There are many new question, even limited to a field. A new method, to see which one is interesting, could be to display the reputation of the person who upvoted and has the largest reputation among upvoters. (Or, to protect privacy, some rounding of this number.) Then new questions could be filtered using this upon demand, or everyone could see the ones already upvoted by someone whose reputation is at least 10% of his own reputation.

| improve this question | | | | |
  • 2
    Why not age? Country? Gender? Favorite coffee? They all might have effect on others when trying to decide "upvote or not?" – Shadow Keeps Social Distance Apr 15 '15 at 11:03
  • 5
    @ShadowWizard Yes, I like the coffee idea. If I see that someone drinks coffee instead of tea then I don't want to hear what they have to say about anything. – JonW Apr 15 '15 at 11:04
  • @JonW haha, and to make it happen, there should be a dialog when upvoting asking for those things. – Shadow Keeps Social Distance Apr 15 '15 at 11:04
  • Tea drinking people are so unreliable ;) @JonW – Patrick Hofman Apr 15 '15 at 11:04
  • 1
  • Among other issues raised this might reveal the voter and that would sacrifice that voting is anonymous. – rene Apr 15 '15 at 11:16
  • 1
    No matter how you round it, all of Jon Skeet's votes on SO could be traced back to him. – Robert Longson Apr 15 '15 at 11:53
  • @rene: This could be avoided in the way I have indicated. – domotorp Apr 15 '15 at 11:53
  • @Shadow: You can laugh, but I would be interested in a lot more info about upvoters. These are problematic to obtain, reputation is easily doable. – domotorp Apr 15 '15 at 11:54
  • And why is that interesting, for you or for others? What aspect of the site and/or behavior of users will be influenced by this statistic? – rene Apr 15 '15 at 11:57
  • @rene: I would like to look through questions that other experts find interesting instead of wasting my time on trying to understand uninteresting problems. As it is now, I can only read a random subset of all questions, usually the ones with high votecount, but this is not always a good measure. – domotorp Apr 15 '15 at 12:00
  • Or maybe this one – rene Apr 15 '15 at 12:17

I don't know how the reputation of the upvoter (or downvoter) is related to the usefulness of the post. If Jon Skeet upvotes an question, does that mean the question is better than when I did?

Therefore I don't think this feature is useful. It will add unnecessary weight to the opinion of one of the voters.

| improve this answer | | | | |
  • I really don't understand what your problem is. Beginners might find a question interesting, that is not so for experts. – domotorp Apr 15 '15 at 11:58
  • 2
    @domotorp Someone with 15 rep upvoting a question might be an expert in the field. Rep doesn't correlate at all with programming experience. – Servy Apr 15 '15 at 12:59
  • The same argument should hold for the reputation of the person asking the question - then why is that shown? In fact, why do we have reputation at all with this logic? – domotorp Apr 15 '15 at 19:44
  • @domotorp: That is the gaming element, and the reputation shown in just to reflect that. Nothing more, nothing less. – Patrick Hofman Apr 16 '15 at 11:08

This would openly and blatantly violate privacy through a multitude of statistical inference algorithms. I would very much like to add the beverage question:

  • Coffee
  • Tea
  • Maté
  • Beer
  • Wine
  • Vodka
  • Rum
  • Other (please specify)

However, you can't prevent VUI (Voting Under Influence) in this manner.

| improve this answer | | | | |

A new method, to see which one is interesting, could be to display the reputation of the person who upvoted

But surely the title, tags, topic, and question itself is what makes a question interesting?

A user's rep doesn't really have any bearing on whether they are interesting, vote on interesting questions, or have even voted in the same way for the same reasons you do.

and has the largest reputation among upvoters

Wouldn't this alienate low rep users in some way?
Is a person not interesting because they have a low rep on a certain Stack site?

Also, wouldn't we need to consider their rep on other similar sites?
For example, if a user has 150 rep on Programmers site, doesn't it have some bearing they have 50,000 on both Stack Overflow and Code Review?

Then new questions could be filtered using this upon demand

Rep does not equate to anything useful. A user with many poor questions/answers, and has nothing particularly interesting or useful to add to posts, might have a lot of rep they've accumulated over time over many posts.
And a low rep user (say 300) could be a developer for NASA/Google/etc and just joined the site.

And this won't always be users with 300K rep which might interest you, as often average or even low rep users will be the highest rep user who voted.

For the most part, you'd just see result like 1,523, 8,295, 457, 289, 18,443, etc.
Why is that useful, interesting, worth sorting result by, or good for anything really?
It's meaningless.

And users with higher rep are more likely to vote on interesting and decent questions and answers, which means you can already find them from higher voted questions/answers and the more interesting titles and questions.
(Note, I said more likely, not "always").

or everyone could see the ones already upvoted by someone whose reputation is at least 10% of his own reputation.

I really do not know what benefit you expect from this "restriction".

Take my SO rep, 1.8K.
Why do I only want to see rep from users who upvoted who have 180 rep or above?
And is my vote not interesting or is it meaningless to all users above 18K rep?

What about users with say 30K rep. Why do they only want to see rep from users upvoting who have 3K rep or above?

I just don't see any reason why a user's rep would ever be of any interest within the scope of voting.
Knowing who voted would be interesting, but that will never happen (and I agree it shouldn't).

| improve this answer | | | | |

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