Hot answers tagged

16

No. Please don't. But technically we can't stop you either. Voting on SE sites is strictly a personal affair. Your reasons for voting are your own and the system cannot tell why any single vote is cast. The system is only useful for its for the aggregate of many votes. Some of the individual votes will undoubtedly be for the "wrong" reasons, but if ...


13

Update As of October 5, 2015, the penalty for Christianity on the Network Hot Questions has been removed. Well, there's a reason for this. The hot network questions algorithm includes adjustments based on feedback such as: I shouldn't have to see a bible study on Stack Overflow. Therefore, Christianity questions must score higher in order to be displayed on ...


11

StackExchange final elections are administered using what is known as the Single Transferable Vote method, specifically the meek STV algorithm. Basically, each user gets exactly 1 vote. However you are allowed to select three candidates in order of preference. Your single vote will be divided up between these candidates in whatever fashion is most ...


10

David hinted at this (and I agree with his assessment that no we are not too quick to close these days) but I think it bears emphasising that up/down voting on posts should not correlate to close/open voting. These are two completely separate functions for a reason and the use cases for each are different. Somebody could put a ton of effort into a very good ...


8

No, I don't think people are too quick to close. right now I think it's just about right. There was a time in the past where it was the exact opposite and clearly off-topic questions remained open far too long. Like it or not, some questions that get positive votes still need to be closed, and closed quickly. There are plenty of users who ignore the ...


8

There is not a problem here. This is not the result of one person's votes, it is at least a couple. One person cannot vote on the same post more than once. 7 downvotes across 3 days and 3 posts is not evidence of abuse. You do not—and cannot—know who votes on your post. If you think you can guess you are wrong in two ways. First, it is almost always ...


7

I personally don't believe that anyone is targetting your posts. I'm someone who votes frequently on this site (total votes since joining - 2,826 upvotes & 193 downvotes) and am very happy to upvote well-sourced and well-argued post even if they represent a viewpoint I disagree with. From the stats it is apparant that I am not a heavy downvoter, but I do ...


7

I noticed this a couple weeks ago and flagged one or two of the comments as being excessive noise. If you notice someone posting a bunch of the same "why didn't you vote" comments, you can flag one of comments for moderator attention. The thing is, voting is good (which is why I do it so much), but comments about it are a distraction. If someone's going ...


7

I think the addition is congruent with current site culture. I favor this improvement.


6

I don't really see it as a big deal if it doesn't get deleted. If you think DJ deserves an up, then give him one. I would actually admonish him to discontinue answering off-topic questions. That's why I don't even look at the answers for off-topic questions. Users over 10K rep can vote to delete it. Perhaps we just need more of those users doing that. Or, ...


6

I guess I would argue the answer can be sort of, but mostly no. Voting on questions and particularly answers is supposed to be based on if they are helpful, clear and well-defined. If someone were to, say, answer a question about the Catholic perspective on an issue and an answer was given that accurately represented the Catholic view clearly, it should ...


6

Voting is supposed to be anonymous. By asking people to explain their down votes (which the system already does), your asking them to break the anonymity that they are entitled do. If someone wants to comment they are welcome and encouraged to, but if they don't want to we can't make them. Last note: depending on why you're down voting it may be counter ...


5

Incidentally, one of our questions has appeared in the HNQ list today:


5

The answer is listed on the right sidebar of the election page: Each community member has 3 votes. Please cast your votes in order of preference, starting with the most desirable candidate first.


5

This is phrased as a request rather than a policy for a simple reason - We can neither demand nor enforce that anyone do anything in regards to votes. As such, the only solution is to plead. And this, I will do - I would appeal to the better angels of your nature, if you choose to anonymously downvote. It has been said that any fool can knock over a ...


5

It might be worth mentioning that this is a common pattern on many SE sites - voting drops off over the years. One reason that voting dropped here is that the (former) most active voter mostly drifted away from voting on this and most other SE sites. Having a lot of people who are somewhat active voters is better than having a few very active people is ...


4

As a fairly new contributor to Christianity Stack Exchange I have discovered that very few new questions are getting through. Lots of interesting questions are being put on hold and closed. So I've stopped bothering to look at them. The minute the moderators come in with reasons why the question should be put on hold is the minute I move on elsewhere. ...


3

As someone else who cares about real truth, I appreciate the desire to see good true answers on this site (even if that's not the point of the site). But voting is generally a poor way to do it. When someone writes an answer which is against your convictions, sometimes it's a poor answer. It may not really address the question, or it may be poorly ...


2

There is an automated process that will take care of most cases of extreme serial downvoting. This appears to be the case in the instance that prompted this (I have no more info here than you do). If someone goes through and downvotes or upvotes a bunch of your posts, chances are they will get reversed by the script. This is normal behavior to prevent the ...


2

Please read each of the articles under Reputation & Moderation in the help section as well as review this FAQ post on the main SE meta. These posts detail everything that can happen to reputation numbers and why. Some specific points you might have missed: Voting on posts in the per-site metas (like the one your are on now) do not affect reputation. ...


2

This would have been pretty unheard of; the system won't let you vote twice on a post with the same account. Was the upvote arrow already blue when you visited the page? Perhaps you realized, say, 6 months ago that your upvote wasn't warranted and did you retract it then already. The post's score might still be 1 because another user upvoted it. In any case,...


2

Thanks to all those who have taken the time to vote! Here are those who have voted the most,* by time period. July 2018: curiousdannii, user477343, and Thunderforge August 2018: Ward, curiousdannii, and Lesley *moderators excluded


1

Is double voting allowed? The real answer is no! And I truly doubt that the event you described actually happened. You can always edit the response you updated and then you will be able to remove your vote, if you truly feel the response does not merit being upvoted by yourself.


1

Maybe, but the SE engine is pretty good at identifying it and reversing it. With the most recent down votes, perhaps there is something going on, but the other posts have received multiple down votes, so that certainly can't be from a single person. If it gets worse I'm sure the SE engine will catch it by then, and then reverse it. It happened to me and ...


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