The Tumbleweed badge is awarded for questions with no votes, no answers, no comments, and low views for a week.

For a week refers to the first week of existence as per this answer.

This question was asked on September 12 and got three votes (2 up-votes and a down-vote) on the same day.

enter image description here

But the user was awarded with the tumbleweed badge for this question on November 9.

I've noted that the post got a down-vote on November 9, then the score went to zero and then the badge was awarded.

Zero score is differ from no votes.

Where is the issue here? in the badge-description or in the badge awarding process?

1 Answer 1


This was a strange corner case. The user that cast the down vote was later deleted, which means the vote never technically existed in the first place, which wouldn't interfere with the badge being awarded.

I'm not all that certain how we could make that clearer, though, except to say that the badge is being awarded properly. The queries that do this are scoped by time, so it's possible that a week in the past suddenly becoming eligible, thus making the post eligible would cause the badge to be awarded.

This is technically by-design, as no votes (as far as the query that awards this) is zero score, which it was, until the down vote was removed. What remains is the badge criteria being perhaps a bit too ambiguous.

  • The last downvote was deleted, since the user(voter) was removed. But, the question got three votes on the posted day. Those votes remain till now. I would like to ask if a question has zero score with multiple votes, is that post eligible for tumbleweed?
    – Azik
    Dec 11, 2013 at 7:15
  • It's not a status-bydesign, it's a bug.
    – Azik
    Dec 11, 2013 at 7:18
  • @Azik I see what you mean now, sorry - removed the status tag. What I said about posts becoming eligible due to a deleted (or rescinded) vote holds, though, but I'm going to have a deeper look at this. All three votes happened at exactly 12:51.
    – user50049
    Dec 11, 2013 at 7:29
  • @Azik As I suspected, it is defined as zero score as far as the query is concerned, a criteria that did in fact describe the post until the down vote was removed.
    – user50049
    Dec 11, 2013 at 7:40
  • 5
    still, there is an issue with badge-description, as I added in the question, zero score is differ from no votes and again pl remove status-bydesign.
    – Azik
    Dec 11, 2013 at 7:41
  • @Azik That does make sense. Kind of bewildered that it hasn't come up before now, we've had that badge for quite a long time.
    – user50049
    Dec 11, 2013 at 11:59
  • I have an another doubt, why the query runs for this badge to a 27 days old question? This answer says that the tumbleweed badge only looks over the first week of the post's existence. Pl clarify.
    – Azik
    Dec 11, 2013 at 12:54
  • @TinyTim I guess that questions usually falls into one of 3 categories: good, bad, unnoticed. Situation with equal amount of up and downvotes is pretty rare and it should be, it means community has agreement on what is a good behaviour. But of course that's not an excuse for description that does not really meet actual criteria. And I prefer they way it's described over the way it's implemented.
    – Mołot
    Dec 11, 2013 at 13:20
  • 1
    @Azik Because the removal of that vote made the post eligible in the first week, as the vote ceased to exist. That's what I was explaining in my answer - the query will return any eligible post where it wasn't awarded.
    – user50049
    Dec 11, 2013 at 14:55

You must log in to answer this question.

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