I just added this, but there are some ground rules:
You can un-upvote a comment within the first 60 seconds, provided you did not navigate away.
Once you un-upvote a comment you can not upvote it again.
We do not want flip flopping, nor do we want people to un-upvote stuff from the past. The only use case is undoing a mis-click.
Here's what it looks ...
I'm sure this is not really brightening anyone's day.
You're not doing that person any favors. Someone might look at that and think this person is guilty of vote fraud. Please stop voting this way, it's more annoying than anything else.
No that is not okay. That is serial voting. The votes will just be reversed, and you may find yourself punished further.
You should be voting based on the content of a post, not based on a user that posted it.
I like the ideas, and I see three options:
You need 15 in-site rep (i.e. association bonus doesn't count) or being a member for 24 hours to vote. Downside: I've got an account on RPG for a while without any activity but voting, with this system I would already generate this bad noise (and I certainly do, to some extent, without the intention to disturb the ...
Confirmed that the Upvoter / Downvoter UserId's are zapped from the Votes table, e.g. by running this data.stackexchange query. Note however that 'favourited' and bounty Userid's seem to be retained :) (Thanks, mom!)
SELECT v.UserId, vt.Name, COUNT(*)
INNER JOIN Votes v
ON v.PostId = p.Id
INNER JOIN VoteTypes vt
Indeed. The current message is very misleading and actually wrong. It makes you think the votes will be automatically applied, which they aren't.
To keep the 'we do something with your feedback' part of the message, my counterproposal is:
Thanks for your feedback! You need ≥15 rep to upvote posts. We will remember your vote for analysis. Once you have ...
When is upvoting content from one user frowned upon?
When the purpose of your account's existence is to upvote the other person.
Would my usecase be in danger of being a (what I consider 'false') positive for the fraud-detection?
Yes, it would be in some danger. No, I don't consider it a false positive, but you wouldn't be treated as harshly as someone ...
The vast majority of the popular questions on Stack Overflow (and the entire network) generally fall into one (or both) of two categories:
"Hot" questions, that are linked on Reddit or Hacker News.
"Extremely useful" questions, that are the target of search engine hits.
In your example, it is the second category. Apparently, it is a very commonly ...
I pretty much agree.
The way it currently works, HNQ undermines the whole way the reputation and badge system works.
As a recent example, on the site at which I'm the most active, my most upvoted answer (at the time when this answer was originally posted) is a rather trivial, short, basic answer that I put nearly no effort into. I typed it on my phone ...
Don't target users with votes. It's as simple as that. By all means feel free to vote for content you happen upon, but anything that looks like you targeting a user with votes (up or down) can land both you and the user you target in hot water. Don't do it. You'll cause more trouble than it's worth. Even if you mean well, and the votes are deserved, there is ...
Votes on the Stack Exchange network are anonymous. The Data Explorer doesn't allow you to bypass that.
The user IDs are nulled on purpose for the public data dumps because otherwise it would be a serious breach of privacy. You'll notice that there isn't a single upvote with an attached UserId. Same for downvotes.
In fact that's the case with most of them. ...
I don't think it really matters how useful the post was when it was originally posted. We're building up a body of programming knowledge for future programmers to search through and find answers to their questions. I always upvote the question and answer when I find a solution to a problem I'm working on, despite the age of either post (assuming I have ...
No. You're giving spammers reputation, which they can use to do nasty things like posting comments with spam links (which tend to go unnoticed on old posts), post more spam links, posting spam on meta where it's less likely to be seen, upvote each other's spam posts, etc...
It isn't implemented yet, so you don't have to worry about your tapping skills.
I agree this is a very useful addition, something I have been wanting for a long time. Both mobile apps seem to have this, but the mobile web interface doesn't.
This feature request has been rejected some time ago, but I brought it up on Meta SE again. Let's see if it helps.
You need only 15 reputation points to upvote. You can easily get that points from asking one good question or answer one. You already got that much points right now on meta for this single question.
I would not really call that contributing, but minimally participating.
See the FAQ about actions that increase your reputation.
Why did this comment got 8 upvotes?
Because 8 people agreed enough with the commenter to click a little arrow that appears when hovering over the comment.
Should it be even allowed?
"Allowed" is a very strong word; an overly strong word. If I wrote such a comment what would my punishment be? Let's assume you're asking whether Stack Exchange should have ...
This would be somewhat pointless (well, worse).
I'd literally upvote every post I post if able, because:
Naturally I think they're all useful
Just to potentially increase the attention my post gets (and to keep up with others doing the same)
To get reputation, if you were thinking that it would give you reputation
(and I'm sure everyone would do the same ...
If you like something, upvote it. That way the respondent gets an increase to their reputation, and posts with more votes float to the top of the page, thereby helping other people recognise that they are more popular (and therefore likely more correct) an answer.
Upvotes benefit everyone. +1 comments benefit nobody.
I don't want to sift ...
It's really up to you. I'd only not upvote an answer that I accepted if I were out of votes for the day. Even then, I'd circle back and upvote it the next day. If it was helpful enough that it solved my problem, I certainly think it's deserving of an additional upvote.
For other (not accepted) answers it's not as certain, but if someone added to my ...
Is it considered inappropriate?
No, it is not appropriate, not if this is the only person you upvote. Voting should be on the merit of the post, not the person.
I do that only after a careful read and finding it useful
That's a different matter then. But do you upvote other people's posts as well? You should be.
Would some automatic algorithm track ...
Strictly speaking, you should not vote on the question. Votes on questions are designed to reflect the quality of the question; if you haven't bothered to read it, you're in no position to judge the quality.
The better decision would be to actually read the question and vote on it if you felt it was appropriate to do so, however. We encourage people to not ...
Terrible idea. Often times I see a good answer to a bad question, and I upvote the answer to support the user who actually tried to parse a terrible question and deliver a reasonable answer.
The quality of an answer is in no way correlated with the quality of the question.
I support this. I've been on the receiving end of this a lot on The Workplace.
Sometimes I write a super innocuous and not that spectacular answer, and it ends up somewhere insane like +200 within a day. That's unhealthy, and it's not based on quality either. Usually the answer that's currently highest voted gets all the drive-by votes.
This phenomenon is ...
This is all about feedback. If anyone posts a question or an answer that merits a downvote, it would be great to have some feedback as to why this was downvoted. As there is (justified) fear of retaliation, comments should be optionally anonymous. This way, the braver users can leave a comment with their name, while the rest of us can leave a comment without ...
There is an up & down triangle before the question and answer, just hit them and you can vote for it. Up Triangle refers to upvote and down triangle refers to downvote/negative voting.
For Questions and answers, you can do both upvote & downvote, while for comments you can only do upvote, you can't downvote a comment.
But for voting you require ...
Does Bob's answer deserve an upvote for being indirectly useful?
How you spend your votes is entirely up to you. If you had been unable to find the answer because you didn't know the right keyword to search for, that answer might be just what you needed. If you already knew that you needed to close the streams but didn't know how, that answer doesn't add ...
I mean, the people taking the time finding an answer and typing it, should get some points I would say?
No, not generally. People are expected to answer anyway. They only should get upvotes for good and correct contributions. "taking the time finding an answer" doesn't always imply that it's a good answer that deserves upvotes. I've seen enough users type ...
You've had several good answers already. I'd like to add another option:
if you get over 200 reputation on any of the ~100 Stack Exchange sites, you'll get a 100 association bonus to all your associated accounts, allowing you to upvote and comment across all those sites.
So if you find earning rep on Stack Overflow daunting, maybe there's already a site ...