-9

What is the reason behind not letting people vote again on the same post (for example -- after changing mind, i.e. downvote after previous upvote, upon further reading or after certain comments)? What this suppose to do, what prevent or in what this should help?

I can't vote again on post, where I have already voted, but I can... edit this post, do some really tiny change and then I can vote again, without any restrictions. Where's the logic?

EDIT: Neither given answer nor linked question (which most of you takes incorrectly as dupe) answers my question. I'm not talking about poor edits etc. I'm precisely asking, why I (with 2k+ rep) am blocked with this restriction, which I can very easily override by doing simple edit? In this case, 2k+ users shouldn't have this dual-voting restriction at all. This question has nothing to do with poor edits or tactical voting. It addresses this -- voting again after changing mind, after explanation by post author made in comments.

Improve this question
  • Make your final decision within 5 minutes, or improve the question / answer. Also the term "vote again," seems a bit misleading – πάντα ῥεῖ Jun 11 '15 at 21:41
  • See meta.stackexchange.com/questions/75477/…. – HDE 226868 Jun 11 '15 at 21:54
  • "I'm precisely asking, why I (with 2k+ rep) am blocked with this restriction, which I can very easily override by doing simple edit?" did my answer not provide some info regarding this? It was only a quick answer admittedly, as your question is a dupe anyway. "2k+ users shouldn't have this dual-voting restriction at all" why should 2k users be any different for this specific thing? Are all 2k users going to play fair with voting? – James Jun 12 '15 at 18:09
  • 1
    This is 100% dupe. The fact you don't like the given answer(s) there does not change anything. – Shadow Wizard is Vaccinating Jun 12 '15 at 22:26
0

Most of your question has been covered here:
Idea behind "Your vote is now locked in unless this answer is edited"

However, just to comment on:

I can... edit this post, do some really tiny change and then I can vote again, without any restrictions. Where's the logic?

Well, there is awareness raised by an edit.
And the "restrictions" are privileges.

For a direct edit the post owner will be notified, and the question will be bumped onto the front page. And the edit visible to all users who naturally see the post following the edit.
You need 2K rep or more for this, and users with 2K rep and above are fairly familiar with how voting works, and shouldn't be editing to change votes. They're not as likely to make many voting mistakes anyway.

Less than 2k rep are suggested edits, and they have to be peer reviewed so numerous users will see it, including the post owner, and if the edit is approved the post will be bumped to the front page.

It is logical, and necessary

Edits should be based on the edit validity. Regardless of the motives being to change a vote, if the edit is worthy/useful then it should be applied. If this changes votes then all the better for the site, as it makes for better quality and accurately identified content.

Once the post is edited the content has been changed from what their original vote was for. So it's quite viable (and logical) to allow users to change their vote following an edit.

The new edit can make the post poor, so users can retract their upvote and downvote if desired (this is usually from post owners of course, anyone else making posts poor from edits should invoke a rollback).

Also, what quite often happens is a poor post is rectified/improved from an edit and so downvotes can be retracted, and upvotes applied if desired.

The edit being inadequate or poor is another matter however, but this is irrespective of the motives to make the edit.

Improve this answer
  • 1
    Neither your answer nor linked question (which most of you takes incorrectly as dupe) answers my question. I'm nottalking about poor edits etc. That's completely off-topic. I'm precisely asking, why I (with 2k+ rep) am blocked with this limit, which I can very easily override by doing simple edit. In this case, 2k+ users shouldn't have this dual-voting restriction. This question has nothing to do with poor edits or tactical voting. It addresses this -- voting again after changing mind, after explanation by post author made in comments. – trejder Jun 12 '15 at 6:53
  • Actually nearly entire answer is about editing, awareness etc. while editing in my question is just an addition. My question is about dual-voting restriction, which in my opinion should be removed for 2k+ users. – trejder Jun 12 '15 at 6:57
  • "why I (with 2k+ rep) am blocked with this limit" the duped question answers this. For the rest, well, did you read my answer? I didn't spend a great deal of time on it as your question is a dupe, I merely gave some info towards why things are like they are. You say "no restriction" but there clearly are. You say "no logic" but there is. As per my answer. – James Jun 12 '15 at 18:05
  • Otherwise, I'm not sure what your support issue or feature request is. Are you suggesting there is a problem with users 2K or more editing only to change their vote? If you have evidence of this, then present it and I'm sure discussions will unfold as to how to resolve it. Or, be more specific in your questions as to what you are getting at. As it stands, your question is a dupe – James Jun 12 '15 at 18:07

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