18

I have just run across a question that had several (4 or 5) answers, of which 1 was correct, and 3 incorrect (for different reasons). I upvoted and downvoted accordingly.

  • Is there any moral reason not to do this?

I guess not; asking just in case... I am more interested in the following:

  • Can this behavior trigger some hidden script that monitors "unusual voting activity"? I guess 3 downvotes are not enough, but what if there were 20 downvoted answers?

Why yes: if my judgement was incorrect, it looks like I am deliberately supporting a specific user for no reason

Why not: "serial voting" is described as voting (+ or -) for different posts of the same user - my case is different

  • 1
    But you won't downvote 100 answers, because of loosing rep for every downvote? – nicael Jun 8 '14 at 6:28
28

That is perfectly acceptable, and you're using your votes exactly as they should be used. Stopping at "this answer is correct" is not always good enough. Identifying that "these other answers are incorrect" is very valuable to future visitors. There is nothing in the system that would revert these votes.

If you have the time, you should also leave a comment as to why the answer is incorrect, which would be even more valuable than just a downvote. Then maybe the user could fix their answer to make it correct, explain to you why it is already correct, or even just delete it to prevent incorrect information from appearing further.

3

It would be wrong if you were downvoting the other answers not because [you thought] they were incorrect, but because you preferred the first one.

But if three answers are wrong then of course, yes, downvote those three answers!

To be quite honest I'm not entirely sure what alternative voting methodology you could think could possibly be recommended.

You must log in to answer this question.

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