Timeline for 'Stalking', Reverse-Voting and the scope of "Serial Downvoting" Confusion
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 5, 2014 at 23:50 | comment | added | dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten Mod | This post is very similar to opinions posted by Shog9 from time to time, and I think it is a philosophical position concerning what "voting the content" means. When you sort through one user's posts (even if you are voting honestly and even if you vote other posts in the same questions) you are still following a person-centric search behavior and that runs contrary to the basic idea that these sites are not about who but about content. Now, if you follow the guidelines suggested by, say, tpg you are unlikely to get caught, but there are no guarantees. | |
| Jun 5, 2014 at 20:01 | comment | added | Mad Scientist | @jinawee I tried to avoid defining a lower boundary of votes that is likely to be safe. I assumed that someone looking through another user's history would cast more than one or two votes. The script can't detect intent, and going through the profile of a user and upvoting good posts is targeting a specific user with votes, no matter if well-intentioned or not. | |
| Jun 5, 2014 at 19:37 | comment | added | jinawee | A couple of upvotes/downvotes won't get you into any trouble, as long as you are honest and you've read the question. | |
| Jun 5, 2014 at 13:15 | comment | added | Flint72 | MadScientist : Well I'm still a little confused now, as I think that your answer seems to be the exact opposite to the most accepted answer by ArnoldNuemaier in the related question linked by @jinawee. I guess we should wait for a few opinions... | |
| Jun 5, 2014 at 10:18 | history | answered | Mad Scientist | CC BY-SA 3.0 |