | comment | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | Auditable requires that the information is visible by someone other than the person being audited. | |
| Aug 5, 2013 at 18:09 | comment | added | Mike Pennington | @Gilles, responding late because someone upvoted the answer again... voting is auditable... go to the votes tab on your user page | |
| May 9, 2011 at 16:07 | comment | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | I don't like giving reputation purely for voting, because that's completely uncontrolled. Reputation should come from visible (hence auditable) participation. | |
| May 9, 2011 at 5:49 | history | answered | Mike Pennington | CC BY-SA 3.0 |