What is meta? ×

Possible Duplicate:
New reputation is too verbose: upvote/unupvote, upvote again


Feature request:

Please merge all the update of one user to one line.

Look at this user: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/132601/wfaulk?tab=reputation

He had one post today which I up and down downvoted (i did it multiple times to be sure):


Why do we need to show all of that?

If I upvote and then downvote all in a row like that, what is the reason to show that off? (especially if it all came from the same user!)

Screenshot of Question:


Question link: Ignore responses to ignored users in chat

share|improve this question

marked as duplicate by Nick Craver Mar 9 '12 at 11:54


....why would you do that? –  Nick Craver Feb 27 '12 at 22:27
@GeoffDalgas :-P haha. awesome ^_^ –  amanaP lanaC A nalP A naM A Feb 27 '12 at 22:33
I can actually think of a very specific reason to keep and expose this information, although how useful it is in practice I cannot say... Anyone remember "tactical down-voting"? –  Shogging through the snow Feb 28 '12 at 0:56
At least that display will tell the user why their reputation fluctuated so much over seven minutes... –  sarnold Feb 28 '12 at 3:20

3 Answers 3

I'm with Nick. The answer here is for people to think before they click. There's little point trying to apply a code solution to this behavior problem.

(And yes, I realize that in your specific case, it was done as an example.)

share|improve this answer

If you voted 18 times on a single question or answer, why shouldn't the record reflect that? If you find that the number of votes represented on your reputation is excessive you should try to be more judicious in your voting. It's reasonable to change a vote after someone makes an edit, but it'd be strange to do that more than once or twice in a short time period.

share|improve this answer

I think a small logic tweak for this would be a better solution. When you submit an upvote to a user's post, it should always leave that mark in their history. If you then retract that upvote, it should also mark the "unupvote" event. However, if you then re-upvote the post, I think it should remove the "unupvote" event. Go two levels deep. This way, it's like the unupvote never happened. I think this would be a good solution to keeping the reputation history clean, while still preventing users becoming confused about their reputation.

share|improve this answer
Trust me when I say this would by no means a "small logic tweak" :) –  Nick Craver Feb 27 '12 at 23:05

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