Not just ones that they answer, but the entire function in general. People simply don't up-vote. There should probably be a way to distinguish between reasons for upvoting questions, like an upvote count for "this needs an answer" and another for "I like this question" because who cares if anyone LIKES the question (the answer apparently is no one) but if an upvote to the question bumped it or something, it might be useful.
I don't want to see a question re-appear on the front page unless something substantial has changed in either the question itself or the answers.
Right now a question only 'lasts' on the front page of Stackoverflow for a mere 2 minutes with no new activity during the busy times of the day.
If we make it easy to anonymously bump it, we encourage bumping, and the 2 minutes of 'face time' the question gets on the front page would reduce significantly. This would have the circular effect of requiring more bumping just to get the same amount of exposure one had without the quick and easy bump, which would crowd the front page more, etc.
However, the current system already works well - if people are actively contributing to the question with answers or significant edits, then the front page shows ACTIVE conversations going on in a very, very crowded room. It's a very useful window into what people are talking about on Stackoverflow right now.
I'm not convinced there are any real benefits, but what benefits there may be certainly do not warrant the cost.
I disagree. Plenty of people upvote questions. Especially if they have been down voted. Sympathy upvotes are very powerful (unfortunately).
If people didn't upvote questions there would be entire hoardes of question pumps on SO that wouldn't have any rep at all. Instead they often have > 5k rep.
If your questions are not getting upvotes, perhaps your question is just not very good.
People do upvote questions sometimes (including some that they shouldn't, but that is another story). But:
- there is some feeling that a good answer is its own reward
- some of your questions could have been easily answered by consulting google or the docs, so people may feel that they are not special in any way
- many of your questions have fairly few view, and you can't get votes unless and until people look at what you have written: if you questions don't attract viewers from the list pages, you just aren't going to get any votes
- it doesn't seem to apply to you, but we do have a number of pests on these sites who ask endless questions without any need or any apparent interest in the answers, and these people have turned me off voting for questions unless they show some special insight or turn out to be much harder than they seem.
Good luck, YMMV, and all that.
Your question will not get upvoted if you:
- Ask a question easily answered through Google or MSDN, etc.
- Ask a question that's too specific and not likely to be useful to anyone else.
- Use poor English
- Have a bad attitude
Getting upvoted is more difficult. You need to ask a widely appealing question that's not easily Googled. For better or for worse, it appears that "best practices" questions do particularly well. And programmer jokes - but let's not get started on that.
As for bumping:
The bounty system already handles this in a way. If an obscure question is getting ignored, the OP has the option to "pay" rep to promote the question.
The problem for me is that there is no way to bump someone else's question to say "Hey, I have this problem too but this question didn't get any attention!" The only thing you can do now is add a non-answer answer and suck up the down votes, or post a duplicate question. Adding comments is about as worthless as up voting the question.