Answers are more valuable than questions because they require knowledge, giving more reputation to answers rewards learning and acquiring that knowledge.
Users asking a question (trying to solve problem) will get answers besides the reputation, a solution to their problem which is a reward on its own.
Reputation unlocks moderation powers - reputation ...
Simply increasing question reputation as stated will make it easier for sockpuppets/voting rings to start. It's rather easier to copy a nice looking programming question from Quora / Reddit and post it on Stack Overflow (maybe changing a few words to avoid the simplest plagiarism checks) and after two upvotes (instead of three) you'll already be able to ...
Weighing up the pros and cons, I'd have to say overall "no".
It's very site dependent. Compare:
Stack Overflow and Math.SE attract users who repeatedly post poor questions, and slowly accumulate reputation. This change may encourage them, so I'd expect it's not beneficial at these sites.
At Chinese.SE, I can spend 20+ minutes writing a question, only to ...
You know as well as I do that the answer is "no". Or at least - not in a way visible to most users, or even to users active on meta.stackexchange.com .
This is another example of the apparent paradigm shift in SE Inc.'s management of the SE network - towards unilaterlism and arbitrariness, as myself and others have claimed before. Once they realized the way ...
Answers > Questions
Answers are more important than questions because people (including ones who posted a question) are coming for the answers. Nobody is interested in a wonderful question that has no answers. Someone can argue that an awesome question will inevitably get interesting answers but that's actually means that by definition valuable ...
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.
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 ...
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.
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 ...
I don't understand why Stack Overflow Inc the company chose to hide away the reasoning behind this change, but a Stack Overflow moderator (Cody Gray) has shared a partial account of it over on Meta Stack Overflow. Here are some snippets:
This decision was made with the benefit of hindsight: Jeff's solution [halving rep for question upvotes from 10 to 5] ...
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 ...
Strictly Speaking, No, but It's Complicated
If a site's community wants to change a question's upvote value for that site it could be beneficial, but it's not clear all sites would benefit.
The issue isn't what to do with bad or even mediocre questions; SE has multiple ways of dealing with them, and bad questions tend not to get many ...
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 ...
No, because increasing the value of an up-vote doesn't matter if nobody votes on a question (or answer).
One of the purposes of a site like Stack Overflow was for users to treat it a bit of a "developers notebook" in which problems were documented along with their solution. While this can be useful for generating useful information over the long term, ...
No, we shouldn't.
Ultimately, we should be voting on things based on the quality/usefulness of that question itself - not based on the reputation the user gains from that post, or based on how other people have voted on that post. A slight change to how much reputation the user gains from the post - or more accurately, a reversion of a previous change that ...
I generally agree with @Glorfindel's answer, but have some additional context. The main issue here is the large difference between the cost of a downvote and the benefit of an upvote (to the poster receiving the vote). I think this concern is highlighted by looking at some posts the community has strongly disapproved of in the past:
An apology: 106 up, 2228 ...
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. ...
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 ...
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 ...
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 ...