-9

If I am very interested in a page, upvote all of the appropriate comments, then go and 'spend' my other upvotes contributing to the site (civic duty!) on other questions, and then come back to see a great comment on the original page, it is annoying not be able to upvote that comment.

The main point is that I made the decision to spend my vote before that great comment was available. Instead of demanding that people keep a few votes 'in reserve' for such situations (as I imagine some people might suggest), I think it would be reasonable to:

Allow upvoting if:

  1. you reached your comment vote limit before the comment in question was posted, and
  2. you previously contributed to that page, either providing an answer or by voting on a comment (or question or answer) on that page during your latest climb toward the voting limit (meaning at least one vote on that page contributed to your hitting the limit this time around).

Even better would be just needing to satisfy Condition 1.

Note: It might also be nice to apply this to answer voting, but

  • answers do not come by as quickly, and
  • removing an upvote to allow one on something else is less fraught with difficulty for question and answer voting than it is for comment voting. Yes, you have to find an old upvote in both cases, but removing an upvote is only permanent in the comment voting system.

Note: This probably applies to downvoting too, but that is not something I have done yet, and I don't know about any limits on that.

2 Answers 2

5

The point of the limit is to limit the number of votes of a user on a given period. There should not be anything added to this logic that let users vote a few times more (especially on comments) when they are (were) active on a page before they reached the limit. This would be like encouraging discussions in the comment section which is something we want to avoid not to reward.

Spend your votes wisely and you won't have any problems with this. Don't throw around votes for nothing when you know you have a limit.

1
  • 1
    I am accepting this answer as I agree with the argument of not wanting to lower the effectiveness of the limit. (Also, promoting this answer instead of downvoting the question would seem to be the right thing to do if I disagree with the proposal.) Still, making comment un-upvoting permanent does complicate things.
    – A.M.
    Jun 17, 2013 at 16:07
1

(based on the votes on the question)

This should not be allowed because it would make 'gaming' the vote limit system too easy.

8
  • 2
    How did you make an answer based on votes ? My guess is you knew that before posting the question and hoped it would get positive feedback anyway. Jun 17, 2013 at 15:59
  • @ ʞunɥdɐpɐɥd No. I was not trying to game anything. I saw downvoting. That indicated to me that people did not like the proposal. I think it is very twisted to downvote a question just because you don't like the proposal in it, so I wanted to give people a better outlet for voting that they did not like the proposal (upvoting a "no" answer).
    – A.M.
    Jun 17, 2013 at 16:09
  • I am completely happy for people to upvote your answer instead of mine. I am glad you posted it. Also, I would not think upvotes on my own answer would overcome downvotes on the question (I am not even sure if upvotes your own answer to your question give rep!), so if I really though the proposal was bad, I would not have posted it.
    – A.M.
    Jun 17, 2013 at 16:11
  • That's how votes work in the meta. see meta.stackoverflow.com/help/whats-meta Specifically the vote section. Jun 17, 2013 at 16:24
  • @Hugo Dozois Thanks for the link. Still, directly from that page: "The highest voted answer is typically the one the community at large supports.". Note that it does not say "The highest voted questions [...]". That post is simply explaining that a downvote to an answer does not mean "I think that answer is not useful.", but just "I do not agree." ...so I still don't think downvoting questions is right.
    – A.M.
    Jun 17, 2013 at 16:46
  • Perhaps the only way to get the system to work properly is to word each feature request (and maybe bug report) in the form of a question. Then it would be more clear that downvoting the question should only take place if it was egregiously wrong to even suggest it. It would be more clear that downvoting the proposal should take the form of upvoting "no" answers (and even downvoting "yes" answers).
    – A.M.
    Jun 17, 2013 at 16:48
  • "Votes on meta are generally used to express agreement or disagreement with a particular idea, rather than indicating the quality of research or factual correctness of a post. " How could you disagree with a vote in a way that is it not downvoting. It always work like that and I mean... It's no big deal. Jun 17, 2013 at 17:13
  • Again, all of this expressing agreement or disagreement can happen in the answers.
    – A.M.
    Jun 17, 2013 at 17:25

You must log in to answer this question.

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