10

I have a large number of accounts on the SE network, but my rep varies significantly across those accounts. For example, I'm about to crack 20K on SO, and I'm a mod on ebooks, but my other reps range from 101 up to the low four figures. This means that I have many privileges on SO and ebooks that I don't have on, say, Programmers. This makes sense with respect to many privileges, like down-voting, close-voting, and protecting questions. It doesn't really make sense to me with respect to information-only privileges related to voting.

Can we have voting-information privileges made network-wide? That is, once a user hits the relevant rep levels on at least one site, apply the following privileges to all other SE sites:

  • view close votes (typically available at 250 rep). This privilege is informational only, but it is helpful to an experienced user in learning what questions are on-topic on a new-to-that-user site. For example, if I am about to ask a question that is similar to an existing question and that question is about to get closed as too broad or marked off-topic for some reason, it would be nice to know that before I post my own question. Similarly, it makes it easier to determine whether answering a question is worthwhile; if the community is about to close a question for some reason, then answering is less helpful.
  • established user (normally available at 1K). This privilege is really misnamed, as it simply lets the user see up/down vote counts and expanded profile information. That said, it provides really helpful information. I have posted questions on some of my lower-rep accounts that have attracted both multiple up votes and multiple down votes, but I only know that because I noticed the rep changes. There's a big difference between, say, a question that has a score of +3 (+3-0) and one that has a score of +3 (say, +8-5). Knowing how the votes add up can be very helpful in improving the post.

In short, making these informational privileges available everywhere to everyone who has earned them on one site (1) doesn't allow new users to take any potentially destructive actions, (2) gives users with experience on one or more SE sites helpful information on all SE sites, and (3) can only serve to help users make better posts, better edits, better comments, etc.

So, can we have this? Has this been rejected for a particular reason? Is it simply too big a programming hassle for the benefit it offers?

  • 1
    Can you articulate more clearly how these privileges would benefit you? 1. You mention dups and the dup-hammer, but I don't see how that's relevant here. If you mean the one-vote dup-hammer, seeing close votes won't help you, because it'll go from 0 close votes to closed; alternatively, if you mean people voting to close as a dup, then when the person votes to close as a dup, that'll show up as a comment, so you don't need to see the close votes to be aware of that. – D.W. Nov 2 '15 at 22:10
  • 1
    2. I don't see how seeing the number of upvotes and downvotes broken out separately will help you improve your answer. You say it'll help you, but you don't give explanation or examples. Personally, I don't think just knowing that there were 3 upvotes and 2 downvotes (for example) is at all helpful in knowing how to improve the question. – D.W. Nov 2 '15 at 22:11
  • @D.W. Re point 1: I don't mean the one-vote dup-hammer; I meant dup votes generally. Personally, I would rather know early instead of late that my question is seen as a dup. Many (most?) dups get lots of down votes during their lifespan. – Ed Cottrell Nov 2 '15 at 22:15
  • 1
    But you can already see that as soon as the first person votes that the question is a dup: voting to close as a duplicate automatically generates a comment of the form "possible duplicate of...". You don't need the ability to view close votes to be aware that someone has voted to close the question as a duplicate. (Incidentally, if you're talking about 5 users voting to close as a dup, I suggest that you avoid the word "hammer". The word "hammer" is usually used to refer to a user with a gold-badge in a relevant tag, who can close the question as a dup with a single close-vote.) – D.W. Nov 2 '15 at 22:17
  • @D.W. Re point 2: I agree seeing vote counts is not particularly helpful in knowing how to improve a question, but it offers at least two kinds of insight. First, it tells you that your own question (or answer) is seen as not useful by some group of people, which tells you that you need to improve it, even if it doesn't tell you how. It also lets you know that there is cause for concern when looking at someone else's posts. For example, if there are two +3 answers, but one of them is +8-5, I would likely be much more cautious in acting on that answer as correct. – Ed Cottrell Nov 2 '15 at 22:18
  • @D.W. Fair point re the dup comment, but that only applies to dup votes and custom off-topic votes. If one person thinks it's a dup and three think it's just too broad, I'd like to know that and fix the question sooner rather than later. I edited the question to avoid reference to the dup-hammer. – Ed Cottrell Nov 2 '15 at 22:21
  • 1
    Relevant user script: “View Vote totals” without 1000 rep – Ilmari Karonen Nov 2 '15 at 22:45
  • @IlmariKaronen Didn't know about that; thanks! – Ed Cottrell Nov 2 '15 at 22:56
  • This post seems to be laboring in part under the misapprehension that the 250-rep privilege allows you to see close votes on any question, but this is not the case at all. It allows you to see (and cast) close (and reopen) votes on your own questions. That's it. So there is no informational value to the privilege, other than informing you slightly earlier that a question you asked that you are checking on is in danger of being closed. – Nathan Tuggy Aug 20 '17 at 3:23
  • I do not think this is a valuable question anymore. As @NathanTuggy points out, it is based in part on a flawed premise. And, over time, I've decided this isn't really something I think we should do, anyway. – Ed Cottrell Aug 20 '17 at 3:27
4

Indeed. Granting that privileges doesn't do much harm, but let's see it from the other side. Now you are eager, as a new user, to get that reputation on that site where you are not very active. For your first privilege, you just need 149 reputation. How many times did you as a moderator tell people that a little time investment will pay itself back in privileges? That is the same for you and me, having some reputation on a few sites. Why not contribute to those sites by suggesting some good edits? You'll be there before you know.

  • 3
    I agree with you that reputations provide incentives, but thats not the whole story. These are only 2 privileges out of the 14 that a user with the automatic 100-point bonus would still have to earn. Getting from 101 to 1000 via edits alone is pretty daunting, and most users are going to be much more active on one site than on all others combined. I think of this feature as an acknowledgment that all users will have differing levels of participation on different sites, but a user who is very active on one site can benefit from (and contribute more with) a little more info on another site. – Ed Cottrell Nov 2 '15 at 22:13
  • 1
    BTW, I'm not the down vote. – Ed Cottrell Nov 2 '15 at 22:21
  • 1
    Doesn't matter @ed. Even if you were. Everyone can vote as he wishes. – Patrick Hofman Nov 2 '15 at 22:23
  • 1
    I know; just an FYI. – Ed Cottrell Nov 2 '15 at 22:24
1

At the moment, I don't see much benefit to the site from giving more users access to that information.

Seeing close-votes doesn't help you much if you can't close-vote yourself. (Note that you can already tell when someone has suggested that the question might be a duplicate, as a comment is automatically generated. You don't need to see close-votes for that. So, your arguments about duplicates aren't really persuasive in this context.)

Seeing the upvote and downvote totals separately doesn't seem to help much. Knowing that there is a downvote might be an indication that the post can be improved, but it doesn't tell you how to improve it.

In contrast, there is a risk to making this information available: it risks causing drama (e.g., people asking "why was this downvoted? why is someone trying to close-vote this?"). It's not a very large risk... but the benefits of making the information more widely available doesn't seem to be very large either. All in all, it's not clear whether there is a strong case for making this change.

-1

This question has been idle for some time and it hasn't been acted on so I would like to 'reraise' this question...by answering in the affirmative.

@D.W.'s objection stating

Seeing close-votes doesn't help you much if you can't close-vote yourself.

is simply false, as seeing Close votes is of great help, especially for your own questions. It provides feedback that prompts you to improve your own question.

Specific request: When a member of one community has a reputation greater then 1000 and they should chose to participate in another community they should be granted a greater reputation in that new community of at least 250 so that they gain the View/Cast close votes privilege.

Alternative: lower the bar to VIEW, but not to CAST close votes to 100.

Alternative: lower the bar to see close votes on your own questions to 100 (or even 0 as this might be good feedback to offer a newbie on any site)

  • The 250-rep privilege doesn't actually allow seeing other questions' CVs, see my comment on the question. – Nathan Tuggy Aug 20 '17 at 3:24

You must log in to answer this question.

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