As far as I know, you can't upvote two comments in less than 5 seconds. Why don't we have such a system for up/down-voting questions? For example once you vote you can't vote again for 10 or 15 seconds later. Doesn't that reduce serial voting?

  • 14
    $\begingroup$ I don't think people vote enough as-is, so I'm hesitant to put up any more barriers... $\endgroup$ – user7530 Aug 10 '13 at 1:22
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ I often read a question, then the answers, and subsequently, having read them all, I decide whether to upvote the question, and which answers get my vote. It would be a pain to have this method impaired by some rate limiting. $\endgroup$ – Lord_Farin Aug 10 '13 at 7:12

A main reason, AFAIK, for this delay for comment voting is rather 'technical'. By which I mean it is (also) there to prevent somebody automatically attacking the site with extreme numbers of votes. Note for example that you also cannot fetch comments too quickly in succession. This is irrelevant for the other voting as there there is a global limitation on your votes and thus this local one is not necessary to prevent such an attack.

To prevent too much voting on comments is perhaps also a consideration, but I think a secondary one.

When people talk about problems with serial voting I think most mean the problem of one user voting many posts of some particular other user. To do this, typically, there is some inevitable small delay, like, visit post, vote, go back to userpage, visit another post, vote. So that might be done more quickly than in 15 seconds but than perhaps not even this is clear.

In addition, there is an argument to be made that it is actually better not to have some weak measures against serial voting (like such a delay) because as they are trivial to get around people will do yet then the serial voting gets harder to distinguish from legit voting.

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ What? Serial voting is so easy to do within seconds. Just go to the user page, open some 10 posts, then just vote-close tab-vote-close tab-... until you're through. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Aug 10 '13 at 11:52
  • $\begingroup$ Okay, if you prepare for having the votes in as rapid succession as possible you will certainly manage to make it in less than 10 seconds, or even 5. And if you do not do the opening in advance (which costs some time too) you might from beginning to end even be about as (admittedly perhaps a bit more) efficient in the way I described it. But I would still maintain that serial upvoting ineveitabbly has slightly more delay to it than upvoting all comments in a long comment thread. Besides this not having been my point anyway. $\endgroup$ – quid Aug 10 '13 at 12:07
  • $\begingroup$ That one sentence did not come out as intended. I meant to admit that the procedure described by Asaf Karagila is more efficient than the one I described though IMO from beginning to end only slightly so. $\endgroup$ – quid Aug 10 '13 at 12:20

You must log in to answer this question.

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