Possible Duplicate:
Prevent upvoting questions at +10 on Area 51

I see a lot of people making comments about how voting for an example question that has already achieved 10 votes is a waste of their vote. This seems obvious, but people still do it en mass. Is there any practical purpose for even letting it happen? Why not cap the voting at 10 so we don't have to watch in agony as vote after precious vote is thrown away? Perhaps use a pop-up box over the button when someone tries explaining briefly why they can't/shouldn't do it, so that more and more people become educated in how this whole system works?

Edit: Or as an alternative (proposed by @SF.) just have the popup warning?

Edit (2/2/13): It has been pointed out that there is a similar question here and that this may be a duplicate of that one. However I would like to mention that this is not a complete duplicate because because I also suggested the pop-up feature. If that is a valid enough question on its own I can always propose it as a separate question and close this one. A good enough point has been made to not impose a physical cap, but I still see tons of people making posts about how everyone is throwing away their votes on a question that is already +10, so perhaps the community should be made more directly aware of the system to reduce or prevent the noise and drama created by people constantly posting that. It has also been stated that SE has survived without such a feature, but what kind of community would we be if we didn't actively seek out ways to improve things, even if those proposed improvements end up being deemed unnecessary?

  • I'm also very interested in the rationale for allowing it.
    – JoshP
    Feb 1 '13 at 21:18
  • 4
    You realize folks can down-vote these too, right?
    – Shog9
    Feb 1 '13 at 22:41
  • @Shog9 I don't see the point you are trying to make. Could you explain a little more? If the community deems this to be unfavorable by casting negative votes, so be it, because that is the purpose of the whole system. But I get the feeling I'm just missing something about your comment, so please help me out :)
    – thanby
    Feb 2 '13 at 19:45
  • @thanby: read the first answer on the linked dup: You're shooting yourself in the foot by capping at 10 since then anyone can remove it from the definition by down-voting it. Then read Robert's answer there, since trying to just shovel votes onto whatever's there is essentially pushing the proposal forward at the cost of a good definition... You don't want that. We tend to take definition examples with a big grain of salt, but still - if they're all bad, that doesn't bode well for the future of the proposal.
    – Shog9
    Feb 2 '13 at 19:49
  • 1
    Oh, I'm so sorry I can't downvote that point many times. It's so sad you're actually believing it what you write. To ignore great posts only to game the system :(
    – FolksLord
    May 28 '13 at 5:17
  • I find myself starting at the 0's working my way up then going to the -1's then going down, that gives the 0's a fair chance. Maybe suggest this instead.
    – tox123
    Dec 14 '14 at 20:23

There's always option of downvoting a question with 10 by a different user, and then the "over the cap" does matter. I'm against a hard cap, but an automatic warning that "this vote is better spent elsewhere" would be welcome.

  • I see why that could be an issue. Do you think the warning would be enough?
    – thanby
    Feb 1 '13 at 22:25
  • @thanby: a51 functioned without any cap nor any warning so far. It's not like not implementing the cap at all is going to change that.
    – SF.
    Feb 2 '13 at 2:40
  • 1
    What about : allow one to vote "freely" on any questions that reached 10 (ie, voting a question from 15 to 16 is "free"), so that very good questions can little by little have their "true" value (maybe 150, if it's exceptionnaly good), and the 5 points can still be spent on promoting "other questions", ie ones with a score lower than 10 ? Jun 18 '15 at 15:26

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