This should be implemented. Sometimes your opinion changes on a question after seeing the comments/answers or just after going away (outside? is that real? Wow the new cry engine is sooo realistic!) and re-thinking about it.
We should not be obliged to wait for an edit to be able to change our voice. Meta is about making the things going on and part of ...
I'd suggest you to just forget about it and move on - I'm having tons of much-downvoted posts (you can also scroll to the end of this search) and don't complain.
However you can still flag it to be locked or deleted, though I'm pretty sure your flag would be declined. No other options. You can't even delete it yourself, because it has up voted answers.
The justification of Jeff to prevent the "tactical downvoting" is not good enough.
It could be prevented by different approach, as I suggested in https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/135243/163139
The time limit to undo up-vote could be completely removed.
When user tries to undo downvote, it should be allowed after time limit(currently 5 min), but do not ...
Having a vote unlocked simply because an edit was suggested, but not approved is clearly a bug. A suggested edit is not an edit until it gets approved; therefore, votes should still be locked, until the suggested edit is approved.
Self-unlocking a vote could still be legitimate.
Suppose I down-vote a question because it is a bad question, but then I notice ...
One of the side effects of locking in someone's vote (after an initial five minute period you have to undo a mistake) is that it forces folks to be much more deliberate and thoughtful about what they vote for.
The purpose of voting is to help a community vet that information to help assure it is useful and correct. If you "vote first, read later", it has ...
This is most definitely not flawed logic. Let me give an example:
You see an answer that, at first glance, does not seem to provide any helpful advice - so you downvote it.
Later that day (possibly while shaving), you realize that there was actually some helpful information there, but it was just hidden in too much fluff and formatting.
You go back to the ...
The tactical downvote protection seems weak at best.
To put myself in the position of such a person who would tacticaly downvote, if only one out of 10 tactical downvotes earns me an upvote then it's worth it. This is bevause a downvote costs me 1 but an upvote gets me 10. If tactical downvoting doesn't achieve even this then I'm not sure why people are ...
Why can't I undo a downvote upon the user improving based on my suggestion?
When you try to undo your vote, the following process checks if you're able to:
When did you vote?
If it was less than 5 minutes ago, allow.
When was the post edited for the last time?
If it was after your vote, allow.
Now, if the post gets edited after you voted but ...
I don't really like vote-locking (especially on metas), but given that we have it, it should behave consistently for all edits. Community♦ edits just aren't that special. If somebody has exploited it to conduct "targeted unvoting", deal with that user.
I'm pretty sure that the way vote changes work for the vast majority of us is: we vote at some point and ...
Unless the suggested edit actually has merit, I'd say don't approve it. We have enough difficulty with folks gaming the suggested edit system as it is.
When a user earns 2000 reputation, they've earned the right to make an occasional gratuitous edit to fix a broken vote (it should be rare, though). For suggested edits, we should focus on actual editing.
You don't get reputation on Meta,
so there is no reason to tactically downvote.
I don't feel strongly one way or the other about this suggestion, but I do want to dispute this particular assertion...
Folks might vote tactically on Meta for the same reason they'd speak tactfully with their local politicians: you want to influence how the place is run. ...
Yes, this is status-bydesign. Votes are only locked until the post is edited.
If an OP edits their post, we want those who originally voted to be able to go back and change their votes, if their concerns have been addressed.
The idea is that we would always allow you to change your mind, and therefore your vote, except that it could be too easily abused by unscrupulous users.
For example, someone might decide to go downvote all of the competing answers to a question that they've answered to help push their own answer to the top, and then later go back and ...
I disagree. What if a user posts an answer which appears to work correctly, but realises later it doesn't work in other cases?
That's a perfectly valid reason to unaccept, though they could at least make a comment to that fact.
This is exactly why my typical practice is usually, if I see an answer within the grace period that needs improvement, I comment first, giving the user ample time to improve their post before I down-vote. If they don't improve it, or they argue about it, then I click. I always wait until the grace period is over so that, should they later decide to improve ...
Removing the vote lock is a terrible solution to this problem. The two are completely unrelated to each other. Better solutions:
Find a way to make sure votes don't get cast accidentally. (I don't know anything about mobile click/touch events.)
Don't attempt to scroll the page over the vote arrows. I may have only used mobile a few times, but the vote ...
I don't think the vote-lock should be removed for answers when the question is edited.
My argument is that no edit to any question should ever change your view on an answer.
There are two situations where this proposal could be applied:
Users answering unclear questions, providing nothing more but guesses. Asker adds more info --> Answer seems better now
The answer was good in 2008 and I've added a better answer now, but I am unable to remove my upvote and others are doomed to walk this path in the future.
Yeah, this is annoying. However, there's a handy loophole - with a very nice potential side-benefit...
If the post is edited after you vote on it, you're free to change your vote. This is true even if ...
It says in the information popup that voting is locked until the post is edited.
This is so that if someone improves their answer/question in an edit a user can change their vote to reflect those changes. If the edit improves the question, such as making it clearer or adding a more detailed answer, a user could change their vote from a down to an up to ...
I am sorry to say but it seems to me you might be voting too fast or too easy.
When you don't fully understand the question of it was unclear on a second look, you need to do better on your first look.
Voting, either up or down, should be done on the whole post. Not just on the first thought of a question being nice or stupid.
And you are right, sometimes ...
No. Editing a post does not change the votes that are on it.
However, editing a post will bump it back to the active questions list. This will indirectly attract fresh attention from users who may end up casting votes.
Also, votes are locked after 5 minutes of placing your up or down vote. Which means you are no longer able to change or remove your vote. ...
Taking your answer to Disassemble instruction with a variable as an offset as an example:
You posted the answer on Oct 13 '14 at 2:20
It was edited by Community on May 23 '17 at 12:37 (to replace the http with https)
If the initial upvote came before the Community edit then the vote will have been unlocked by that edit. The user is then free to remove that ...
At 150 upvotes, and almost 4 years old, it is disappointing to see no response to this feature request. It seems obvious that users want this feature. The changes should be implemented, or at least, we should be given an adequate explanation on why it should not be (one that does not simply reflect the Stack Overflow team disagreeing with all of the users ...
Actually the following advice is given by Jeff:
If you feel so strongly that you've made a terrible mistake with your vote, earn 2k rep, edit the post, then change your vote.
Though he does not advice to perform too minor edit. So they know this scenario.
Technically, votes can be unlocked on a regular (say daily) basis by touching all the answers.
Such a mass-touch would better be done by a community manager, or SE developer, or by Community user to clearly indicate that this is not a personal thing.
It can even preserve an existing order in the active tab if "touching edits" are performed in the order ...
The tooltip on the upvote answer button says
This answer is useful
This answer looks useful
If you intend to try out an answer, try it out first and then upvote it. Or downvote it and/or leave a comment if it doesn't work. If you can improve the answer, you can (suggest an) edit; an edit allows you to retract votes. (But note ...
Edit: I took flak for using the word "hack".
At StackOverflow one receives with the reputation also the responsibility not to misuse the system. I feel this responsibility and therefore I also feel that just editing a text to remove a downvote is a hack.
What is a hack? It is an "an inelegant but effective solution to a computing problem"- It is also a "...
Posting a half-assed answer and then quickly fixing it up is a time-honored tradition, but it does have some risks.
This is one of them.
The author of the post can always edit again after the five-minute window is up, thus unlocking the downvotes (and bumping the post thus drawing more attention to what is now hopefully a good answer). If he's not willing ...