Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

19
  • 62
    I really like this idea - partly because I only upvote when the answer seems lower than it should be. With votes not visible for the question's first appearance on hte homepage (until it falls off, maybe?) you'll get a much more interesting, and possibly truthier, voting.
    – Pollyanna
    Commented Sep 12, 2008 at 2:20
  • sounds really complicated -- will people understand what's happening? Commented Sep 12, 2008 at 8:40
  • 3
    Jeff, I think if you add some visual clues or simply descriptive text on question page, people will understand. IMO it's not that complicated.
    – aku
    Commented Sep 12, 2008 at 8:50
  • Agreed. See my updates to the post addressing Jeff's objections.
    – Justin Standard
    Commented Sep 12, 2008 at 18:02
  • 5
    I like this idea - except. It doesn't yet address the problem where a good answer is added a long time after the question is no longer hot.
    – Richard Corden
    Commented Sep 19, 2008 at 13:28
  • 13
    Disallow marking an answer as "correct" during the grace period as well. This increases the chance that the "correct" answer isn't just "the best answer to arrive in the first 10 minutes." I envision a secret-voting period of, say, an hour, but the editing grace period is 10 minutes -- too short. Commented Dec 10, 2008 at 17:00
  • @Rob I like your idea. It encourages the questioner to return back to the site and accept an answer. But it also have a risk of questions with no accepted answers.
    – blntechie
    Commented May 28, 2010 at 6:49
  • 6
    @blntechie we already have lots of questions with no accepted answers
    – jcolebrand
    Commented Dec 22, 2010 at 14:27
  • 6
    I think this is a great idea. @Jeff any chance of this being considered?
    – David Tang
    Commented Feb 3, 2011 at 23:55
  • 2
    @box9 we already show answers randomly by vote, so the important part of this is implemented. The rest, well, it's been 2 years.. so.. :)
    – Jeff Atwood StaffMod
    Commented Feb 4, 2011 at 0:13
  • 45
    @Jeff, true, but I don't see the random sorting feature really getting to the meat of the problem. The secret voting idea (with the banner), however, will really encourage people to vote more and more objectively.
    – David Tang
    Commented Feb 4, 2011 at 0:18
  • 7
    Another +1 for hiding votes for a period. The clock should start when the first answer is posted, not when the question is posed. The problem with random display of equal weight votes is that the first and likely incomplete answer will get an up vote and then subsequent ones will all randomly sort after the first one. Then the first one, with it's one vote keeping it first, can be edited into a better answer. Commented Nov 14, 2012 at 4:58
  • 6
    Why hasn't this been implemented?
    – canadianer
    Commented Jan 1, 2015 at 19:55
  • 7
    This would make people look at votes without the huge bias of say +7 or -3 next to it. They would evaluate the answers themselves for quality. Perhaps in general there could be an option to hide votes by default and show them on a click.
    – intcreator
    Commented Aug 1, 2015 at 1:21
  • 4
    I like this idea, but I have a few suggestions to improve it. First of all, I think that users should always be able to see all votes on their own answers. Second of all, during the grace period, I suggest that answers can be sorted from newest to oldest, so that each answer gets a lot of attention right after it's posted, and therefore all answers get about as much attention. Commented Oct 2, 2017 at 14:48