I'm a moderator from MathOverflow, and this "question" is actually unsolicited advice, based on our experience from the initial launch of MathOverflow.

We should encourage everyone to vote positively as often as possible!

Every Stack Exchange site will eventually end up with a different "base level" of voting --- that is, the expected number of upvotes for a question of a given level of excellence. (This effect occurs because people see a good question, but already with a certain number of votes, and think "oh, I would have upvoted this, but it already has enough".)

It's easy for us to affect this "base level" by encouraging high levels of upvoting now. We're setting the standards, and this really will have an effect.

(On MathOverflow, we were very active about this early on, specifically encouraging all the initial round of users to vote early and often. You can compare statistics, and see that the average vote total for a MathOverflow question is much higher than on any of the other SE 1.0 sites.)

In case it's not obvious: the rationale for wanting this base level to be high is that it provides better positive feedback to good contributors.

share
18  
A good rule of thumb: if you can be bother answering the question, it's good enough to upvote! Also, be kind, and upvote any good competing answers that exist when you give your answer. –  Scott Morrison Jul 26 '10 at 20:09
4  
that's good advice. on MO I automatically upvote any question that I even think about writing an answer for –  Suresh Jul 26 '10 at 23:33
    
And if being kind isn't sufficient, based on my observations the "base level" effect also applies locally to some extent, so upvoting answers that are good--but not quite as good as your own--offers a small bonus for your own expected u̶t̶i̶l̶i̶t̶y̶ reputation. –  camccann Jul 27 '10 at 0:52
    
Thanks for all the upvotes, hehe :-) More advice --- aspire to hit the voting cap as often as possible, especially in the first few weeks. If you haven't hit it today, go find some good stuff! –  Scott Morrison Jul 27 '10 at 18:17
    
I'm sorely tempted to keep tweaking this question so that it stays "sticky" at the top of meta! I keep forgetting to vote so it's good to have this reminder. –  Andrew Stacey Aug 13 '10 at 12:18
4  
Just a thought coming from the discussion on older hands holding back a bit, in the first week or so of this site I found it fun to try to hit the rep cap a few times (having almost never done it on MO!). Now, I think my goal should be to hit the vote cap a few times too. –  Andrew Stacey Aug 19 '10 at 14:48
    
Same here: I have managed this today and need to wait till tomorrow to have a second go :-) –  Joseph Wright Aug 19 '10 at 19:00
    
One thing I notice is that you are allowed 30 votes per day. That seems a lot, but each time you get a good question with a couple of equally-valid answers then that's three votes. I'm going to be hitting the limit a lot! –  Joseph Wright Aug 21 '10 at 8:42
1  
I just got the "pundit" badge. When I went to see exactly what it meant, I wondered why I hadn't gotten it on MO. Then I discovered that despite having been on MO nearly since its inception, I've voted less than 200 times! I'm feeling a little guilty that in a little over a month I've voted more here than in the entire history of MO. –  Andrew Stacey Aug 25 '10 at 19:12
add comment

4 Answers

As your question isn't really a question, I'll make my answer be a question. What is the advantage of the "vote early, vote often" advice? All it seems to do is raise the base level for questions and answers. I'm not sure that I agree that it provides "better positive feedback to good contributors" since everyone ends up with higher levels regardless of how good the contribution was.

Up votes only seem to increase the up-voted user's reputation, but it's not even clear to me why that's so important. Once I reached the reputation to leave comments, I was satisfied. I guess it's sort of neat to see the number of up and down votes, but I'm not sure why that should be tied to any reputation level. It seems rude to edit another user's posts or retag their questions (they might have had a good reason for the tags they chose!) so that doesn't seem particularly useful. I guess my "reputation is dumb" rant should be saved for another time.

That said, I up vote questions and answers I think are deserving–and do so pretty frequently—but I don't see any reason to just up vote every question/answer I read.

Edit:
This doesn't really reflect my opinion any more. I've edited posts, maybe even retagged questions, and voted often enough to get the Electorate badge. I do note that there are some users with high rep who have never or almost never voted. I wonder if they see little value in it (as I did when I wrote this post originally) or if they really think no questions/answers are good or bad. Probably the former.

share
6  
Scotts comments made the intention clearer: he encourages to upvote good questions and also good competing answers. He didn't say upvote all. The final 'go find some good stuff' might convince new users to look also at earlier posts and upvote or downvote if they like or dislike it. –  Stefan Kottwitz Aug 25 '10 at 13:03
2  
Also upvoting helps new users feel welcome, especially if they quickly reach the critical 50 rep. –  Caramdir Aug 25 '10 at 13:14
2  
Part of the point of the SO model is that more 'reputable' people can do some editing of answers, the idea being that the overall standard of answers will hopefully be raised (or at least that's my take). So for example retagging a question is something that is supposed to ensure that the tags have some meaning: the more experienced people on the site can spot 'oh, we always use tag X for this'. In the same way, editing other peoples answers is (I hope) intended mainly to maintain the standard, such as formatting code, correcting typos, etc., not to alter the substance of the answer. –  Joseph Wright Aug 25 '10 at 16:08
add comment

Our top voter, and only Civic Duty badge winner, is vanden.

share
add comment

I believe my question here:

An answer not answering the question getting a lot of votes

illustrates why both principles "vote early" and "vote often" are problematic:

  • Voting early may mean voting for the worst answer of several.
  • Voting early may mean you fail to vote later.
  • Voting early and/or often means voting without ensuring the answer is relevant/generally satisfactory.
  • Voting too early and/or often can piss off people who believe the vote was not meritted.
  • (This is not about the question I linked to) careless voting encourages "reputation-whoring": Writing irrelevant/nebulous/content-free answers just so that you've answered and can get votes.
share
5  
I trust our fellow uses to upvote good content. More votes give more variance (4/3/2 is clearer than 1/1/0), carefully rewarded contributions give the authors more access to site features or to spend bounties. If I see a question or answer of you, do you expect me to postpone voting, to rarely vote? I still think, vote if you see something good, because later you perhaps don't visit again. And if you do and see more good contributions, vote again. I read a lot and casted 4,104 votes, there are users who voted even more. Seeing top voters, I see high rep people who know for sure what's good. –  Stefan Kottwitz Nov 26 '11 at 20:21
add comment

The second Civic Duty badge has been awarded to Jukka Suomela.

share
add comment

You must log in to answer this question.

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