What really drove me to asking this is the fact that when I logged into my SO account yesterday, I was dazed/amazed/confused to see that my reputation sky-rocketed by 200 points since the previous log in. (It was 595 before and when I logged in again it was 795). Then last night, 195 reputation was reversed for serial upvoting.

Now to get to that kinda position here requires many upvotes to an answer or a question which none of mine have. I went through this https://blog.stackoverflow.com/2008/12/vote-fraud-and-you/ and Are serial upvotes detected? And some more questions on meta.stackoverflow.com that deal with the same.

Now my question here is how do I save my posts from being serially-upvoted? I completely understand that SO does have employ heuristics in order to detect the same. But the thing is this, I really don't want people here to sky-rocket me through serial-upvoting and then the SO tracking system very aptly and cleverly detecting the same and negating those points. But if it's genuine that some 10-20+ users really found my answers proper then it should be fine.

  • 9
    Not sure what the point of this is. The serial voting reversal script is SE's answer to serial voting. If you don't want to get serial voted in the first place, the only bulletproof solution is to not post anything, ever.
    – a cat
    Jun 16, 2012 at 13:17
  • 1
    What is more likely to happen: 10-20+ users coincidentally upvote a different one of your answers in a single day, or one user skipping across your answers and upvoting them?
    – nickb
    Jun 16, 2012 at 13:34
  • @lunboks: Why is it that i would not like to get serial-voted? nickb: Exactly........ Also unsure why was this down-voted :) Jun 16, 2012 at 15:32

1 Answer 1


In short, you cannot prevent a post is massively up-voted.

It could happen that a link to a question is posted in some social networks, or specific blogs, it gets more visibility, and it gets massively up-voted from who sees the link.
You cannot avoid somebody posts a question's link in any places s/he likes; maybe s/he is doing that to allow who knows the answer to give the correct answer.

If it is considered vote fraud, such as in the case of friends voting each other, the necessary action will be taken. If there isn't any vote fraud, there is no reason to limit the number of up-votes a post can receive. I would rather not prefer seeing a limit on the number of up-votes per post being implemented. If an answer is a really good answer, it deserves all the votes it gets, even if that means its score goes higher than 20, and who wrote the answer cannot gain more reputation for the UTC day.

  • In the case of the OP it was not one post being upvoted a ton. It was actually about 25 of his different answers each being upvoted once. I'm assuming by one user (which obviously is a case of serial voting).
    – Paul
    Jun 16, 2012 at 18:35
  • By serial voting, on Stack Exchange we normally mean serial voting done against one single user. I don't think there anything wrong if a user up-votes the answers given for the same question, if they are given from different users.
    – apaderno
    Jun 16, 2012 at 18:42
  • Yes, but this is 26 separate answers to separate questions each being upvoted once.
    – Paul
    Jun 16, 2012 at 18:49
  • 1
    If those 26 answers are written from the same user, and the up-votes comes from the same user, then the vote fraud script will kick in. Differently, there is nothing to worry about.
    – apaderno
    Jun 16, 2012 at 18:53

You must log in to answer this question.

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