-10

I ran out of votes, and I have 5 hours to go before I get more votes. This is always disappointing, especially when you find a really great post that needs voting. So, I came up with a plan: maybe the system should calculate if you are voting right the way it calculates if you are flagging right and give people more votes.

The way this would work could be something like this: if a user upvotes a question or answer when it is at 0 or +1, then it becomes +5+ (or maybe +10+), it counts towards awarding the user a new vote. If the user downvotes a question that is eventually closed or reaches -5- (or maybe -10-), it also counts toward a new vote for the user. What do you all think?

Improve this question
6
  • 13
    Just because you're voting the same way other people are doesn't mean you're voting "correctly". Just because you're voting in a way that is contrary to the way most other people are voting doesn't mean you're voting "incorrectly". – Servy Jan 28 '15 at 19:06
  • @Servy Just because other people agree with you on your flags doesn't mean you are flagging correctly. – user245368 Jan 28 '15 at 19:07
  • 3
    When the people validating your flags are moderators, it actually is a pretty safe assumption. There are also objective criteria by which one can determine if a flag is correct. There is no possible way for anyone to ever know if someone cast a vote because they think the post wasn't useful, or if it's because they're just mad at the author. – Servy Jan 28 '15 at 19:08
  • 2
    I also would like to have more votes (+1), but I don't think this is the way to do it (-1). Perhaps it should be a function of rep? Rep can be a sign of user involvement in a site, and the more involved you are the more you can be trusted to vote as an expert in that area. – MTL Jan 28 '15 at 19:29
  • Maybe, this was just an idea. Feel free to suggest different ways, everyone. – user245368 Jan 28 '15 at 19:32
  • 2
    The premise of the idea is good. Gotta think about implementation a bit, but the premise is good. – Tim Post Jan 29 '15 at 8:52
12

I share @Shokhet's feelings:

I also would like to have more votes (+1), but I don't think this is the way to do it (-1).

I think one way that could work is to give people an extra 5-10 votes on posts in their tags. So, similarly to how it's currently 30 votes + 10 free question votes, it could be 30 votes + 10 q-votes + 10 tag-votes, per tag. What do i mean by "in your tags"? Tags where you have a bronze badge (see the link).

Improve this answer
5
  • This is an idea, but it doesn't help users without bronze badges - and those are not as common on some sites as others. – user245368 Jan 28 '15 at 20:07
  • 5
    @Hosch250: But on those sites where tag badges are rarer, you are also less likely to run out of votes. – Wrzlprmft Jan 28 '15 at 20:56
  • @Scimonster: You might want to propose that here. – Wrzlprmft Jan 28 '15 at 21:06
  • @Wrzlprmft Done. – Scimonster Jan 28 '15 at 21:20
  • I kinda like this as the base for an idea of extra privileges for unlocking the bronze tag badge. We implemented gold, we're working on something for silver, this is a pretty cool idea for bronze. – Tim Post Jan 29 '15 at 8:51
4

Let's not turn voting into a complicated game. You know how many votes you get per day. It's a fixed number. Spend them wisely.

Improve this answer
3
  • I agree. Though actually, it's a tiny bit complicated already; You get 30 if you are voting only on answers, but you can get ten more if you vote on at least 10 questions. – Andrew Barber Jan 28 '15 at 20:32
  • 2
    @AndrewBarber: You did not fully mention (or know) how complicated it is: Your question-only votes have to be cast as long as you have at least six general-purpose votes left. – Wrzlprmft Jan 28 '15 at 21:03
  • @Wrzlprmft Yeah; True. I always forget that!! (I vote on a lot of questions, too) – Andrew Barber Jan 28 '15 at 21:20
2

Like others have mentioned already, I didn't vote on your post because while I agree that more votes would be cool, I don't think this is a good way to do this.

Maybe it should be a function of reputation points, instead? Rep can be a sign of user involvement in a site, and the more involved you are the more you can be trusted to vote as an expert in that area.
Kind of like flags:

You get one bonus flag per 2000 reputation.

Maybe one bonus vote per 200 reputation?

Improve this answer
0

I do not support this feature request because it would only serve to heighten the disparity in activity between the less popular tags and the most popular ones.

The people most likely the obtain additional votes are those who are participating in popular tags. These are tags that already benefit from a lot of voting activity. When they get their additional vote, chances are that they are going to spend it where they are active.

The less popular tags are where votes are sorely needed. Most answers get a +1, the acceptance mark, and sit like this for months, no matter how correct they are. It would take a long looooong time to get the votes needed to trigger the vote "refund".

Improve this answer
4
  • On some sites, maybe; just not the ones I'm active on. It's pretty rare on most of my sites for a good answer not to get upvotes. – MTL Jan 29 '15 at 14:17
  • I did not say good answers do not get any upvotes. I said good answer in unpopular tags can sit for a long time with only 1 upvote. I'm sure this dynamic varies by site but unless otherwise specified I take proposals submitted to Meta.SE to be proposing the feature network-wide. If the proposal is only for one site, then the proposal should be made on the Meta for the specific site. If it is for a substantial subset of sites maybe Meta.SE is the place for it but the proposal has to specify it. – Louis Jan 29 '15 at 14:35
  • I apologize; I misread your answer. – MTL Jan 29 '15 at 14:39
  • It is for all sites, most of which do not get SO-level activity. What @Shokhet was saying was that on smaller sites, niche tags don't always exist in the same way, and everything gets a higher percentage of eyeballs. – Scimonster Jan 29 '15 at 15:37

You must log in to answer this question.