Would it be possible to prevent upvoting of questions when they reach an (equalized) rating of +10? Since you get only five votes on each proposal, why would you waste them on bringing a question to 11 when only 10 are needed?
|
migrated from meta.stackoverflow.com Jan 10 at 16:20
|
No, you want to give the community a chance to vote for all questions, both up and down. The score needs to reflect (budding) community opinion. By locking a question to a score of max 10, you remove that option. Downvoters would gain an unfair advantage, as their downvote would suddenly weigh more than the upvotes. The voting process defines the community, locking the score to 10 would also remove the ability to find consensus as to what makes a great question versus one that is merely a nice one. They'd all look the same, stuck at +10. |
|||
|
|
|
Martijn's post pretty much covers the pragmatic considerations, but you also have to consider the purpose of voting on questions. It's to show that is a sufficient breadth of high-quality questions to start a site. If (hypothetically) a proposal had only one decent question, you wouldn't want to simply shuffle people's votes the the next "least-objectionable" question in the line up. We need 10 high-quality questions; not just 400 votes on… whatever. Getting a proposal through Area 51 is tough going. It takes a lot of support, engagement, and quality contribution — That is by design. Shuffling the votes around to optimize the process into a production line somewhat defeats the purpose of Area 51. Every vote counts and no one should be told their vote is being wasted. In our evaluation, such efforts do not bode well for the proposal. |
|||||||
|