I've seen a couple of feature-requests which deal with serial down voting (raised mainly by Rich B).
But should we react to serial UP VOTING as well?
I'm asking this because all my questions on meta got upvoted within 2 minutes...
The same algorithms that detect downvoting patterns detect upvoting patterns as well. So if someone is serially upvoting all of your posts, it likely will be "corrected". Outside of the algorithm, the other way suspicious voting patterns are found are by the user receiving the votes notifying a moderator. Certainly this is more likely to happen with downvoting than upvoting. But I know one of the first few days on meta Jon Skeet had posted about having received a whole bunch of upvotes on old posts, and that was corrected (couldn't find the post, may have been deleted).
I guess if you are asking good questions, maybe you should ask if 2 minutes is too long for the first upvote?
In all seriousness, meta does seem to have a more unique voting pattern where if folks agree with ideas/statements/etc. you get the thumbs up... For everything else people move on or vote down...
I don't know if its a big issue at this time...
It has been discussed here whether the following is acceptable:
The important point is that by honestly evaluating A's posts, I'm conceptually rewarding A not with indiscriminate free reputation but with deserved attention. If I come across a really bad post, I would downvote it. But considering that A gave me a great answer now, he probably makes many good and few bad posts, so he gets a reputation award in the process.
The consensus is that this behavior is okay (at least if you don't go overboard).
Conversely, if User B posts an awful or spammy answer, I might look through B's posts to see if there are other posts of his that need to be cleaned up, and editing/flagging/voting as needed. This is also fine.
Now, on Stack Exchange sites, the community norm is that upvotes vastly outnumber downvotes. (Less so on Meta, but still I believe that still upvotes greatly outnumber downvotes here.)
What this means is that when well-intentioned people go through a user's contributions, fairly evaluating them, most of the votes cast will be upvotes (since people usually only downvote egregiously bad posts). Of course, there are also "cheaters", who are going through a user's contributions to either maliciously serial-downvote, or to upvote their friend/sockpuppet.
So applying Bayes's rule, if we see an apparent serial voter who is downvoting everything, it's very likely he's malicious. So we should have a low threshold for reversing serial downvoting. In contrast, an apparent serial voter who mostly upvotes is much more likely to be acting legitimately. Therefore, we should reverse serial upvoting only in more clear-cut cases.
The problem I see with this question, is everybody likes getting up-voted. So who in their right mind would argue with getting up-votes?
The reason there are so much discussion about serial down-votes, is that they don't like getting down-voted. Not to mention that the person doing the down-voting is burning through their own rep to do that to you. Which means that they are actively being malicious, because they don't like you.
For someone to go and up-vote all of your posts, means they probably look up to you in some way. And really who doesn't like being looked up to?