6

Back in 2009 I suggested a flat-out grace period increase and it was declined despite some support from the community at the time. Fair enough.

The purpose of locking a vote after 5 minutes is twofold:

Because of #1, the grace period has to be extremely short.

But #1 doesn't apply to a question posted in 2009, right? Can we increase the grace period to 24 hours only for questions older than a week without compromising the reasons behind locking the votes?

When I work on a problem, I often find that the top answer seems to have worked, but within 24 hours discover an issue with it. I search again, find the same question again, and the actual, fault-less answer buried deep in there. I personally just post a dumb edit to take away my upvote, but others don't have this privilege. As a result, the top, seemingly-working answer will forever remain at the top, which is a frustrating realisation for someone who cares about SO's long-term impact as a go-to resource.

24 hours will, in my opinion, make this issue unnoticeable for a large percentage of legitimate changes. If it were up to me, I'd also increase it for several days when a question is older than a year, too. I don't think I've ever wanted to change a vote after more than a few days, but 24 hours will still be too restrictive sometimes.

If you don't like this proposal, please think about why. "This is how we've done it for years" is not a good reason. It is clearly a problem for users; just count all the Meta posts about vote locking. It's frustrating because someone who's legitimately trying to contribute, selflessly, for the benefit of others, is prevented from doing so.

  • Can't you just stop voting so quickly? Making "dumb" edits is great way to abuse your privilege.... – Ramhound Apr 22 '16 at 1:12
  • 1
    @Ramhound "quickly"? I tested the provided solution, it seemed to work, I upvoted before closing the tab. Hours later I found a subtle problem with it. The only solution to this scenario is to never vote at all, or the dumb edits (which, incidentally, is not an abuse; it's the official "workaround" as stated by Jeff himself) – RomanSt Apr 22 '16 at 9:41
  • Perhaps my definition of a dumb edit is different the yours – Ramhound Apr 22 '16 at 11:17
  • 1
    @Ramhound Maybe, but this site leaves me with only three options: invest 10 minutes into a quality edit of a known bad answer (=rewrite it to match a better answer that has fewer upvotes), leave a known bad answer upvoted, or perform and undo a dumb edit. I find the last one the least objectionable, but this entire situation is dumb by itself, hence this proposal. – RomanSt Apr 22 '16 at 13:28
  • 1
    I just had the same issue than the one @romkyns had (solution seemed to work, then proved to be incorrect/buggy), and I now have upvoted a solution that is incorrect. I would like to change my vote, but it isn't possible. The direct result of this is that I won't be upvoting answers anymore. – 7heo.tk Jun 17 '16 at 10:25

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .