I wanted to suggest three new badges:

  • HATER: If you've downvoted any one person more than 20 times.
  • LOVER: If you've upvoted any one person more than 20 times.
  • FAIR AND BALANCED: If you've upvoted AND downvoted one person more 20 times UP and DOWN.

What do you think? Then we would finally know what type of people we have on Stack Overflow.

  • 42
    Disregarding any implications of the "encouragement" the badges offer, you do realize that it is not difficult at all for most people to get all 3 badges and therefore thwart your intent on highlighting the different classes of people, aye?
    – Grace Note StaffMod
    Commented Jul 28, 2010 at 16:17
  • 9
    @Grace, No, because you can get them more than once. So you could still be a HATER three times, and a LOVER only once, and still not be FAIR AND BALANCED Commented Jul 28, 2010 at 16:19
  • 3
    +1 great idea - I think you should get Exp for earning the LOVER badge, and lose Exp for getting the HATER badge.
    – jjnguy
    Commented Jul 28, 2010 at 16:24
  • 53
    Someone's been watching too much Fox News.
    – Ether
    Commented Jul 28, 2010 at 16:46
  • 2
  • 22
    Badges are intended to encourage desirable behavior. What desirable behavior do these badges encourage?
    – user27414
    Commented Jul 28, 2010 at 18:32
  • 5
    That could be said about nearly anything. They don't appear to specifically encourage any kind of desirable behavior.
    – user27414
    Commented Jul 28, 2010 at 19:13
  • 1
    Neither do Tax Refunds. Commented Jul 28, 2010 at 19:14
  • 21
    Yeah, that made a lot of sense.
    – user27414
    Commented Jul 28, 2010 at 19:15
  • 1
    @Lord.Quackstar, look how much "reputation" I've got since you made the comment. And, I haven't changed a thing. See, the swarms of people that would have the HATER badge have dwindled and a new group of unbiased non-partisans have come to see what the suggestion was about. Commented Jul 30, 2010 at 16:08
  • 8
    possible duplicate of What is serial voting and how does it affect me?
    – user215114
    Commented Oct 17, 2013 at 20:27
  • 5
    This sounds more like a rant, than a reasonable feature request. Did you feel you've been personally targeted by votes? It's unlikely a single person is going to downvote all of your posts, and if so that's usually tracked, and would be rolled back. Commented Feb 11 at 11:12
  • 2
    Yeah sure, and also show which user you downvoted, right? Great way to make people love SE and each other. Commented Feb 11 at 12:23
  • 9
    Here's my downvote for copying the content and idea from someone else's post. AKA plagiarism. Commented Feb 11 at 12:37
  • 3
    @Mari-LouAСлаваУкраїні might also be a sock. Commented Feb 11 at 15:32

5 Answers 5


You should vote on a post, not a person. If you vote based on the person, you're doing it wrong. And we don't want badges encouraging people to do it wrong.

  • 2
    I'm not suggesting people vote on a person. I'm suggesting we give a badge as an indicator of the way people vote. Commented Jul 28, 2010 at 16:26
  • 37
    And what will these badges indicate to us? Absolutely nothing. I know that I upvote certain people a lot just because I'm active in a niche tag with them and they post many useful answers, not because I have a super nice personality or I'm obsessed with them or I'm a sock-puppet of theirs (quick sideways glances). Commented Jul 28, 2010 at 16:29
  • 8
    Enough with the sock puppet hate! Commented Mar 29, 2012 at 20:29

The badge system is designed to promote desired behavior within the system and I do not believe encouraging users (implicitly or explicitly) to think about who they are voting for should be done in any way. Voting should be based on the quality of the question or answer being voted on.

  • Don't think about it, if you get the LOVER that's just good.. If you get the HATER that's just bad... They're just visual indicators of the personality. Commented Jul 28, 2010 at 16:28
  • 22
    The badge system is not intended to provide visual indicators of the person's personality, it is to encourage desired behavior in the system. Commented Jul 28, 2010 at 16:30
  • What about the old woot badge? It was ment to encourage desired behavoir in the system about users that used woot.com? Commented Jul 28, 2010 at 16:41
  • 14
    The "Woot" badge was actually just the Enthusiast badge in an advertising disguise. Enthusiast encourages visiting the site, Woot was simply sponsoring it for a short period. Commented Jul 28, 2010 at 16:56
  • Unfortunately, some people downvote for the smallest reasons. -1 looks disgusting. How good your rating is depends on who is browsing the forum at that moment. If you're unlucky, you get caught by voting sadists.
    – neverMind9
    Commented Jul 10, 2018 at 9:18

This site is about posts, not people so we really shouldn't be encouraging targetting of individuals like that. That's only one small step from serial-voting, which is not allowed.

Hater is pretty insulting to people who are trying to keep poor quality posts off the site and if you're posting poor quality questions, either you should recognise that and improve or expect to be stopped by the system.

If you've posted 20 terrible questions, why shouldn't you be downvoted? What's hateful about quality control? Do you really think we want more bad posts to stick around or even more people to have to pointlessly read them because someone's worried about getting an badge named hater?

  • 1
    Is every SE vote a measure of objectivity and quality? There have been innumerable cases where one user takes a strong dislike to a novice or veteran user and will, regardless of quality, downvote almost every contribution submitted by that person. Moreover, we don't live in a world where people's emotions are divorced from constructive criticisms: feelings of hurt, embarrassment, anger, confusion and pride are difficult to overcome and acknowledge except for the most stoic among us. I see hi-rep users on ELL getting very tetchy when they get a downvote and/or a valid criticism. Commented Feb 11 at 12:23
  • "This site is about posts, not people" No, it's about people who have experience and knowledge who answer other people's questions. If you insist that people don't count for anything only their contributions do, then why do we have a rep system in the first place? It's so the community (made up by people) can recognise and hopefilly, respect the people behind that rep. Commented Feb 11 at 12:26
  • 5
    What I mean is that it doesn't matter who posts the content, it's the content that's posted that we rate, not the person who posts it. Commented Feb 11 at 12:30

None of those badges should be added because it undermines what it means to upvote or downvote.


I sat down and thought about this for a bit, and decided that it wouldn't really add or detract anything. Over time (as this thread is 2 years old), you would likely upvote or downvote any given user enough times to earn all three badges. At first I thought it might discourage serial downvoting, but then it kind of makes sense if someone posts a lot that eventually you might upvote 20 of their posts and downvote another 20. That wouldn't necessarily make you a LOVER, a HATER or FAIR & BALANCED, it's just natural that over an extended period of time that you would eventually earn all of those badges.

  • Out of curiosity, what's the point of responding to this? The question is three years old, and is clearly status-declined. Commented Sep 11, 2013 at 20:00
  • @LBT - Someone recently serial-downvoted Evan, as was pointed out in his answer in this thread: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/196634/…. It led me here, and I didn't even realize it was an old question until after I answered it. I don't always look at dates. It DID get me a few HATERS, though! :o) Commented Sep 11, 2013 at 20:25
  • 4
    He didn't get serially-downvoted, he got downvoted by a boatload of people because he's a known troll who does obnoxious things like calling repuation "experience", coming up with crackpot conspiracy theories, has been repeatedly comment- and question-banned yet somehow manages to stay unsuspended. Commented Sep 11, 2013 at 20:27
  • Oh. Hmmpf. His answers don't really seem all that "troll-like", although admittedly I didn't read everything he's posted. I'm still perplexed that my answer, which I thought was well thought out and makes perfect sense, received 3 downvotes so far. @shrugs@ Commented Sep 11, 2013 at 20:30
  • 1
    @JohnnyBones Guilty by association! These are the kinds of people who would throw the baby out and save the bathwater to drown more babies in. Commented Sep 11, 2013 at 21:08
  • @EvanCarroll - You actually referred to reputation as (@gasp@) "experience"?!? Sweet Jesus in a burning bush, you are one evil bastage! Commented Sep 11, 2013 at 21:16
  • 7
    @JohnnyBones Considering the vast majority of them are deleted, no, they don't look "troll-like." You're only seeing the decent ones that didn't warrant deletion.
    – animuson StaffMod
    Commented Sep 12, 2013 at 5:45

You must log in to answer this question.

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