Over the last couple of weeks I've had a couple of days where I'll leave an answer on someone's question and then a while later receive a vote on that answer and votes on some of my other popular answers all within a very short time frame.

enter image description here

Of course, a few days later these votes are reverted and I'm left thinking 'well that was inevitable...'

Would a simple timer on votes left on content within different questions help prevent this from happening in the first place? I just tested it out on two questions on Stack Overflow and I was able to upvote both of them without any delay in between. After all, surely to be order to vote on a question I'd have to be able to read through it (and potentially the comments left on it) beforehand.

Existing behaviour allowing users to vote as quickly as they want on an individual question and its answers is absolutely fine, I'd say, but I feel this would have some benefits if it was applied when voting on different questions and answers to different questions in a short period of time.

I'd love to share a screenshot, but "Reputation gained since your last visit to the reputation tab" is making me not want to view my reputation tab.

1 Answer 1


I understand your point but there are some reasons I don't like this. What if you decided to go over your (old) questions and their answers. You probably don't need a lot of time to check the answers you have already read before.

Higher reputation users are most likely to have a higher number of votes since their participation is higher.

On the other hand, users upvote the entire frontpage to get that badge, so there is a real problem. And there are more scenarios, like you described.

Is it an idea to have this threshold on new users only? That wouldn't bother users that know their way around, and will guide new users.

  • "What if you decided to go over your (old) questions and their answers." if users voted on these at the time then this wouldn't be an issue I don't think? Commented Mar 3, 2016 at 14:56
  • Maybe they didn't have enough reputation or they didn't test it right away (and if they did they didn't vote directly). Commented Mar 3, 2016 at 14:57

You must log in to answer this question.

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