1

Stack Exchange plans to test '1-rep voting':

  • Reputation required to cast upvotes is changing from 15 to 1
  • Reputation required to cast downvotes is changing from 125 to 1
  • The 1 reputation cost to downvote answers will be removed

Link to the Meta question: If more users could vote, would they engage more? Testing 1 reputation voting on some sites

Should our Arduino SE participate in the test?

0

5 Answers 5

3

I think more people voting would better indicate quality of the posts.

Arduino is for beginners so most of our users ask questions which members with higher reputation don't find interesting. Many of the answers are only interesting for beginners without reputation points on SE, so now there is not enough voting and many times a random upvote or downvote is the only vote and not balanced by more voters.

3

Personally, I think this is probably a bad idea.

It's practically an invitation for new users to create a few sock-puppet accounts in order to boost their reputation and gain access to other site features. And if they have even a basic knowledge of how to use a VPN that would be very hard to detect and/or prove.

Moreover, I suspect that the change would encourage "revenge downvoting". If someone is upset or angry about a comment on, or criticism of, their question they can simply search for questions / answers by the commenter and downvote them. Having been a mod on another site, I know this already happens. At the moment it's relatively rare, but if those restrictions were removed I think it's almost inevitable to become a lot more common.

Even good questions and answers on Arduino:SE don't attract that many votes, so it wouldn't take too much to devalue the score of those questions / answers.


I'd also ask whether SE will help rollback any damage caused during the trial period if/when the trial is deemed to have been unsuccessful? Or is that something that Arduino:SE would just have to live with going forward.

11
  • 1
    thank you for your answer. obviously I will not upvote it :-), but thank you. We have now better tools to detect voting fraud and with more fraud they can be developed further. Now we don't have any vote fraud cases on Arduino SE. We fight only 'charity' voting. In answer to comments on Meta Catija stated that if there is damage it can be fixed.
    – Juraj Mod
    Sep 23 at 13:08
  • 4
    @Juraj We don't have any vote fraud cases on Arduino:SE that we know of. We were only able to spot the cases we did find when I was a mod because they were lazy, careless, and blatant about what they were doing. If they had been a bit more careful, and a bit less obvious, we would never have caught them. No matter how good the tools are, a reasonably careful, tech-savvy individual will get away with it. Now, that shouldn't impact the wider community much - unless there are a lot of people doing it. Sep 23 at 17:26
  • @Juraj how is charity voting fought? Sep 24 at 23:56
  • 1
    @NikeDattani as usual. reverting votes, sending warnings, eventually suspension
    – Juraj Mod
    Sep 25 at 5:50
  • 3
    @Juraj but how is "charity voting" defined and detected? Also are you sure that the votes can be reverted? Votes can be reverted when actual serial voting is detected by the nightly scripts, but cannot be "manually" reverted in any other case, other than sockpuppet voting in which all votes between the sockpuppet master's multiple accounts will be reverted. But if I vote for your answers for "charity", it won't be possible to revert unless I do it serially and obviously enough for the nightly scripts to detect it, right? Sep 25 at 8:11
  • 1
    @NikeDattani any irregular voting can be reverted by CM (Inauthentic usage policy)
    – Juraj Mod
    Sep 25 at 8:58
  • 3
    @Juraj not only does it seem that you completely ignored my question, but what you said in your response is also wrong. Sep 25 at 15:11
  • 1
    @NikeDattani sorry. The charity voting is just visible as any unusual voting. at least on Arduino SE. It was reverted so it must be possible.
    – Juraj Mod
    Sep 25 at 17:09
  • 1
    @Juraj the screenshot literally says that the votes cannot be reverted, manually. They can only be reverted if the voting fraud is caught by the nightly scripts, which was not what happened in this case. I can show you the rest of the conversation if you need to see it. Also, you still haven't explained what you mean by "charity voting". It's surely not just any unusual voting, because when someone unusually downvotes a bunch of questions from one user, there's no "charity", but it's still considered voting fraud because it's targeted against one user. Sep 25 at 19:37
  • 1
    @NikeDattani that is not what the screenshot says. it says they require a larger scale of targeted votes to revert them. and I stop responding about this topic here. If you want to know more, please open a new Meta question
    – Juraj Mod
    Sep 26 at 4:44
  • 2
    If you don't want to reply anymore, that's up to you, but that does not make you right. You literally said "any irregular voting can be reverted by a CM" and you have also admitted that you were wrong about that when you said irregular voting can only be reverted if it's on a "large enough scale". So it's not true that any irregular voting can be reverted. Irregular voting can only be reverted in certain circumstances. Also, the screenshot literally says "we lack the technical capabilities to remove these votes". The "larger scale" part is about nightly scripts detecting fraud. Sep 26 at 15:02
1

My 2 cents worth: If more users could vote, would they engage more? Testing 1 reputation voting on some sites

What SE should do, is just turn the "feature" on and see if anyone here notices any changes.

6
  • 3
    "Just doing it" without consultation is what caused the last several instances of backlash against SE. I'd imagine they'd want to avoid any more. And on a related note, I probably wouldn't go around volunteering a community for something like this without consulting them first. Sep 25 at 12:54
  • @sempaiscuba - If SE uses Arduino SE as a test site, what are you going to do? Delete your account?
    – VE7JRO
    Sep 25 at 14:21
  • 3
    No. Although I may just stop using the the site. And I have no idea what others would do. But that isn't the point. You are just one member of the community. You don't get to make those kinds of decisions. Even the site mods don't get to do that without consulting - which is why Juraj posted the question here. Sep 25 at 15:11
  • @sempaiscuba - The question was asked on meta.stackexchange.com. That is where I answered it first. The "decision" to answer the question is mine alone to make, not a group decision. I do not need anyone's permission to comment on SE meta sites. Please read: meta.stackexchange.com/help/whats-meta If you really want your voice heard, then this is the place: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/393127/…
    – VE7JRO
    Sep 25 at 16:09
  • 2
    I can see where it was asked, and I know what Meta is (I've used it in the past, and I'm pretty sure it shows up on my profile). That question asks for sites to volunteer, and you said "Arduino SE would be a great place to test this out". That's effectively volunteering this community for the trial. The phrase "In my opinion" exists for a reason, and prefixing your answer with that would have made it clear that you were expressing your personal opinion, and not a community consensus. Sep 25 at 19:24
  • @sempaiscuba - I never "volunteered" Arduino SE. 1. Your comment "That's effectively volunteering..." is not true. If you feel strongly about it, why not answer / comment on the SE meta question? 2. The phrase "In my opinion" is implied. Isn't that what all answers on SE are; users individual opinions? Once again, "I do not need anyone's permission to comment on SE meta sites.".
    – VE7JRO
    Sep 25 at 19:42
0

"Arduino is for beginners" (@juraj). Yet the tone of responses by the more experienced, toward beginners who haven't caught on to the differences between an SE site and a forum, or who haven't formulated a "good, answerable, question" in the "ASE approved way", is too often off-putting. They are to me, just reading them, and I'm not a beginner with ASE or Arduinos. Sometimes it reminds me of [a related SE site] that could get outright hostile to any but the "elite", for anything less than a question that was deemed "Proper".

Taking a more helpful and personal/educational tone with new members, guiding them toward the culture of up/down/best-answer voting will likely go a lot farther toward making the site work than tweaking scoring formulas will. Guiding those whose comments or answers are less charitable, and setting a consistent example, would do, as well.

-1

As with essentially everyone in the network that has commented on this issue, I strongly think that it's a very bad idea to lower the reputation thresholds for voting. It seems that Arduino.SE is the only site considering this, and that the score for the answer suggesting support for doing this on Arduino.SE is the 26th highest out of all answers which suggests that it's not really supported by the rest of the network's community.

If Arduino.SE does decide to go ahead with this experiment, I strongly, strongly suggest only the first experiment is done:

  • "Reputation required to cast upvotes is changing from 15 to 1"

The other two experiments:

  • "Reputation required to cast downvotes is changing from 125 to 1
  • The 1 reputation cost to downvote answers will be removed"

are in my opinion a very, very bad idea. If this community really wants to carry out the second and third experiments, I would recommend to first see how things go with the first experiment.

0

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .