Some time ago the tumbleweed badge description was changed from no votes to zero score. ( Tumbleweed wording is incorrect )

I think the criteria should have been changed instead. In a recent ELU meta post I got the badge after a week with +4/-4. ( Let's get rid of the "correction" tag ) It seems to me that such a question shouldn't merit a tumbleweed badge. That was more than a vote per day which is in no way something that should earn a pity badge.

Thus, I suggest to change the behavior of the badge to what it originally was and only award if there really were no votes.

  • Tumbleweed is such a weird badge anyway...
    – wogsland
    Feb 12, 2017 at 21:58

1 Answer 1


You are right. That should be changed. Although the votes are just a small part of the problem. What if no one had voted on your post, you would still earn that badge, since your question met the other criteria:

Asked a question with zero score, no answers, no comments, and low views for a week.

Apparently the per-site-meta on some sites have such a low number of views that even with 8 votes (and thus at least 8 views) it didn't receive enough eyes to overcome the 'low views' criteria. (Now it has 88 views, but probably earlier it didn't have that much)

Maybe the badge criteria should be seriously low on some low traffic per-site metas, or the community must be helped to have more users visit meta. I am not too familiar with small sites. Maybe some other users can suggest improvements on this.

  • As SE sites go, ELU isn't particularly small.
    – TRiG
    Nov 13, 2016 at 0:06
  • @TRiGisTimothyRichardGreen that is true for ELU itself, meta.ELU however is not that greatly visited since a lot of people only frequent the main site.
    – Helmar
    Nov 15, 2016 at 7:52
  • @Helmar Indeed, that was my point. It is about the meta, not the main site. Nov 15, 2016 at 7:58

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