Timeline for Bad questions from new users immediately getting (sometimes multiple) upvotes
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
27 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 28, 2018 at 23:25 | comment | added | amWhy | Actually, @Phira, you're wrong. You just can't see the waste that's fallen on the way side due to failure to respond to reasonable questions about context. Far more poor questions get blessed, and quickly answered (because low ability answerers) and upvoted than do reasonable questions that might challenge our leaders in the pack for capping each day, week, month, are able, or have the time, for answering. | |
| Jun 28, 2018 at 22:57 | comment | added | amWhy | Today, June 28 is a text-book case of unearned upvotes scattered across some pretty poor questions, in particular, 2 or more. | |
| Jun 28, 2018 at 14:17 | comment | added | Cristobol Polychronopolis | How about an algorithm to identify and flag sets of "mutual admiration society" users by tracking who the upvoters are for each poster? Unless abusers create new accounts for each question, a pattern of identity-related upvoting should emerge for moderator consideration. | |
| Jun 24, 2018 at 14:34 | answer | added | user7530 | timeline score: 12 | |
| Jun 19, 2018 at 17:39 | comment | added | ccorn | My impression is that questions receive too little votes in general. Which leads me to the unorthodox idea of assigning much more weight to both up- and downvotes on questions. This might shift the existing market-like mechanisms more toward the question side. Have to think about that. | |
| Jun 19, 2018 at 16:56 | comment | added | Phira | A much bigger problem is when reasonable questions from new users immediately get downvotes. | |
| Jun 19, 2018 at 15:59 | comment | added | amWhy | The owner-and-creator of multiple accounts, from the owner to which I refer in my above comments, that I am talking about, earns enough rep to be able to upvote, which usually happens as early as their second day. So your last comment is irrelevant. | |
| Jun 19, 2018 at 4:40 | comment | added | user243301 | @amWhy I believe that if the intention of some person is create multiple (anonymous) accounts to upvote questions of new users, I suppose that the moderators can not fix it. I think that the question of the OP is serious, but this is the page of new users that shows $\approx 300\times 36=10800$ new users. Is a daily problem the serial upvotes to poor questions from new users? Isn't. On the other hand if there is some wrong in my answer feel free to flag it or contact with the site, | |
| Jun 18, 2018 at 23:14 | comment | added | amWhy | The fact that no moderator has chosen to address the situation in an answer speaks volumes. | |
| Jun 18, 2018 at 11:28 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila Mod | @Gerry: That depends on the rotation. If you rotate the moderators by rotating their entire frame of reference, they should be fine. | |
| Jun 18, 2018 at 3:41 | comment | added | user170039 | Some examples would be nice. | |
| Jun 17, 2018 at 21:55 | comment | added | Daniel Fischer Mod | @amWhy Concerning the user you mention, there's simply nothing other than deleting the accounts when we find them (and we find a number ourselves, but flags from users help finding them faster) that can be done. If somebody is determined to create an account, they can. They can't keep it if the leopard's spots show, but … shrug | |
| Jun 17, 2018 at 21:31 | answer | added | awiebe | timeline score: 5 | |
| Jun 16, 2018 at 23:10 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackMath/status/1008124744661716992 | ||
| Jun 16, 2018 at 8:13 | comment | added | user243301 | I think that moderators (any) are and have been very generous with their work and dedication to this site. And that they have infinite patience. Because that's what your question is about, if the moderators have a crystal ball to know who votes up or down? And I'm sorry if I make a joke about your question, I was not the first. And I'm sorry if I focus your question about moderators, I was not the first. You, with good intention asked what more could be done? IP ban? There are VPNs/proxies, and you did not get an answer. I think your question is serious but some comments should be moderate. | |
| Jun 16, 2018 at 6:04 | comment | added | ccorn | Well, at least we should not let the system grind them to dust. If moderation at scale requires being non-sentient, that's a problem which needs a solution. | |
| Jun 16, 2018 at 1:32 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | "moderators should be rotated frequently, for their own good." Won't they get dizzy? | |
| Jun 15, 2018 at 6:09 | comment | added | ccorn | Non-serious proposal: Buttons "blue pill" and "red pill". The blue pill hides the review queue functions and shows you only high-score stuff that is at least one year old. The "red pill" sends you back to the unpolished reality. After lots of review tasks, the system automatically activates the blue pill. Oh, and moderators should be rotated frequently, for their own good. | |
| Jun 15, 2018 at 5:44 | comment | added | ccorn | I see this as one more example of a nonlinear scalability barrier. As user numbers grow, all sorts of odd behavior patterns can be observed. Those disproportionally affect the people engaged in the vetting/sorting/moderating business. Stemming twice the number of posts with twice the number of voting people does not really work because each person gets to see almost all of the new bad stuff. That's psychologically overwhelming. Calls for technical assistance are typically answered with "It's insignificant, don't let that affect you." Alas, there are limits to the applicability of such advice. | |
| Jun 15, 2018 at 5:28 | comment | added | Martin Sleziak | On Meta Stack Exchange there exists sock-puppets tag. Maybe if somebody has time to have a look at some of the posts there, they could be able to answer your question in detail. This question seems relevant: How can you detect if users have created sock puppet accounts? This one also mentions briefly what is expected from mods: How should sockpuppets be handled on Stack Exchange? | |
| Jun 15, 2018 at 0:13 | comment | added | user223391 | That is very interesting @amwhy. It is frustrating that there are people like that. What more could be done? IP ban? There are VPNs/proxies. | |
| Jun 15, 2018 at 0:01 | comment | added | amWhy | and the mods know this, but only account when other users devote our time to flagging fishy behavior. And then, only after one of this person's accounts has transgressed site policies/ only then, a mod will delete that one account. I am convinced more can be done, by engaging SE staff, but all I know is the mods on this site seem to have decided it's not worth their time to look much more deeply into stopping this person who regularly comes back to upvote the poorest of questions, and answer questions which were rightfully closed, in the comments. | |
| Jun 14, 2018 at 23:56 | comment | added | amWhy | There is one person who creates multiple accounts, and uses them specifically (after answering a few questions to earn sufficient rep) to serially upvote the poorest of poor posts, as well as to answer fully closed questions (in comments). This person is known by math.se mods, who, from what I understand, have resigned themselves to playing "whack-a-mole" - deleting one account of this person, after another, more than a dozen, and counting. But the mods, despite playing an on-going game of "whack-an-account", have done nothing further. This person then goes on to create more accounts... | |
| Jun 14, 2018 at 23:41 | comment | added | Mehness | until then unless the question was really appallingly posed, the first thing I would think about was whether I liked the q or not, and only secondarily notice whether or not any attempt had been made. But it seems this is a 'thing', so probably more wary now of unbridled enthusiasm :) and of course this is not related to the 'multiple' upvote situation described which agreed must be annoying though haven't yet noticed it myself | |
| Jun 14, 2018 at 23:41 | comment | added | Mehness | This is a really interesting one in terms of MSE norms - sometimes there have been badly posed no effort questions, which nevertheless have liked (but not upvoted) for one reason or another. So it seems consensus is no to upvote a badly posed question, even if it is a nice question as far as one is concerned. I recently answered one (which hadn't upvoted) where one of the comments suggested maybe answerers were upvoting to make the question sound better (!) Wow - cannot believe people would do that for that reason. But anyway that comment has definitely made me circumspect on upvoting, since | |
| Jun 14, 2018 at 18:12 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila Mod | Sometimes these are just "real life friends". Sometimes these are really just class mates. Sometimes these are socks. Sometimes these are boots. In either case, it's very annoying. | |
| Jun 14, 2018 at 18:00 | history | asked | user223391 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |