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?

  • 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 '13 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. – Danubian Sailor Nov 29 '13 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 '13 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 '13 at 8:09
  • Related problem: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/199418/… – Danubian Sailor Nov 29 '13 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 '13 at 8:22
  • 1
    @Mołot no I don't want. I want to look for potential problems. – Danubian Sailor Nov 29 '13 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 '13 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. – John Dvorak Nov 29 '13 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 '13 at 8:42
  • 1
    @JanDvorak exactly, some user tend to ask similar questions, for example off-topic ones. For example software installation questions. – Danubian Sailor Nov 29 '13 at 8:44

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.

  • 1
    Flagged. Let's see what the effect will be. – Danubian Sailor Nov 29 '13 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 '13 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 '13 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 '13 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 '13 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 '13 at 9:30
  • What about spam posts? Can we flag each of them as spam, or we should use a custom flag as well? – John Dvorak Nov 29 '13 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 '13 at 9:38
  • Good note about the auto-ban. I'm convinced. +1 – John Dvorak Nov 29 '13 at 9:41
  • Thank you for clarifications, sorry for going a bit offtopic. – Mołot Nov 29 '13 at 10:05

You must log in to answer this question.

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