1

The two questions are:

The first one is the new one. The second one is an old one which I answered 6 weeks ago. These questions are very similar. The answers are identical for sure: same reason, same spec citation.

(Note that I voted it as a duplicate, though please don't factor that in to my question here. That's not what I'm asking about and I'm not posting this question to try to draw attention to that.)

What I'm wondering about is the up vote discrepancy: the new one has about twice as many votes, has made it in to the hot questions, where the old one took quite a few weeks to accumulate the votes it did.

Basically I don't see any difference in quality between these two question and answer sets. The only difference I see is the amount of reputation of the users involved. Is that it? Or is there some other reason?

I'm just trying to understand it. As a new user this type of thing is very ambiguous. These situations happen all the time obviously but this one hit closer to home since the old question holds my top-voted answer at the moment. I've been trying to improve and I can't tell if there is some kind of feedback I can infer from this or not.

If I am right that it's just a rep difference I am OK with this kind of inequality but it's a little frustrating.

7
  • 1
    Your equation may be true for various reasons, but rep is hardly the only difference. There have got to be better ways to contribute and improve than by trying to read into this... Commented Mar 6, 2014 at 2:27
  • 1
    @NickStauner Yes, I know, this is an isolated example and I'm just curious mainly. Not expecting a full analysis, like I said, this kind of thing is just a little mystifying sometimes.
    – Radiodef
    Commented Mar 6, 2014 at 2:31
  • 1
    Not downvoting, but "It looks pretty plain here" is a pretty strong assertion of facts that you have not presented evidence to support. There are many, many factors (at least one of which @RobertHarvey mentioned in his answer) that can contribute. Reputation levels are probably among the lesser possibilities - I seldom look at the rep of the asker unless the question is very low quality; I look then to decide whether I should just close-vote, down-vote, or ask for more details. New users get the latter, and experienced users get one of the previous - they should know better.
    – Ken White
    Commented Mar 6, 2014 at 3:31
  • @KenWhite Yes, Robert's answer seems to show I was wrong. That's why I asked the question.
    – Radiodef
    Commented Mar 6, 2014 at 3:37
  • I pointed it out because you should be very careful about making accusations (which "pretty plain here" does). It's better to ask the question without accusing people of misconduct or favoritism unless you have specific evidence to support that acccusation. Accusing people of doing things that you can't support tends to offend people, which is not constructive (or helpful to you).
    – Ken White
    Commented Mar 6, 2014 at 3:40
  • @KenWhite You are inferring all of that. The word I used was 'inequality' and it's true the votes are unequal (though shown by Robert to be proportional). Users with more rep could also get more up votes because they tend to be more respected members of the community. I never claimed this was bad. Actually I said I was OK with it and the only thing negative I said was that "it's a little frustrating".
    – Radiodef
    Commented Mar 6, 2014 at 3:58
  • @KenWhite Thanks for you input, I've removed the phrase you've singled out. I just don't see how you get the stuff about favoritism and misconduct from what I said without reading in to it a bit.
    – Radiodef
    Commented Mar 6, 2014 at 4:23

1 Answer 1

4

The first one got approximately twice as many votes because it got twice as many views.

6
  • It's true, much more quickly it seems too. Why do you think it might have gotten more views? Time of day for example? Just coincidence?
    – Radiodef
    Commented Mar 6, 2014 at 2:26
  • 1
    Timing, tags, shares to external websites, etc.... Commented Mar 6, 2014 at 2:30
  • Also: and yes, this is absolutely something I didn't see before. Though, again, still a little mystifying. The old question is 5 weeks old, the new one was asked this morning.
    – Radiodef
    Commented Mar 6, 2014 at 2:33
  • 4
    @Radiodef We can't really know what exact circumstances led to this particular question being viewed more than the other. Anything we come up with would just be pure guesses, which doesn't really make for a constructive conversation.
    – animuson StaffMod
    Commented Mar 6, 2014 at 2:48
  • @animuson Is there an existing meta thread or blog post on this you know of? And I do think this answers my question: it makes the rep hypothesis appear false and points me in the right direction. Thanks, Robert.
    – Radiodef
    Commented Mar 6, 2014 at 2:52
  • @animuson Actually never mind, I've found some stuff myself. Thanks.
    – Radiodef
    Commented Mar 6, 2014 at 2:56

You must log in to answer this question.

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