(EDIT: I now see after having posted that it . But I think it is worth considering again.)  It is different from a previous .  And I am not requesting to   because I believe you should read the whole question before deciding to vote.  The idea is to have a visual sign that you have upvoted/(downvoted) a given question in question lists and in particular in favorite lists.  One has already a visual clue that a question has been accepted and that one has favorited a question. I think that it would be useful, especially in the favorite list (where by definition you have only questions that you have favorited), to have a visual clue that you have voted this question up as well.  Your use of the site may vary, but I often favorite a question when I intend to go back to it later, as a kind of reminder. I do not always upvote the question or its answer since I may need time to read and assess it carefully.  It would among other things allow to go on recently changed questions for which you have still the possibility to upvote.  Another use on classical question lists is to allow to go quickly to potential interesting questions that you can upvote if it is deserved.  Going through old questions (especially with ambiguous titles), this is also quite handy to check if one has already been there or not.
36286
There's been several times where I have been surfing the site, and noticed a question that I am not sure I've checked. Even if I've checked the question before, I can't recall off-hand whether or not I've voted on it or its answer.  Is there a way we can have our personal voting history reflected to some degree or another, in the Questions listing? For example, could there be an indicator as to whether or not we have already voted (up or down) on a question, and perhaps maybe an additional indicator as to whether we've up-voted any of its answers?  It would be very convenient to have some of this data available up-front, without actually having to view the question again.
99458
I voted to close a question I thought was too localized, and four days later I see that my close vote has apparently been aged away.  The question only has &lt;100 views right now, so based on , I'm assuming the question was reviewed and people opted to leave it open which then kicked off the close vote aging process.  Is there way for me to see which moronsfellow users thought that the question deserved to stay open without tediously clicking through the close vote queue history?    @Dukeling brings up the important question of motivation for this feature that I didn't address.   First and foremost, I just want to be able to check that the vote-aging system is working correctly (and/or that I understand correctly how it's working). I was surprised that my vote had aged out on a little-viewed question, I want to confirm that this is due to it having been reviewed. Secondly I want to make sure the reviewers are working correctly.  The review queues have had occasional issues with reviewer accuracy. If the particular reviewers seem like reliable folks with a history of correct reviews, I'll assume that I was mistaken about the question and revise my thinking about which questions to close.  If they're all robo-reviewers, I'll flag the question or bring it up on meta to see that it's handled correctly. Finally, philosophically I think that this information should be readily available. I could find the reviews by going through the entire review history, so it's not private information. Making public information less accessible can have its uses, but the outcome that's likely to ruffle feathers is already public; if reviewers opt to close a question, their names are prominently attached to it.  This feature would be more important when the review decision is "Leave Open" as in this case (apparently).  This might lead to more whining, but it seems like only a slight risk.
113767
Propose two types of upvote:     Normal upvote.  Current upvote.  Has the meaning "This answer is helpful"    I like that.  This kind of upvote means the answer is pleasing somehow, but not necessarily technically rewarding.  "I like that" votes add to a user's charisma score, not their reputation.  Community wiki answers can earn charisma points, so it makes posting answers to Community wikis "more worthwhile".  It will be harder to claim that the system unfairly rewards "celebrities", if the charisma vote is used correctly.   I know this suggestion is likely to be thought 'bulky', but it will give the site an additional dimension.  Someone that gives "good" answers will be distinct from someone that gives clever or snarky answers that the rest of the community simply enjoys reading.  This suggestion is similar to
22187
I read in the FAQs that voting is done to express agreement or disagreement over here:     On Meta Stack Overflow, voting is often used to express agreement or disagreement, not to point out a lack of quality or helpfulness. Please don't be concerned if you receive downvotes – members of the community may simply disagree with your bug, feature request, support issue, or the nature of the discussion.   Then why is there a rep threshold for down vote? The first thing that comes to mind is that if we allow down voting from the start, we may get trollers who would keep down voting stuff. However, there are other ways to deal with it. For example, we could check the activity of the user in the discussion (measure by number of questions/answers/comments and also number of times upvoted (this is different from rep)) before enabling this privilege.  EDIT  Use Case(unfortunately my own):  When I first saw meta, I knew nothing of it and nothing about Area51 and got a lot of down votes for that question. I lost a lot of reputation for a starter that day and was paying for that first timers mistake for some time before I got that reputation back.  EDIT  Please condider the discussion of thread as a feature request. I think there are mainly two suggestions from the various comments:   Remove down-voting all together  OR Change the down-vote reputation threshold to 15(same as up votes)
62041
A good question will receive many answers, and much more views than normal.    This level of activity is not reflected in the upvoting of said question. I recently encountered several such questions, which until I pointed this in the comments () stayed in the lower 0-2 upvotes.    My two suggestions:   Automatically upvote any question you answer, with the ability to cancel this up-vote. This makes sense to me, as I answer only questions I like/are good (and I suppose others too). Display popup message similar to:       Have you considered upvoting this question?    Addressing comments given so far: Answers do not mean a question is good, but it does imply you have an opinion on it. So why not prompt any one who answers to express their opinion by voting? (Similar to what happens when you upvote an answer to your own question).
27608
Right now there isn't a great way to monitor the questions that I am interested in following. What I seem to do now is go to my recent history for questions I have commented on, and then link to the questions from there. The problem is, if I am really interested in a question, I have to monitor it closely. Sometimes I will "favorite" a question so it is easier to access more quickly, because I do not have a lot of favorites. But favoriting is not the right thing to do. I think you should only favorite a question if you really really like it, not to make it easier to follow.  I propose that you can mark questions as "interested" or something like that. What this means, is that you will get notifications for everything associated with a question: any time a new answer is posted, the answer/question is edited, and any comments to any of the answers (or question). This would make it much easier to follow questions. Especially if someone adds a new answer or comment way down the road, after you have long forgotten about the question.  It would also be nice if such a feature allowed you to write a sentence or two to associate with the question to remind you about something. In fact, if this is done, we could just use this feature to implement  to allow an edit to notify downvoters. Instead of that specific feature, you can mark a question as interested after downvoting and add a comment, "remove downvote when fixed".  What do you all think? Do you propose a better way to manage monitoring questions of interest? (The other thing I do is keep a bunch of browser tabs open with questions I am following... and this is messy :-( ).
71983
A significant number of downvotes are given to questions whose askers didn't first check Google. This seems to be closely related to downvotes from asking a question with duplicates in the "Related Questions" field. How about also showing Google's "I'm feeling lucky," or some other results, in the Related Questions to help out with that?   EDIT: to clarify, I'm not talking about questions with answers on Stack Overflow, but rather questions with easy solutions available via Google. Here's a question just like that:
92948
I have experienced this on a couple of sites (and I'm ) :    You look through the question list. You see a pretty bad (or at least not-so-good) question heavily upvoted. Or even worse, a very poor answer to a good question - upvoted to stratosphere.  Or even worse, a very poor/incorrect answer upvoted high up - and a later, correct answer, languishing with a couple of upvotes (since the flood of views is no longer there). Upon checking, you see tons of views, which came from SE Hot List inclusion.   So, people see an "interesting" "fun" question, head on over in mass numbers (especially if the destination is a smaller site), and due to association bonus, can - and do - upvote any random "fun" crap that's "hot" yet to an expert on the topic is at best not worth being upvoted (and at worst should be downvoted).  As per @Thursday's comment, this is made even worse because of the asymmetry of hot list effect: those coming from Hot Questions may recognize the question is crap, and perhaps 50% of them would downvote it under normal circumstances. But having only 101 rep, they can't. The 5% who want to upvote (for reasons that are difficult to fathom) can and do. Result: vote count that does not represent the opinion of either the particular community, nor the network at large.   UPDATE: The above effect just got a spectacular . As of this moment, the bad answer has only 7 downvotes (and 20+ upvotes), despite the fact that my comment which indicates it's a bad answer in need of downvotes has 23 upvotes - 3x number of people agreed that the answer is bad, than actually downvoted   One solution presented to this dilemma - which seems a bit too heavy-handed - is to .  My suggestion is a much more surgical and localized:  Do not allow voting in the following case:   The question is currently in SE hot list The user's reputation on the site NOT counting association bonus is not enough to upvote.   Note that an association-only users can still upvote any other content on the site - or even questions that used to be on hot list but aren't anymore.    As an example, an answer posted by myself recently was upvoted to 100+. It wasn't a bad answer, but if I'm being honest with myself, it clearly wasn't great enough to deserve 100+ upvotes that it got thanks to hotlist
43868
I understand the purpose of up/downvoting answers -- some answers are better than others, some answers may be wrong, .etc.  With regard to questions, though, there are other mechanisms to deal with "bad" questions:  comments, close, flag.  A poorly written question should be improved.  A bad question should be closed/deleted.  Often, though I see poorly written questions downvoted. I'm not sure what this accomplishes.  I get loss of rep for offensive or spam questions, but for an off-topic question?  or one that is just poorly written?   Why?  It seems to me that rep ought to be based more on answers on a site of this type.   Fundamentally, it seems that rep ought to be based on what you add to the site, not what you ask of it.  A particularly good question does add to the site, but a poor question doesn't really detract from it in the same way that a bad (wrong) answer does. Sure, go ahead and give people more rep for asking a particularly good question, but why punish people for asking bad questions when there are other ways of handling that.  Why not handle questions more like comments and allow upvotes, but not downvotes?  It seems to me that many, if not most, of the downvoted questions are first timers.  It's more likely that your first introduction to the site will be in asking a question, rather than answering. There is a significant risk to alienating new users when their questions are downvoted -- there's a visceral response to seeing that negative number next to your question.  Why not let the close/flag system weed out questions that don't belong and the comment system work to improve poorly worded questions.
94673
A downvote on a question generally means that the quality is low and should/can be improved.  However questions tagged  have a different meaning as per the      On posts tagged feature-request, voting indicates agreement or disagreement with the proposed change   That being said, when a question is downvoted the following tooltip is displayed (I guess only for low-rep users like myself)    I think the tooltip should be changed to something different that states clearly the difference between a feature request downvote and a "normal" one.  Also I believe the tooltips displayed when hovering the up/down arrows should be changed accordingly to something like I don't agree with this proposal / I support this proposal      There's was a similar proposal a couple of years ago () but it was about changing the tooltips on every question on meta and it has been rejected.  I instead propose to change the behavior only in questions tagged as , as this difference is clearly formalized in the site description.  The motivation behind this proposal is that being an experienced StackOverflow user but sort of a new user on Meta, not later than today I was very confused by the meaning of a downvote, until someone pointed me to the help center.
21706
The  doesn't seem to be enabled for my own questions and answers.  While this makes sense given the motivation of the feature being to encourage voting and the fact that I can't vote for my own posts, I find the inconsistency a bit disconcerting when scrolling through a page that happens to contain one of my answers, especially when I'm not specifically looking for/expecting one of my answers.  Personally, I would rather accidentally try to vote for a post that I forgot was my own, every once in a while, than have the voting buttons behave in a way that's logically consistent but visually inconsistent.  At least if I try to vote for my own post, there's immediate feedback that explains why my expectation (that I'll be able to vote) is wrong. (I'll wager One (1) Good Beer that the lack of similar feedback regarding the expectation that "vote buttons scroll" explains ).
25750
Prologue:  This is an effort to follow up on  which is marked as a duplicate of  highly voted and status-declined feature request (although they seem to be different, one focusing on the OP and the other on the downvoter).   My New Year's resolution was to downvote more.  So on January 3rd or so, I saw a post that was low quality, and downvoted.  Two days later, I came back to see if it was ready to be deleted or had gotten piled with downvotes, to find it with a significant positive score!  At which point, I noticed that the answer had been significantly improved.  So I retracted my downvote, changed it to an upvote, and immediately resumed my dearth of downvoting again.  I think I have a responsibility to downvote bad posts, despite that oh-so-painful -1 rep penalty.  But if I am also going to have the responsibility to follow up on every downvote I cast, I'm not going to bother. I don't want my downvote to leave a residual penalty on posts that were once low quality, and I am not going to trouble myself to keep checking up on every post I downvoted.  Can a downvoter have an option to be notified when a post they voted down was edited?  I wouldn't make this an automatic thing, because not all downvoters want it, and it isn't applicable to all cases of downvoting (although  that this should be part of the responsibility of a downvoter).  Personally, I would make this a universal toggle on-off option on the user profile page, not a question-by-question option, but I don't have strong feelings about it.
74521
Regarding subjective questions, if you post an answer and get a lot of downvotes, your reputation take a hit, right?  Well, what if you want to stand by your answer?  It's not offensive because it isn't flagged as such, but for whatever reason it just rubs some people the wrong way, and they downvote it.  If you've got the cojones to stand behind your answer regardless of how it effects your rep, how about a badge for that?  Maybe something like, being downvoted 5 times but leaving your answer up for a certain period of time after the 5th downvote.
110324
Timeline can be view by anyone, so vote details in timeline is a little bit contradict with      1000       Show total up and down vote   counts   in , but I hope this not to be changed :-)  For example  and timeline is , also a screen shot below.    PS:I mean there is a work-around in timeline view to see up/down details without having 1000 reps. :-)
102586
It is often said that voting on Meta means something different than voting on regular sites. Upvotes mean "I agree", and downvotes mean "I disagree".  However, I submit that this is not the case. Downvoting of a question has one effect in particular: censorship.  Once a question reaches -8 votes, it disappears from the front page. It can still be found; it isn't deleted. But all it takes is a net 8 downvotes for a question to be more or less lost without a direct link.  You might say that a net 8 downvotes obviously means that the community doesn't agree or want that. Well... does it? Particularly on polarizing issues, a question can temporarily get -8 votes as different people come online and see it. Maybe certain people with a certain belief all see it at once and downvote it a lot.  The front page is how most people find stuff they want to talk about, vote on, or answer. Removal from the front page means that most people will not find it without being pointed directly to it. Once a question hits -8, it is unlikely to be upvoted again. Edits will be irrelevant, new answers won't matter. The question is basically exiled.  The problem is that, on polarized topics, fast mass downvoting can quash any idea that is not popular with the most active members. After all, the most active members are the ones who are most likely to be online and see it. If a bunch of MSO regulars see it and downvote it, it goes away. Someone who checks MSO maybe once a day is less likely to be able to catch the question before it is exiled. This gives undue power to members who are most active on MSO, simply because they have more free time to spend on MSO.  I think this is a significant problem for polarized topics. It becomes very difficult to adequately discuss something that a significant number of active members dislike, even if the community at large doesn't mind.  Consider . It currently stands at +9/-8. Initially, in the first few hours, the question was heavily downvoted and even closed. However, after a day, it was upvoted and reopened.  This shows that a question can initially have a negative response, but later get a positive one. And you can check; any edits I did to the question were relatively minor. The question posted as is was initially negative, but ultimately positive.   If that -8 happened to all come first, odds are good that the +9 and the reopen would never have happened. Those 9 people would never have had the chance to weigh in on the subject. And that's wrong.  It is wrong for someone's potential vote to not matter just because they don't visit MSO multiple times in a day. It is wrong for someone's potential vote to not matter just because they have a different sleep schedule from many of MSO's members.  The problem is one of timing. Heavy dislike from active members who quickly see the question and downvote it can kill a question before someone who might upvote it ever even sees it.  I suppose the best suggestion would be to either lower the -8 threshold (or remove it altogether) or keep it from kicking in until 1-2 days has passed. If the question isn't active, it'll already be off the front page. And if it is active, then enough people will have seen it to know if the threshold represents a real consensus or just the fast-acting few.
23134
After reviewing ...  I'd like to make an argument for answers that have attained more votes than an accepted answer always be ranked above when answers are being sorted by votes (the default)...     Someone visiting this (older) question expecting a relevant answer would be assuming the big green check mark means that it is the correct answer today when in fact it's the correct answer when the question was originally asked.  Allowing votes to override the asker's time bound response, it allows the best answers to remain at the top and evolve with our ever changing field without requiring the asker to maintain their questions.  This would be a step in the direction of the site's ethos in my opinion, trusting the community to determine the best answer to place at the top for prospective visitors.
78072
I wrote a question today that, thus far, has received five answers (plus one from me) and zero upvotes. That's fine, it happens. But, this irks me a little, someone actually bookmarked it and (unless someone downvoted me) didn't upvote the question. I realize the criteria for upvoting is &quot;clear and useful&quot; not &quot;interesting enough to bookmark&quot;, but I don't think I've ever bookmarked a question without upvoting it. You obviously like the question enough that you'd like to be able to return to it later, so I think in most cases, an upvote is in order. I wonder if SO could provide one of those little pop-up reminders suggesting you upvote a question if you bookmark it.  Edit: I am thinking something along the lines of:  If you think this question is clear and useful, please consider upvoting it.  So, just a little encouragement to act nicely if it's deserved.