Possible Duplicate:
New reputation is too verbose: upvote/unupvote, upvote again

The latest reputation history tracking sometimes shows a sequence of accept-unaccept-accept as +30/-15, +60/-15, or whatever. When expanded, you see the three events happening during the same minute, so the data makes perfect sense.

An example of reputation stats with "contact bounce"

However, the unaccept information is somewhat misleading: most likely, the users simply double-clicked the "check" mark, realized that only a single click is required, and promptly corrected themselves. It would be nice if the site waited for a few seconds before recording an accept or an unaccept, in the same way the hardware waits for a contact to stop bouncing before deciding that a key has indeed been pressed or released.

EDIT It looks like upvoting suffers from the same issue.

marked as duplicate by Nick Craver Mar 9 '12 at 11:51

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • There have been a lot of bug reports/feature requests about this particular aspect of the new rep system. I suppose it's time for someone to look into changing it. By design or not, it might not be the best design, as it's confuzzling a lot of folks. – Cody Gray Mar 2 '12 at 20:53
  • 1
    +1, I have a single answer today that was accepted / unaccepted a total of 9 times in 4 minutes. Something seems amiss. – JaredPar Mar 2 '12 at 21:16
  • 2
    Some rollup or hiding will be done for this vote repeat/reversal case, we're just working on some more important bits behind the scenes for the moment. – Nick Craver Mar 3 '12 at 1:16
  • @NickCraver I'm now seeing this for up / down votes as well. Just got 3 up + 3 down votes on the same answer in a 1 minute period. That seems really amiss. stackoverflow.com/a/9548887/23283 – JaredPar Mar 3 '12 at 19:01

If the "double click" issue really is the case, perhaps a better fix would be to prevent a user double clicking it in the first place. Since unaccepts happen a lot less often, maybe there should be a confirmation box "Do you really want to unaccept this answer?" when the user attempts to unaccept it. Then there won't be all these excess events to deal with.

  • I don't think a confirmation box is the answer to the simple UI problem displayed here. There's an excessive amount of friction involved in a confirmation dialog, and it would have to be displayed each time. It's much easier to just write code that deals with the excess events. There will be times that people unaccept and then reaccept, even if they have to confirm the dialog to do so. What will you do then? – Cody Gray Mar 3 '12 at 4:23

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