I'm suggesting this not as a SE feature, but as a MetaSO feature.

I just went through and up/down-voted a slew of items in a CW poll only to find that it was counting towards my daily-limit. CW votes don't cost/grant any rep, so why am I limited? Kinda discourages real heavy participation in poll's (upvoting answers you like, downvoting those you don't.) I can't really downvote the answers I like without losing the ability to grant people up-votes in non-cw questions. Stinks.

Note: Votes a demonstrably different in CW/Non-CW questions. In one, score and rep is tied in, and in another it's not. I'm not making a case that the two atmospheres are different, SO already treats them differently. I'm suggesting we extend that treatment onto daily-limits too.

  • 2
    This should be community wiki ;) – Troggy Aug 13 '09 at 21:41
  • Don't make me revisit the vote-limitation code - I shudder at how I first wrote it! – Jarrod Dixon Aug 13 '09 at 23:33
  • And remember, there's always tomorrow; at midnight-UTC, the vote fairy brings more! – Jarrod Dixon Aug 13 '09 at 23:35

I don't think up-voting on CW posts should be un-bounded.

What I propose is having another 30 CW votes. That way, they don't count against your real votes, but you still have a limit.

At least here on Meta.


Votes are supposed to mean something, regardless of the reputation gain/loss. If you take away the cap on CW votes, then we are saying that the votes on CW can be frivolously given/taken away willy-nilly.

  • Votes on CW are frivolous. Have you see the "favorite cartoon" CWs? Voting on swag from conferences? These are frivolous topics, and as such, the votes shouldn't be limited :) – Sampson Aug 13 '09 at 17:31
  • 3
    "Votes on CW are frivolous." -- And that's your argument for being allowed to do it more? – mmyers Aug 13 '09 at 17:33
  • 1
    Favorite cartoon is a relic that would NEVER get through these days. – devinb Aug 13 '09 at 17:35
  • The cartoon thread is a readily-familiar example. Polls are happening all the time. – Sampson Aug 13 '09 at 17:45
  • @mmyers, Yes. It would be like telling a person they can have 3 drinks a day, and then counting each involuntary swallow as a drink since you're technically ingesting liquids...gross analogy, but hopefully you get the point. – Sampson Aug 13 '09 at 17:48

My first impulse was to up-vote this suggestion, since you're right - votes on fluff CW posts are as meaningless as the posts themselves.

But devinb is right - votes are votes. If you want to waste yours on CW posts, then that's your choice - but you'll have less say when it comes to real Q&A then.

  • 1
    Shog9, with all due respect asking me to vote on what I think Podcast #66 should feature, and asking me the proper way to parse dirty-XML shouldn't be treated equally. – Sampson Aug 13 '09 at 17:46
  • 2
    @Jonathan, if votes on a question don't matter... then why is it worthy of being on SO? – devinb Aug 13 '09 at 17:51
  • 2
    @Jonathan, if you don't want to use your votes on CW posts because you'd rather save them for "real" posts, that is your choice; if this discourages you from participating in CW/polling questions, I'm not sure Jeff and co. would be all that upset about it. – Timothy Carter Aug 13 '09 at 17:55
  • 2
    @devinb - I'm speaking more in the context of MetaSO. I don't do much 'voting' on SO, since voting (on subjective topics like podcast subjects) is typically a meta-behavior. – Sampson Aug 13 '09 at 18:02

A vote is a vote. That is an obvious statement. But I think Jonathan does have a very valid point. Why should CW votes be measured the same way, why should votes be measured at all? Are we preventing negative activity? Votes are good, right?

Maybe the real question should be if there needs to be a limit on the number of votes.

  • A vote is a vote, and force is force, but a punch is not a massage :) There are different types of votes. We already treat them different by not counting score on CW posts. So my only question is, if they're not the same thing, why should they be treated the same way regarding limits? – Sampson Aug 13 '09 at 18:58
  • I kinda thought it was to give them value... If you only get 20 a day, maybe you'll think harder about where you use them? But if it's something mundane like, "to prevent rampant rep inflation", then yeah - doesn't really make any sense for CW. – Shog9 Aug 13 '09 at 18:58

The purpose of votes on regular questions is to move the good answers higher on the web page. If you hit your limit, you're probably upvoting too many answers in given questions, and not picking out the best. A secondary purpose of these votes is to boost people's rep, and it makes sense to have a limit on how much rep you can boost in a day.

In a CW poll, the purpose of a vote is to signal agreement with a given answer, and there may be many answers. If there was a question about obscure programming languages I've used, for example, I'd want to upvote quite a few. In this case, I'm not voting answers that are correct or good, but signaling that I belong to a group.

Therefore, the votes serve different purposes, and ideally should be considered separately.

You must log in to answer this question.

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