Possible Duplicate:
Defect in “vote too old to be changed” check

I upvoted an answer, then cancelled it. Then later on after it was augmented/improved I tried to upvote again and was told I could not.

This is a defect I think.

There are lots of similar questions here on Meta, but there are too many for me to determine if ths is a dupe - because this is a special case and it is unclear to me if it is desired behavior or not.

IMO this is brain dead.

  • "By Design" according to meta.stackexchange.com/questions/29171/…
    – Sampson
    Feb 1, 2010 at 20:47
  • 4
    It's definitely a defect. The users' model of the system is completely different from how the system behaves, and it's not like this is a fundamental thing (or at least I wouldn't expect it to be), so it should be solved by changing the system's behaviour rather than telling users that they're wrong every time. It's a big failing on anticipating how the users will form their mental models of how rolling back votes works.
    – Welbog
    Feb 1, 2010 at 20:49
  • 1
    Too many to determine if something is a dupe...? Did you see the many "[closed]" in the titles? (And may I ask if you even read one?)
    – Arjan
    Feb 1, 2010 at 20:51
  • It's a duplicate many times over... Unfortunately, this has been discussed to death and every time the response is "status-wontfix".
    – Shog9
    Feb 1, 2010 at 20:54
  • You're supposed to be able to vote again if it got edited, so I'm not sure what augmented/improved means in this case. Feb 1, 2010 at 21:11
  • "later on after it was augmented/improved" you can change your vote after a post is edited, so this doesn't sound correct to me. Feb 1, 2010 at 21:14
  • Hmm, Perhaps it was a comment that added more information and not the actual answer itself. I have to go back and check. And yes, I did read some of them. In that case perhaps this is as-designed.
    – tim
    Feb 2, 2010 at 16:07


Browse other questions tagged .