The newish badges for accepted answers with no upvotes are very welcome, but might I suggest that the definitions be tweaked to include zero and single-upvote accepted answers, or at least those where the single upvote is from the OP?

My reasoning is simple - it doesn't (usually) make sense to accept an answer and not upvote it. Most commonly this happens on questions posted by those new to the community. So one could take the view that there is little difference between zero and single-vote accepted answers.

It strikes me that there are probably a number of answerers helping out experienced users with obscure questions that are not being rewarded.

Edit: In the light of recent question Do negative score/accepted answers count towards tenacious/unsung hero? any new opinions on this proposal?

  • Declaration of interest: I have 19 zero-upvote accepted answers, and 32 one-upvote. Commented Aug 27, 2010 at 1:13
  • This would be great, lots of one upvote questions. Commented Aug 27, 2010 at 2:15
  • This does sound like an interesting tweak but we may have to adjust other params to compensate if we made this change
    – waffles
    Commented Aug 27, 2010 at 2:44
  • @waffles Understand that would be needed. I don't think this would affect too many 'candidates' for the badge, as I suspect that most have more 1-upvote than zero-upvote answers. Was thinking that the absolute counts would be adjusted up (they look low to me anyway) leaving the percentages similar to current. Commented Aug 27, 2010 at 6:22
  • This has been repeatedly suggested in comments and chat, but in review this hasn't actually been proposed as a real feature request. Interesting. I don't have a stance myself, but I imagine more people would be happy with this implementation.
    – Grace Note StaffMod
    Commented Aug 27, 2010 at 12:41
  • 6
    I find this suggestion appealing for this reason: Rewarding large quantities of zero-upvote questions encourages poor-quality-albeit-correct responses. Making an allowance for the OP to upvote without interfering with the badge would seem, to me, to encourage better behavior. Commented Aug 27, 2010 at 13:35
  • 3
    I'm finding that I receive these answers while helping newbies, but that it's difficult to keep my percentages high. I almost want to ask people to downvote my 1-vote answers.
    – palswim
    Commented Sep 3, 2010 at 5:17
  • 1
    I know that's one badge I'm never getting as it is defined. I personally think the reason behind the percentage requirement is weak - as it makes the badge progressively harder to earn (at least in my case) rather than the other way around. I bet this will be denied as all the other requests to tweak those two badges. Commented Sep 15, 2010 at 15:07
  • @NullUser Which badges are progressively easier to earn? All of them seem rather constant in their difficulty with the exception of these two and Electorate, which is intentionally difficult.
    – Grace Note StaffMod
    Commented Sep 15, 2010 at 16:56
  • @Grace Most badges will go like "need X of Y", where X is a number that normally only increases (for the most part). Introducing ratios makes little sense. Even Electorate is not that bad because you can control exactly how you vote. Unsung Hero just makes no sense to me. Commented Sep 15, 2010 at 19:41
  • @Null Electorate is actually pretty much not worth the effort if you have been casting a lot of votes without paying heed to it - the weeks you'll spend just voting on questions would be exhausting and it doesn't sit right to ignore answers for so long. It's the same with these two, albeit they are much more difficult. But as I said, the other badges are constant in difficulty - getting the next 200 edits after S&W is no easier than the first 100.
    – Grace Note StaffMod
    Commented Sep 15, 2010 at 19:56
  • @Grace Well, that's my point: the more edits you do, the closer you get to earning the badge. This is not the case with badges that have a ratio system working against you. Commented Sep 16, 2010 at 0:34
  • I am totally for this suggestion so i upvoted it. Is there any way to find out the status on this feature request? Rejected ? Under consideration?
    – Jagmag
    Commented Oct 14, 2010 at 9:24
  • Who are these people who are accepting without upvoting? Can anyone explain a situation where that would be appropriate?
    – A.M.
    Commented Jul 17, 2013 at 18:51
  • @A.M. For example: new users don't have the rep to upvote, but can accept. Commented Jul 17, 2013 at 19:55

2 Answers 2


I agree in principle with this change but it raises 2 very real problems.

  1. We would be compromising vote anonymity
  2. We would have to heavily change the ratio needed to grant unsung hero.

Under the new proposed system

If a person sees that a user has the "unsung hero badge" he can quickly determine which of the accepted answer posts the user has, were upvoted by the question asker. For posts with the score of 1, that are also accepted, it is very likely that the upvote came from the question asker.

Also if we were to adjust the rules now, the 25% ratio is way too lenient and would result in 4000 people getting a gold badge. We would have to raise the ratio to 50% to compensate which would be a bit rule change.

Thus I am inclined to decline this even though I like the suggestion. Compromising vote anonymity in a radical way is not something we can do.

  • Thanks for the detailed response. I've can't see a way to avoid the anonymity issue. I'm not sure its exactly 'radical' - I'd be interested to know how many accepted one up-vote answers are ones where the up-vote is not from the OP (i.e. we probably know who up-voted those already). I also agree that 'diluting' the current badges would be a shame. Commented Jul 22, 2011 at 13:02
  • Can anyone explain how fixing this badge would compromise voter anonymity any more than the basic fact that a single upvote on an accepted answer is likely to have come from the questioner? You can already look at a person's profile for answers with a score of one and an accept.
    – A.M.
    Commented Jul 17, 2013 at 18:48

The 20% of total seems a bit stiff for those who have been around for awhile. Almost 50% of my answers are zero-votes and 7 of them are accepted, but because I have 250+ answers, I haven't been award with [tenacious]. The definition of 'total' being used isn't that clear to me. From what I read here, I'd need to have 50 accepted zero-vote answers to qualify for the 20% of total part.

How about changing the 20% to be the ratio of total answers to zero-vote answers, e.g. 100 total answers with > 20 zero-vote answers and 5 of the zero-vote answers having been accepted.

It's true that tenacious is supposed to imply a don't-give-up quality but not one of I-never-get-upvotes-but-keep-answering-obscure-questions-anyway.

If the 20% means 1-in-5 zero-score answers are accepted then this badge is rewarding the lucky as much as the lazy. The requirements for the Tenacious badge can be interpreted thus:

  • be lazy, answering more questions decreases your chances which implies that answering more questions is of less value.
  • be lucky, in that posters who asked question accept your answer but not upvote it.

So far, the people who get this badge are being rewarded for showing up, not working too hard, and finding questions asked by users who don't bother to upvote answers they accept.

  • You need at least 10 accepted AND zero-scored answers. And it's 20% of your accepted answers, not answers, period (I don't think anyone would get the badge if that was the case). Commented Sep 15, 2010 at 15:14
  • I don't like this suggestion for the reason that a user who posts a bunch of poor answers may end up being rewarded with a badge to encourage the behavior.
    – M. Tibbits
    Commented Jul 9, 2011 at 1:03

You must log in to answer this question.

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