5

Possible Duplicate:
Isn't the “vote too old to be changed” a little too eager?

I think that voting should take at least a day to lock in. Someone could vote down accidentally on a good post, and then, 5 min later, the vote would be locked in.

5
  • 3
    See Does reducing the window to change votes really solve the tactical downvoting problem? for the reasoning, and the outcome of Why can't I change my vote if the post has been edited during the initial 5mn grace period? for a more recent relaxing to 5 minutes. (And may I suggest you get to learn these sites a bit before making all these suggestions...? Welcome!)
    – Arjan
    Commented Dec 13, 2010 at 20:31
  • @Arjan: Ok :P :D
    – Linuxmint
    Commented Dec 13, 2010 at 20:41
  • 2
    There are legitimate times where vote lock-in is a pain (even though it does serve a useful purpose), but I'm not seeing "Someone could vote down accidentally on a good post, and then, 5 min later, the vote would be locked in." If it takes you more than 5 minutes to reverse an accidental downvote you're doing something wrong Commented Dec 13, 2010 at 21:40
  • @MichaelMrozek more likely is what happened to me today: Vote up an answer that has convincing arguments, then read through several more answers before landing on one that unequivocally shows how the first answer is wrong (with citations and all), only to find out it has been 8 minutes since my vote on the first answer... and of course I don't have 2,000 reputation on the site to edit the post even trivially.
    – TylerH
    Commented Aug 26, 2020 at 18:12
  • Yes, it should be extended to infinity.
    – endolith
    Commented Aug 26, 2020 at 20:31

1 Answer 1

1

I disagree.

Whenever that happens, one could just post a comment with a friendly request to make a minor edit in the post so that the downvote can be removed, or just edit the post themselves if one has enough reputation to edit other's posts.

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