What's the rationale here? Nobody can really DO anything about votes anyway, so why limit the ability to see how the sum is reached? In a few SE sites, such as this one, I'm rather low rep and can't see whether something's been voted up 5 times, or 6 times and a -1, etc... I've found it frustrating and am having trouble thinking of why it would be limited to begin with.


2 Answers 2


Seems like similar to - Show Total Votes (or Up/Down Votes)

Taken from that link - As quoted by Jeff Atwood -

The total vote count (score) is denormalized, but the individual up/down vote counts are not.

So to display it on every post would incur 2 vote table queries * number of visible questions / answers. Our DB is fast, but the vote table is pretty massive, and not doing a query is always faster than doing it..

  • 1
    This explains why the votes are displayed split to begin with, but why do you need 1k rep to do the split? Why not just let every user split votes if they want, and rate limit it? Commented Feb 15, 2011 at 19:00
  • @Michael - Probably this question asked by me would have some explaination for you and OP too :) - meta.stackexchange.com/questions/77893/… Commented Feb 15, 2011 at 19:18
  • Oh, this is a duplicate of that; you should've just linked it in a comment Commented Feb 15, 2011 at 20:54
  • @Michael - Not sure if this can be classified as duplicate, I had asked by giving importance to rep whereas the OP here asks it should be available for all. Dont know, I am so confused right now... :) Commented Feb 16, 2011 at 5:22

Because it's mildly interesting? You find it interesting to see those stats, therefore setting a specific reputation level gives you the incentive to gain reputation to see those stats.

Edit: Plus, it looks like there was a "desert" for privileges at the 1000 rep level, so this filled that gap nicely. It's since been filled in with the chat room priv, but that's a relatively recent addition.

  • Well, hopefully the only reason to require 1k isn't "they needed a 1k privilege, and this was the first they came up with" Commented Feb 15, 2011 at 19:00
  • @Micheal: I'm pretty sure it was exactly that.. Not that it's a bad thing Commented Feb 15, 2011 at 19:59
  • Well, if the object of reputation is to simply provide a point game, then any and all abilities of interest should be earned to encouraged playing. If, on the other hand, the object of reputation is to provide "trusted" users with moderation capabilities then my question still stands.
    – anon
    Commented Feb 22, 2011 at 20:29

You must log in to answer this question.