We’re rewarding the question askers & reputations are being recalculated! Read more.
20

Based on the comment trail, your account was deleted because it was violating the rules surrounding voting, and your daughter's account was suspended because it was seen as the base account for sockpuppeting. Let's go over this: Vote on the content, and the content alone. Not who posts it. Not because you think it deserved an upvote. Not because you ...


17

My first assumption is that it's gatekeeping and rank farming. The system is build on the premises of gamification, so there is an aspect of farming, no doubt. It is all fun. Do employers take SO ranking in to consideration? For sure there are HR departments that take these fake internet points very seriously. I don't expect they will retain much of ...


14

I'd say in a "soft" way, like arguing strongly together for a field of interest like a tag somewhere on a site, yes. That could certainly happen here. But in the more problematic ways you could imagine, like coordinating R/A / Spam flags to nuke undesirable posts quickly and without consensus, or sockpuppet voting to inflate member's scores, those get ...


14

A fix for this is going out today. The weekly job culling questions runs at midnight and the fraud reversal happens at 3AM (both UTC). Now, the weekly job will only consider questions which have a non-deleted down vote more than 2 days old. This will give any fraud reversals a run before the votes are considered.


13

Requesting votes (up or down) on any post is not in the spirit of their purpose. Users should vote based on the content of the post alone. And they should not use a user profile to find posts to vote on. Targeting users is by all means a serious offense and those repeatedly involved with it will face consequences. Votes don't need to be requested. The ...


12

A very interesting idea, but it only addresses one specific use case, namely: user X "finding" question Y. And only to vote, X clicks on Y, and carefully digests all content whether "worth upvoting". But that isn't the standard use case. Most people come here because some search engine send them this way. They have a problem that maybe question Y ...


11

If you prefer not to see post scores until you have voted, I've created a userscript for that. HideVoteCounts hides vote counts as soon as page is loaded prevents fetching vote counts before voting re-hides vote counts if you unvoted always show vote counts on your posts intentionally does not work in mod flag queue or review queues if you really need to ...


11

So... A post is new, it has one other "zero-rated" answer, post an answer yourself, vote down another answer, you get prime real estate... That smells like a conflict of interest. Well, one of the reasons downvoting an answer costing one reputation is to prevent the Slowest Cheater In The East effect. That is Stack Exchange's remedy against what you're ...


9

Nah, don't worry. Yes, voting on users rather than posts is generally a bad approach to SE. You ought to consider the content of the post, not who wrote it. But going as far as saying some dude encouraging people to give feedback on their posts in his profile text is actively violating this might be...taking it a little too far. Maybe think twice about ...


9

Nope. If there's serial voting, hopefully the system will catch it. In theory if you suspect serial voting the script hadn't caught you should flag for a mod, and they may end up escalating to a CM. We don't know the question and answer ban threshold but it's pretty hard to get question banned - impossible past a certain point actually. So you prevent it ...


5

OK, let us consider the consequences of what you suggest. Let's say that I'm in a low-traffic tag, so it doesn't get a lot of views or a lot of experts. Someone has asked a question, and someone has provided an answer. However, that answer is wrong; maybe it's even actively dangerous due to a security flaw. And I know what the right answer is. Under your ...


4

Yes, this happens on Stack Exchange. While we like to think the voting system works perfectly as intended, it is only very well executed. There are several Stack Exchange sites that work on a subjective basis, because the questions are necessarily "soft" and the answers generally based on subjective personal experience rather than objective data. The ...


4

Its somewhat less likely to happen on SE simply because of the structure of things. Sufficient numbers of users with enough reputation can undo most of what I can do. As for your specific stages... Choose a topic to control. There's enough subject matter experts to call someone out on incorrect information that its mitigated. I get schooled a lot ...


4

I think it could happen, but as a moderator on two sites (one medium-sized, one small) I have only ever seen weak evidence for such cabals starting to form and they do not seem to last long. I think they only extend as far as the first two points in your list. Neither site has a strong chat culture, and this may mean that most users act independently most ...


1

The reversal you mention happened at 03:00 UTC that day, and reversed the serial votes from the previous day. Then, the three serial votes you highlighted happened later, at 09:17-09:18 UTC that day. The serial voting script runs once a day at 03:00 UTC. Since the serial votes you mention happened after that time that day, they'll be detected by the next ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible