I usually start my search for answers at stackoverflow.com or meta.stackoverflow.com -- but today I start at Google.

I searched: "can I determine who down voted on Stackoverflow" (link)

First result: (A) Can I tell who downvoted one of my answers?

Second result: (B) See who is upvoting/ downvoting my question/answer

Now... when I proceed to go to meta I uncovered these facts:

  • (A) was created before (B)
  • (A) was answered before (B)
  • (A) showed up before (B) on Google (arguably irrelevant)
  • (A) has more responses than (B)
  • (B) has more points total (question and answers) that (A)
  • (A) is marked as a DUPLICATE of (B)

Why did this happen?

Reference Links:

  • 7
    Presumably, the later question was determined to be better quality. It's more concise and the accepted answer was more in-depth.
    – Tass
    Mar 13 '13 at 1:19
  • 1
    I am asking for the user's ability to request the moderators to reconsider a verdict of DUPLICATE or CLOSED. I think that those are applied to some questions incorrectly. (A) in this case was clearly first and (B) the duplicate. right? Mar 13 '13 at 1:19
  • @Tass that is highly subjective. and if that is the case -- what can be done to improve the SEO of the preferred question over "duplicates" Mar 13 '13 at 1:21
  • 3
    I think your question would have gotten a warmer response if you had given it a less adversarial title: "Why is an older question closed as a duplicate of a newer question?" (Daring people to downvote is also less than wise...) Mar 13 '13 at 1:23
  • @DavidRobinson - Why is my title adversarial? It speaks to the common users potential right to speak up when judgement is passed on the quality / validity of their question and they don't agree. I'm being democratic. I am asking is there room for a 'reconsider' option? Like the appelate court. Saying that I am adversarial seems like you getting defensive. Mar 13 '13 at 1:27
  • I considered rolling back your edit since your original request was more reasonable, but ultimately I decided to leave it alone. Mar 13 '13 at 1:27
  • 9
    "Veto" has nothing to do with "requesting to reconsider. It means "I forbid" literally and is usually used as a synonym of overruling.
    – Dennis
    Mar 13 '13 at 1:29
  • 2
    I tried to explain the downvotes and why your title might be considered adversarial. From Wikipedia: A veto – Latin for "I forbid" – is the power (used by an officer of the state, for example) to unilaterally stop an official action, especially the enactment of legislation. It sound like your requesting übernod powers.
    – Dennis
    Mar 13 '13 at 1:34
  • 2
    @GlennFerrieLive: psubsee already rolled it back. Rephrasing the title would be probably a good idea. Beyond that, phrases like It speaks to the common users potential right to speak up... make it sound like you're leading some kind of revolution, when you're in fact discussing a question closed as a duplicate years ago. Mar 13 '13 at 1:35
  • 3
    @GlennFerrieLive: There is no recourse for the user- there absolutely is: bring it up on Meta. You didn't just bring it up, you came expecting, and possibly even looking for, a fight. (When askers on Meta SO use dramatic language- "democracy" is a key word, as are "lawyer", "rights", "fascist", and "StackOverlord"- it's usually a sign that the discussion won't be constructive) Mar 13 '13 at 1:38
  • 3
    @GlennFerrieLive The resource for users is making a post here, like you did. The problem is that the tone of your post and all of your comments is so negative that you're not gaining much sympathy.
    – Jeremy
    Mar 13 '13 at 1:38
  • 1
    Can you be more clear about your expected result here? Do you want an explanation of this specific closing? Of non-chronological duplicate closings generally? Are you requesting that these two questions be un-duped, or re-closed the other way around? Are you suggesting that dupes should never be made out of order like this? Are you requesting some privilege related to this situation be added to the system? All of these things are reasonable for Meta, but it's really not divinable from the body of your question what exactly you want.
    – jscs
    Mar 13 '13 at 1:42
  • 4
    But what question are you trying to ask? "What gives here?" isn't a useful question.
    – Caleb
    Mar 13 '13 at 1:47
  • 1
    Suggested (maybe required) reading: How do I participate in meta Stack Overflow and not die trying? It can be a tough crowd.
    – jscs
    Mar 13 '13 at 1:57
  • 1
    @GlennFerrieLive: I hope you reconsider. Like I said before, the issue is that you phrased both your question title and especially your comments as though you were already fighting a battle ("common user's right to speak up"). If you had framed it as a question ("why did this happen," or even "I don't think this should have happened") I think you would have found responses much friendlier! (People here like discussing things!) Mar 13 '13 at 1:58

I am asking for the user's ability to request the moderators to reconsider a verdict of DUPLICATE or CLOSED.

You already have that ability. You can always flag a question that you think was closed incorrectly. And if you still don't like the answer, you can bring it up here and try to build a case for a different result.


Just to get a fresh start on your original question.... why does it matter which question was closed as a duplicate of which? If an older question was closed as a duplicate of a newer question, the community members (or moderator) who initiated the close felt as if the newer question was better (either better written or had better answers).

The purpose of duplicates are 2-fold...

  1. For SEO purposes so various search phrases point to the same answers.
  2. To make sure that the best answers are all grouped under the best question.

If you asked a question that got closed as a duplicate and you want to dispute the closing, meta would be the right place to bring it up, but the ideal way to address it would be to state "Why was my question closed as a duplicate" and explain why you disagree. Community moderation in general makes plenty of mistakes, so the simple act of bringing it up in a constructive manner would be generally useful. But rather than linking to various unrelated questions, it is usually more helpful to link to the specific question you are concerned about.

In response to your specific request about a , such a tag is inappropriate for non-meta section of Stack Exchange as it is a meta tag.

  • I think it's clear from the question that GlenFerrieLive is not asking about one of his own posts, but, regardless of that, the same procedure does apply for inquiring about the situation.
    – jscs
    Mar 13 '13 at 1:50
  • @JoshCaswell I don't agree that it is clear what he is asking about... all he did was link to two 3+ year old questions and complain about why a newer one was closed as a dup of an older one. I made a guess that he had a similar experience and directed my answer directly to him. However, if I was wrong in my guess... you are right the answer still does apply Mar 13 '13 at 1:54
  • Well, I guess that's the only part of the question that was clear to me. :) (See my comments on the question itself.)
    – jscs
    Mar 13 '13 at 1:58
  • re: veto-moderator-ruling: I assume Glenn was suggesting such a tag for MSO, not for SO (for one thing, he has enough rep on SO to create a tag) Mar 13 '13 at 4:08

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