13
$\begingroup$

Due mostly to my two answers to the popular question Are there any open mathematical puzzles?, I received $35$ upvotes today (in the sense of UTC time). As a user can only receive reputation for $20$ upvotes in one day, I received $200$ reputation from this activity. A couple of minutes ago I received a downvote (annoyingly, with no comment left) for my answer to the question Subgroups of $D_4$, and there was a deduction of $2$ reputation. So in a day with $35$ upvotes and one downvote, I had earned $198$ reputation. If I had received the downvote first and then the $35$ upvotes, I would have earned $200$ reputation (I know this because since writing, I received another upvote which gave we $2$ reputation).

Should the order of the votes effect the total reputation? Is this the way the system has to be in order for a user to be penalised when a post of theirs is downvoted?

$\endgroup$
6
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ I was surprised that it works this way. This meta.SO thread seems to confirm it: Why do the up-votes after reaching daily rep cap not contribute to compensate the subsequent down-votes? Interestingly, as I learned from here (it was linked in the thread that Zev posted), this does not influence whether the day is counted towards Mortarboard, Epic, and Legendary badges. $\endgroup$
    – Martin Sleziak
    Commented Oct 20, 2013 at 16:17
  • $\begingroup$ Also, send my regards to Yaar. $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Commented Oct 20, 2013 at 17:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ One of the reasons that the order of votes matters is that he "day" refers to a 24 hour period, so it is a rolling total as opposed to a function which resets itself at midnight GMT or something. $\endgroup$
    – user1729
    Commented Oct 20, 2013 at 17:43
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @user1729: What is a rolling total? $\endgroup$
    – Michael Albanese
    Commented Oct 20, 2013 at 17:45
  • $\begingroup$ @MichaelAlbanese Sorry, the reputation contributing to your daily cap. If you earn 100rep at 0900 20/10/2013 and 100rep at 2100 20/10/2013 then at 0901 21/10/2013 you will be able to earn 100rep. $\endgroup$
    – user1729
    Commented Oct 20, 2013 at 17:51
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Would it be overkill to permit the evisceration of non-commenting down-voters? $\endgroup$
    – copper.hat
    Commented Oct 24, 2013 at 7:14

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
14
$\begingroup$

If you mean "should" in the sense of "the system is designed to operate that way", then yes, the order of votes matters. This is similar to how downvotes and upvotes don't commute for new users, since a user's reputation is required to be $\geq 1$.

If you mean "should" in the sense of "we want the system to operate that way", then I think even the SE team's answer is no, but as was explained in this meta.SO answer, it would apparently be very difficult to implement, and it would have a relatively minor effect, so this will not be changed.

$\endgroup$
6
$\begingroup$

Yes. the order of the votes matter. You have eight more hours to get more votes and cover these downvotes.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

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