So content will simply be "bumped" with the most recent interaction or update, like the usual forums/threads, etc.

I have very rarely voted on anything in recent years (usually just looking for something specific and will move on regardless I find the answer or not), not that I see this as a bad thing, but rather I know what I want from the site and have gotten rather efficient at it.

Also, over time I have realized a +3 content may very well be rubbish, especially for obscure topics. Votes can be a reflection of popularity rather than actual knowledge, and when that happens it is not very different from ChatGPT.

Lastly, I believe actors are capable of good behavior at a fundamental level. Votes can be an inducement but it should not be seen as essential, to the point where people resort to repwhoring.

  • 16
    Then how would this be in any way better than "the usual forums or threads etc"? The site was very conspicuously designed to avoid several common problems with legacy forums.
    – tripleee
    Jun 13, 2023 at 5:34
  • @triplesee traditional forums will not be threatened by any moderation strike
    – prusswan
    Jun 13, 2023 at 5:35
  • 25
    Yeah, because nobody would bother moderating them, because they'd be full of junk rated equally to anything worth reading.
    – Nij
    Jun 13, 2023 at 5:40
  • 2
    Would you have written 200 answers, if none of them had gotten more than 0/0 votes?
    – nvoigt
    Jun 13, 2023 at 5:42
  • @Nij and who gets to define "junk"?
    – prusswan
    Jun 13, 2023 at 5:42
  • 23
    The community does. How do they show it? By voting.
    – Nij
    Jun 13, 2023 at 5:43
  • @nvoigt as opposed to 200 replies on a random forum? maybe. If you checked my reputation history you can tell I have not been farming anything
    – prusswan
    Jun 13, 2023 at 5:43
  • @Nij what if the community is uninformed or dominated by uninformed users? why should any single user place their trust in such a community?
    – prusswan
    Jun 13, 2023 at 5:44
  • 14
    You mean like Quora and Reddit? Well, go take a look at their content. You see how it's different on Stack Exchange? That should tell you a lot about how informed an SE community is. If not, well, you may as well go there instead of trying to make SE be something it never could or should.
    – Nij
    Jun 13, 2023 at 5:46
  • 9
    Cool, you don't see the point in Stack Exchange. Have fun, so long, bye now... What exactly are you expecting here, that everybody else should abandon a functional system because of an arbitrary what-if that does not match reality?
    – Nij
    Jun 13, 2023 at 5:53
  • 6
    And now you can go full circle on your own by reading from my first comment. Good luck figuring out anything if you can't see why "only here for the content" is not at all relevant as a point.
    – Nij
    Jun 13, 2023 at 5:58
  • 6
    In what way do moderators derive power from votes? If anything it reduced the moderators power since it's a external rating system that mods have no control over. Mods can't even see who votes for what.
    – mousetail
    Jun 13, 2023 at 8:52
  • 9
    "Votes can be a reflection of popularity rather than actual knowledge" I completely disagree. Take a look at my profile (on SO), I've had a decent amount of upvotes, even made a suggestion that was received quite positively even though I'm pratically a nobody to this community. I've equally seen a lot of high rep users questions/answers get downvoted. Questions and answers are rated on quality. Having high rep gives you more credibility, but its your content that gets judged in the end of the day. Jun 13, 2023 at 9:00
  • 1
    Content is "bumped" with most recent interaction or update - if you view by active, which is the default view.
    – Tetsujin
    Jun 13, 2023 at 13:59
  • 1
    This post requires a way lot more work. First, is this only about upvotes / downvotes of questions and answers? How would the SO/SE sites tour look if voting is removed? How would the reputation system work?
    – Rubén
    Jun 13, 2023 at 18:19

2 Answers 2


No, the site can't work without some form of voting by "trusted" users. The entire point of Stack Exchange is to crowdsource credibility so that any correct answer gets visibility regardless of who wrote it or what credentials they have. Getting rid of that aspect entirely would be throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Does the current system need improvement? Absolutely, but throwing away the idea that users rate content isn't the right approach.

  • "any correct answer gets visibility regardless of who wrote it or what credentials they have." That is an inaccurate premise because (1) the herd effect is very present in voting, and (2) mods' so-called "diamond" does not imply that their answers are accurate, let alone of high quality. Jun 17, 2023 at 12:26

One of the primary things (only primary thing?) votes are supposed to indicate is usefulness of content. Look at the vote button tooltips. That's one of the most core mechanics of the Stack Exchange model. Look at the tour. How else would you propose to let good content rise to the top while retaining the property that actual people and not just some closed set of administrator-like users can influence that?

No. I don't think the Stack Exchange model could work without any kind of voting.

There could be changes to kinds of voting. Ex. If I understand correctly, Codidact has more fine grained vote types with specific meanings.

You must log in to answer this question.

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