2

After failing audit, I've found that topic: YARAFP: Yet Another Review Audit Failed Post. I've went to the question, and then to OP profile, to find out that there are more questions that are low-effort or off-topic.

I know that downvoting them would trigger mass voting reversal script, and scheduling downvoting for the next days is going around the script. But what about close votes? And if questions are really bad, shouldn't the reversal script be stopped in that case?

11
  • 3
    I think that going there in good faith to edit things, or post nice comments, it's definitely OK. Close votes - I doubt it. Should the script stop in case of bad questions? The day you will teach script to recognize them, big close votes queue problem will be solved :P It would be nice, of course. But it's simply impossible.
    – Mołot
    Nov 29, 2013 at 8:00
  • @Mołot what about, downvoting something with close votes/downvotes from other users is excluded from serial downvote detection script? You'd need to count only those votes that wouldn't be serial downvotes if treated solo. Nov 29, 2013 at 8:02
  • 1
    So if someone angers 2 people with his answer, it should be OK for them to serially downvote him, if they will do it together?
    – Mołot
    Nov 29, 2013 at 8:04
  • 1
    So to summarize, you know how to get around the restriction, but rather than using it, you'd rather make it easier for people to get away with serial downvoting? That doesn't seem like a good idea...
    – jmac
    Nov 29, 2013 at 8:09
  • Related problem: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/199418/… Nov 29, 2013 at 8:17
  • 1
    Nope, I think it's an opposite one. Problem you linked is with the legitimate votes, where people honestly accessed questions directly from frontpage, and by the accident all questions happened to be posted by the same user. You want to hunt man down.
    – Mołot
    Nov 29, 2013 at 8:22
  • 1
    @Mołot no I don't want. I want to look for potential problems. Nov 29, 2013 at 8:29
  • 1
    On a specific user's page, so that's just a nicer way to say the same thing.
    – Mołot
    Nov 29, 2013 at 8:30
  • 3
    @Mołot but he's voting on posts, not the poster. Being from a specific user just happens to be a pretty good heuristic. Nov 29, 2013 at 8:41
  • 1
    @JanDvorak I can't believe that anyone who came to user's page to "look for problems" will be honestly able to vote on posts, not thinking about their author. That's not how human mind works.
    – Mołot
    Nov 29, 2013 at 8:42
  • 1
    @JanDvorak exactly, some user tend to ask similar questions, for example off-topic ones. For example software installation questions. Nov 29, 2013 at 8:44

1 Answer 1

5

No, it isn't acceptable.

Going through someones post is targeted voting - either for upvoting or downvoting, or general voting. This targets the person, not the posts.

Which goes against quite a lot of community history - we vote on posts, not people. When we detect such targeted voting, the votes get reversed and the offending parties may very well get suspended for a while.

You are welcome to flag such posts for moderator attention and explain that there is a problem with the quality from a person - moderators will use judgment in deciding whether the user needs to be contacted / banned / whaterver.

We do have some automated quality bans on answers and questions - an element in triggering those are the votes on a persons posts. Many downvotes on multiple posts of someone are a signal for the automated bans. But as you said, too many downvotes by one person against another indicate targeted voting which we do not want.

10
  • 1
    Flagged. Let's see what the effect will be. Nov 29, 2013 at 8:46
  • 1
    @ŁukaszL. - take into account that there are over 600 pending moderator flags. It can take a while (in particular with Other flags, as they are each different and need more handling)
    – Oded
    Nov 29, 2013 at 8:47
  • What about going through someone's comments to flag inappropriate ones? Sometimes people create a series of rants that should be removed.
    – Szymon
    Nov 29, 2013 at 9:05
  • 1
    @Szymon - On one post? Flag one of them. On several posts? Flag one of them - put links to the others in the message.
    – Oded
    Nov 29, 2013 at 9:06
  • @Oded wouldn't flagging all comments with one of 4 "no further explanation" reasons faster & easier to deal with? Just asking, I'm not even 10k anywhere yet, so I have no clue how moderation tools works.
    – Mołot
    Nov 29, 2013 at 9:27
  • 1
    @Mołot - Comment flags can only be handled by moderators, not 10k users. Sure, you could flag each and every such comment, but then risk different moderators dealing with each one in isolation.
    – Oded
    Nov 29, 2013 at 9:30
  • What about spam posts? Can we flag each of them as spam, or we should use a custom flag as well? Nov 29, 2013 at 9:36
  • 1
    @JanDvorak - Spam is spam. Moderators and the system will treat spam/offensive flags differently - so absolutely use the correct flag for these. Note that the question was about voting, not flagging.
    – Oded
    Nov 29, 2013 at 9:38
  • Good note about the auto-ban. I'm convinced. +1 Nov 29, 2013 at 9:41
  • Thank you for clarifications, sorry for going a bit offtopic.
    – Mołot
    Nov 29, 2013 at 10:05

You must log in to answer this question.

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