I'm a 30k+ user, and I work on Stack Overflow in bursts, voting judiciously.

Can we — either all of us, or just us high-rep users — have more than 40 daily votes please?

  • Perhaps change "Can I" to "Can we" or something. (I can't make the edit, I don't have enough meta rep and I can't suggest single-character edits.) Oct 11, 2011 at 15:39
  • How about just some extra downvotes, is that what you're really after? :)
    – user159834
    Oct 11, 2011 at 15:59
  • 1
    @WesleyMurch: About half and half nowadays, to be honest. Oct 11, 2011 at 16:01
  • 8
    You're one of the brave ones, keep it up! Someone needs to do it! I've seen you around and you always have constructive criticism to compliment the DV. That kind of voting pattern I think is reasonable for someone who mostly answers questions. Off topic, but see my third post on meta: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/87695/…
    – user159834
    Oct 11, 2011 at 16:04
  • @WesleyMurch: Thanks! It's nice to hear that once in a while :) Oct 11, 2011 at 16:26

1 Answer 1


The daily vote limit used to be 30 votes per day; we’ve increased that to a maximum of 40 votes per day (provided some of those votes go to questions).

Already, it is so exceedingly rare for users to even hit the 30 vote daily cap, most users are not even aware that there is a limit. Still, there needs to be a limit.

Reputation is awarded by the community to the users for good content. There is an "economy" to the site with reputation as its currency, and voting drives that economy. But for that currency to have value, it has to be a limited resource. Users have to apportion their votes to their favorite content. That's what gives the award value.

Why are there voting limits?

If you are routinely using your daily allotment, that puts you well up into the +99 percentile of users. That's fantastic; I'm glad you are a conscientious voter. But if the limit was 50, somebody would want 60. If not 60, then 70. You see where I am going with this. There needs to be a limit, and 40 seems just about right, or the apportionment of voting would become increasingly skewed from a small minority of users.

  • 3
    "Users have to apportion their votes to their favorite content" - well, that, or their least favourite content. Is increasing the number of votes available depending ones reputation really such a bad idea? Why? Are they not supposed to be trusted by the system, and thus able to make good decisions on content quality
    – Pekka
    Oct 11, 2011 at 15:05
  • 3
    But the value of the currency does fluctuate according to activity levels. If I only read 40 posts per day I can afford to vote indiscriminately. If I read hundreds I need to be much more discriminating. Oct 11, 2011 at 15:21
  • perhaps change it to 40 upvotes + 40 downvotes. Oct 11, 2011 at 15:22
  • 2
    We could maybe have something like "if I didn't vote for one week, give me some more votes in the next day". But this gets complicated. Oct 11, 2011 at 15:23
  • 6
    What @Pekka said. I don't want more votes than everybody else. I think the limit should be raised, possibly only for high-rep users. I hardly see how that would make them "meaningless". I use the site longer than some lower-rep users do, and my votes certainly carry plenty of meaning thankyou very much. Oct 11, 2011 at 15:26
  • @TomalakGeret'kal: My mistake. I updated my answer. Oct 11, 2011 at 15:56
  • @RobertCartaino: Your new answer is fair :) Oct 11, 2011 at 16:01
  • Yeah, this admittedly makes sense.
    – Pekka
    Oct 11, 2011 at 16:22

You must log in to answer this question.

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