On the UX Stack Exchange, recently there was a discussion about the vote buttons on Stack Exchange.

As shown here, the voting buttons are not there, unlike other posts:

Inconsistency of the UX

On this question, it says that because nobody can vote, it doesn't show it. The accidental discovery could show a message like You can't vote on locked posts, kind of like the 'you need 15 rep', or 'you can't vote on your own posts' messages. While the rationale is 'it's a global state', it's inconsistent with the rest of the site.

Can we please put the vote arrows back in those posts, same way we have in other locked posts?

  • @Mat This was more of a feature request to change it, while the other one is just a discussion. – Justin Krejcha Mar 20 '14 at 15:53
  • 2
    @justcool393 no this is not a feature request. "why isn't the buttons shown when the post is locked?" is a support question. If you'll edit the question into feature request (e.g. Show vote buttons in locked posted) I will retract my close vote. – Shadow Wizard is Ear For You Mar 20 '14 at 15:57
  • @ShadowWizard I edited my post to make it more clear. – Justin Krejcha Mar 20 '14 at 16:00
  • 2
    Nope. You are still asking a question, not suggesting any new feature (feature request should be "Please do X", not "Why isn't it X?". Want me to try and edit it into proper request? – Shadow Wizard is Ear For You Mar 20 '14 at 16:05
  • The other question explains why they are hidden... – Anonymous Penguin Mar 20 '14 at 16:06
  • 1
    This seems more like a discussion to me. You didn't convince us that it should be there, and the answer to your question is in the post you linked.please read more here:meta.stackoverflow.com/tags/feature-request/info – Mhmd Mar 20 '14 at 16:07

The lack of vote buttons is a signal that the page you are looking at is not "normal".

Historical posts are no longer part of the standard Q&A post system, and as such, should not feature the same UI dress as you would see of questions that can be edited, closed and/or deleted.

They are abominations, anomalies and aberrant.

  • 2
    Not to mention abhorrent, atypical and apathetic. – user102937 Mar 22 '14 at 0:09

You must log in to answer this question.

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