Possible Duplicate:
Shouldn’t a rep-less newbie at least be able to upvote a good answer to his/her own questions?

Voting requires 15 reputation.

I think that we should make an exception and allow voting on answers given to your own question.
Just like a new user can comment on his own questions and answers, he should also be able to upvote his answers.

Otherwise, it will encourage people to ignore questions by new users, especially on low-activity days, so that they can spend their time answering questions with a motivated voter.

It also seems unfair to the users that they cannot reward their answerers (plural) (Example)

  • There are many other examples, but I can't find any off-hand. – SLaks Feb 9 '10 at 16:54
  • @SLaks, you might want to rephrase your title - at present it sounds like you think they should be able to upvote answers they've given, rather than answers to questions they've asked. – Dominic Rodger Feb 9 '10 at 16:57
  • It might be better to reword it as "vote on answers to their questions". The way it currently reads is though you want to allow users to be able to vote on the answers they post. – ChrisF Feb 9 '10 at 16:58
  • @Dominic: If people think that, they'll presumably read the question and understand correctly. Can you think of a better title? – SLaks Feb 9 '10 at 16:59
  • @SLaks - "Allow new users to vote on answers to questions they've asked" – Dominic Rodger Feb 9 '10 at 16:59
  • 3
    Two up-votes. That's all it takes. Two up-votes, and they can vote on anything - answers to their own questions, answers to other people's questions, other people's questions... See also: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1661/… – Shog9 Feb 9 '10 at 17:01
  • @shog9: I saw that, but it didn't reach a conclusion. – SLaks Feb 9 '10 at 17:03
  • @SLaks: Well, my answer to both is the same - new users most certainly can reward answerers, as they can accept an answer. – Shog9 Feb 9 '10 at 17:07
  • @Shog9: As I tried to point out in the question, they can only accept one answer. See my example - stackoverflow.com/questions/2230641/… – SLaks Feb 9 '10 at 17:09
  • @SLaks: Um... Of the two answers there, only one answers the question. Why should an answer that fails to answer the question get anything? – Shog9 Feb 9 '10 at 17:12
  • @Shog9: Because it helped the asker. – SLaks Feb 9 '10 at 17:19
  • 1
    @SLaks: by answering a question he hadn't asked yet, and now will probably never ask. So the next person to search for an answer to this unasked question won't find it. And the next person to search for the question he did ask will have this confusingly irrelevant answer to ignore. Why should SO encourage such a thing? – Shog9 Feb 9 '10 at 17:24
  • Perhaps someone could query (SU preferably) to see how many users asked only 1 question and did not upvote, that way you could quantify how often this occurs – Ivo Flipse Feb 9 '10 at 17:30
  • 2
    It's not like there is an upvote shortage - rather the reverse. – nb69307 Feb 9 '10 at 17:35
  • 2
    Well I for one have at least 7 answers that got accepted without any upvotes, apperently that user was not able to upvote me (or didn't care) even though the answer solved his problem. – Ivo Flipse Feb 9 '10 at 17:59

While this sounds like a good idea, it is vulnerable to sockpuppeting and other abuse. Consider: two new users join the site. Each post a question, and then answer each other's question. Upvotes for all!

The current system forces the new user to post an answer that is regarded as useful by someone who isn't fresh out of the gate. 15 rep is a very low barrier as it is. It should almost be higher.

| improve this answer | |
  • 7
    implementing this request would likely destroy the entire reputation system. So.. yeah. declined. – Jeff Atwood Feb 9 '10 at 20:59
  • 3
    The current system is just as liable to sockpuppery. Want to be able to vote? Create two accounts, puppet and wantrep. Puppet post question, wantrep answers, accept answer. Puppet now has 3 points and wantrep has 16. – jmoreno Apr 11 '14 at 2:40

If I see a new user post a question or answer, and it's a good post, then I upvote it. They then only need one other upvote to be able to vote themselves on SO.

It's a really, really low bar partially so that it's easy to 'grant' them this privilege.

This isn't pity - it's merely recognition of a good post coupled with being a new user.

Although I generally upvote good posts anyway, so it isn't that far from my normal pattern.

However, I do feel that users should be able to upvote on their own questions regardless of their reputation level, so this feature is something I'm all for.

| improve this answer | |
  • 3
    Mainly due to my own frustration when I join a new stackexchange site. When SO started these limits weren't in place, so I never experienced what a new user goes through until recently, and it's a huge pain. – Pollyanna Feb 9 '10 at 17:14
  • I call it pity because I felt the same way you did when I hit these StackExchange sites, and I pity the new users. – Lance Roberts Feb 9 '10 at 17:15
  • 1
    @Lance: Wait... How is it "pity" if you're up-voting a good question? Do you not normally up-vote good questions? ...Or do you lower your standards for posts from new users? – Shog9 Feb 9 '10 at 17:29
  • @Shog9, I'm saying that I have the desire to upvote the new users so that they can upvote their answers (which may not be mine at all), but I myself refuse to upvote the crappy questions; so I squelch the urge. I just don't think we should tempt people like that. – Lance Roberts Feb 9 '10 at 17:31
  • @Lance: People up-vote for all kinds of stupid reasons, and frankly this seems minor compared to the "this question doesn't deserve -1 UPVOTE!" attitude. IMHO, the problem is that new users can up-vote too quickly, leading them to do so before they've had any time to become familiar with the site. StackExchange is another matter, but we're not discussing SE here. – Shog9 Feb 9 '10 at 17:38
  • Upvoting a question now only gives 5 points, so they'd need more than one other upvote. – Andrew Grimm Jan 14 '11 at 13:32

I don't think this is addressing a problem with the way SO works. You suggest that people may be discouraged from answering new-users because new-users cannot upvote. That seems to ignore the fact that others can upvote, and new-users can accept. There is plenty of incentive to answer 1-rep users in my honest opinion.

| improve this answer | |
  • It's some incentive, but not so much, especially on low-activity days when there aren't so many upvoters. – SLaks Feb 9 '10 at 16:59
  • @SLaks: Your answer can be accepted instantly if it helps the OP. And your answer will be around for a long time, providing plenty of opportunity for others to upvote it later. – Sampson Feb 9 '10 at 17:02
  • Yes, but that's true for any answer you give, and any other answer is more likely to be rewarded even if someone else comes along with a better answer. – SLaks Feb 9 '10 at 17:05
  • 1
    @SLaks: Why is that bad? I don't really see much good about encouraging people to post mediocre answers. – Shog9 Feb 9 '10 at 17:10

When new users can't upvote answers to their questions, it just encourages 'pity upvotes' because people want them to be able to vote on their answers. Upvotes should be for quality questions, not to boost someone to a level of being able to do basic stuff (that should just be a consequence, not the reason).

| improve this answer | |
  • 3
    I typically give an upvote to users who ask legitimate questions, even if it's a simple or duplicate question. I don't see it as "pity-voting," but more of a welcome-to-stackoverflow gesture. – Sampson Feb 9 '10 at 17:00
  • 1
    @Lance: And that's good? Why? – SLaks Feb 9 '10 at 17:00
  • 1
    @Slaks, my point is that it's not good; upvotes should be given for asking good questions, not just given to give someone rep. If I want a new user to be able to upvote my answer then I have to give him an upvote first (along with someone else). We shouldn't give the incentive just to hand out upvotes like candy. – Lance Roberts Feb 9 '10 at 17:15
  • That wasn't clear from your answer. – SLaks Feb 9 '10 at 17:20

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