I can totally see why content coming in, unfortunately, sometimes, is really getting out of control. Like here An Update to our Community and an Apology or there (or not right now, but maybe again in a few hours).

It makes sense then, to lock things contentwise. That is also great for existing content that shall never be changed any more, like that world famous example.

But then: I would very much like to simply vote on some of these posts. And I really do not see a good reason to prevent the voting to take place.

Voting data is meta information. Just counters, that reflect the level of appreciation by the community (or lack thereof). The number of votes doesn't relate at all to the content that needs to be protected, or sadly, prevented from being added.

Thus: can the "model" for "locking postings" be made more fine granular? Or at least: changed to allow voting?

  • Note that the model is somewhat granular, we have a collaborative effort lock which prevents answers on a question, but not voting on the Q&A, but I certainly agree we could use a lock that disables comments (and perhaps edits, close and delete votes) but allows for normal votes.
    – Erik A
    Oct 4, 2019 at 11:33
  • Because dogpiling comments correlates to dogpiling voting and neither of which are really constructive in terms of feedback? With apologies for using that wording, since you're a cat.
    – user351483
    Oct 4, 2019 at 11:34
  • That was not done for the votes, but for the edits. There really was a content dispute there.
    – Mast
    Oct 4, 2019 at 11:37
  • This week has been unique in the history of SE. I believe all involved hope it never recurs. Changing software based on edge cases that arise during an event like this doesn't seem like a great plan Oct 4, 2019 at 11:38
  • @KateGregory I stumbled about the inability to express my appreciation by voting on locked content on SO plenty of times. Down to the point where now sometimes unlock myself, put in my vote, and lock again. But that isn't a very sustainable model methinks. And maybe, just maybe I am simply expressing my frustration here that I came in too late to make certain votes on recent posts.
    – GhostCat
    Oct 4, 2019 at 11:39
  • @PM2Ring I understand the need for locking ... to prevent content adds/edits. That is not what I am talking about.
    – GhostCat
    Oct 4, 2019 at 11:50

2 Answers 2


Thus: can the "model" for "locking postings" be made more fine granular? Or at least: changed to allow voting?

I do agree there is room for improvement. I wouldn't allow voting on any locked posts. Some historical posts should not be edited and voted on for example. On meta other posts are attracting such a negative feedback one would want an (often new, inexperienced) user to be shielded from the negative responses until the content has improved.

However, in other cases, for example for posts from SE employees and moderators, I think most often a content-lock would suffice: it prevents edit wars and unwanted comments, but it still would allow voting. Locking the entire post is undesired.


Because the poster has no ability to alter or correct the post.

Perhaps if they did it might get fewer downvotes but if we prevent them from being able to do that it seems churlish to make them just sit and watch the downvotes flood in without any way to mitigate that effect.

Locking is also used to allow a question and the people interacting with it to temporarily cool off if it's the subject of an edit war or some other issue. If we continued to allow voting, the post and the people involved wouldn't cool off as much or as quickly.

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