3

I've noticed that certain users get multiple votes for almost every answer they post. Sometime the answers are clearly not the best. Sometimes they are wrong. I assume this is people voting for themselves with extra accounts, having friends give them automatic votes, or groups supporting each other. This takes a little of the fun out of Stack Exchange. I don't think this this can be handled by the moderators because the moderators seem to be included in the group of unusually high vote receivers. It seems there could be rules about the frequency you can vote for the same user. This would improve the enjoyment participating in Stack Exchange.

7

I assume this is people voting for themselves with extra accounts, having friends give them automatic votes, or groups supporting each other.

Yes, all of these happen. And they are all detected. And reversed. And the people involved get warnings and suspensions, if needed.

It seems there could be rules about the frequency you can vote for the same user

There are. See What is serial voting and how does it affect me?

  • "And they are all detected" - I don't think this is true. Many are detected, true, but I am pretty sure not all of them. Smart cheaters take time and sometimes luck to detect. – Shadow The Princess Wizard Nov 20 '16 at 20:05
  • 2
    As in real life, the voting fraud we know about is what we can measure, @sha – Shog9 Nov 20 '16 at 20:06
  • @Shog9 so you never get flags from users who detect frauds otherwise not detected by the system or by moderators? Sorry, I don't really believe that. (Of course, it might be true, can't really know) – Shadow The Princess Wizard Nov 20 '16 at 20:08
  • 2
    We actually have systems in place that detect most if not all of that, @Shadow - it just doesn't get invalidated automatically in some cases. (for an example of what it might look like if we did, see a recent test I ran on Ask Ubuntu). Looking to change that in the near future. FWIW, there's almost certainly stuff that we can't see even when folks flag or email us about it... Unfortunately, we can't look into the minds of voters, so there's a limit to what we can do; I should probably write about this. – Shog9 Nov 20 '16 at 20:13
  • @Shog9 I have no doubt about all of this. Still, even that last sentence "we can't look into the minds of voters" is enough to contradict "And they are all detected". – Shadow The Princess Wizard Nov 20 '16 at 20:17
  • Hence my reference to voting fraud IRL (in, say, elections) - we measure the forms of fraud we know about, but there can (and probably do) exist more esoteric or subtle forms. @sha – Shog9 Nov 20 '16 at 20:20
  • 4
    @Sha "they are all detected" could just as easily (and possibly was intended to, but maybe I'm wrong) mean "these are all things that are detected", not "all occurrences of these are detected". – Cai Nov 20 '16 at 20:41
  • I've been visiting electrical engineering StackExchange. Maybe if the numbers are kept small they are not detected. Here is an example; electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/270533/…. There was one answer given which had one upvote as soon as the answer was provided. The problem is this is clearly not a right answer. The speed with which the upvote came makes me not believe this is an honest vote. The problem is that most questions on the EE site get small numbers of votes. The answer provider has had upvotes for many wrong or rude answers, not fun. – owg60 Nov 21 '16 at 11:47
  • There's only one answer there and nearly an hour between its creation and the first vote, @owg60. There are also no downvotes, and no other answers in nearly a day. I can't speak to the accuracy of the answer, although if you find it not useful you should at very least downvote it - the biggest failing of the voting system isn't actually fraud, it's that folks don't vote when they should. – Shog9 Nov 21 '16 at 21:17

You must log in to answer this question.

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