There seems to be a trend on SE, that the OP is upvoted by the answerer only once the answer has been accepted. Here is one typical timeline I have in mind:

  1. OP posts
  2. answerer offers an answer (OP may upvote it then)
  3. OP asks for clarifications in the comments
  4. a small discussion is held in the comments
  5. edits are made to the answer (OP may upvote it then if not already done)
  6. OP marks the answer as accepted
  7. the answerer finally upvotes the OP, even though no edits have been made since 1.

I understand that this 7. upvote either means:

  • "Thank you for accepting my answer." This is nice, but clumsy IMO because it uses the wrong tool. The OP deserves the visibility provided by the upvote, especially if it takes much time to go from 1. to 6.

  • "You'll only get my upvote once you've accepted my answer." This is not nice IMO. It may generate tension. The OP may tick the checkmark under slight pressure even though he/she is not entirely satisfied. This also discourages other people to offer alternative answers.

Does this really happen, or is it just me fantasizing?
How to react in this situation?


Sure, this will happen. How often is hard to tell; votes are anonymous (on purpose), and you can't distinguish between 7. and the situation where somebody else (not previously involved in the Q&A) upvotes the question.

Personally, I tend to upvote a question as soon as I've posted an answer, but this is not required. The upvote tooltip says

This question shows research effort; it is useful and clear

It's absolutely possible to write a decent answer to a question that doesn't meet these criteria, so upvoting it is not obligatory. As long as there are no comments posted along the lines of "You'll only get my upvote once you've accepted my answer", I see no problem with this.

  • 1
    So I understand it is not a big deal in the end. Okay :) – iago-lito Jan 18 '19 at 10:39
  • 3
    Sometimes the "effort" put by OP (and measured by upvotes) is made evident by the fact that he/she has stuck around and helped the answerer figure out what's going on through comments, even if they don't edit the original question – Nicola Sap Jan 18 '19 at 12:25
  • 3
    Normally, I upvote a question I answer right away. But sometimes I wait. I wait because while I think it's a good question, its phrasing isn't entirely clear—so I'm not certain if my answer is what was being looked for. Why do I answer it if I'm not sure I have the question right? Because in order to ask did you mean this long series of things I would need more space than available in a comment, and I don't like long, multiple-part comments. So, I assume I have the question right and provide a full answer. If it turns out I was right, then they get an upvote. – Jason Bassford Supports Monica Jan 18 '19 at 14:25

You must log in to answer this question.

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