I found -135 rep from "Serial upvoting reversed" in my rep status. Of course, my rep is the same as it was 2 days ago so no harm, but I was upvoted, then reversed 135 points. Why? (obviously I know why it was reversed).

Was this done by a bot or some jerk who had nothing better to do?

| |
  • now sure what you're asking. – Tablemaker May 8 '13 at 3:15
  • Updated question to make more sense. Obviously this isn't a site wide thing then. – DustinDavis May 8 '13 at 3:36
  • Wow, interresting rep-statistics. Indeed one cannot read all those posts in just 1-2 minutes and it seems to have been all of your answers and questions. So there was really something strange going on. – Napoleon Wilson May 8 '13 at 8:10
  • I had it happen once - I think it was only about 60 points. – MJ6 May 31 '13 at 2:51

It looks like a single user went through and upvoted a lot of your stuff. The system detected this as serial upvoting and rolled back the upvotes. It basically considered those upvotes as spam.

This happened to me one time. I was looking an Ankit's stuff and was upvoting stuff. I guess i was too fast for the system because it rolled all of those back.

| |
  • 1
    But I would still doubt the validity of said user's actions, because he upvoted all of Dustin's 20 posts in 1 minute. But well, who knows if it wasn't a really fast reader in the end. – Napoleon Wilson May 8 '13 at 14:30
  • imagine this: you read through someone's list of questions, and you scroll click those into individual tabs to upvote en masse. once done, you go and upvote all of the ones you found interesting. – DForck42 May 8 '13 at 15:41
  • Strange, but indeed possible. Well, it all amounts to how far one wants to balance between false-positives and insufficient detection, hard question though. – Napoleon Wilson May 8 '13 at 15:45
  • @ChristianRau i think you're taking me as defending the person. I am just trying to illustrate what probably happened and why it was rolled back. I agree that it should be rolled back. – DForck42 May 8 '13 at 16:03
  • I wasn't really taking anyone as anything but rather providing general views on the topic, like your answer does. – Napoleon Wilson May 8 '13 at 16:53

The apparent speed of those votes make them look less than well considered. But in many cases, its not necessarily apt to assume bad intentions. A user simply may have found someone's post useful and was traversing their profile history looking for more of the same.

Still, this type of "vote for the user" behavior is not advisable. It's not considered proper use of the system.

Voting should be cast to reflect the quality, accuracy, and relevance of the posts being voted on. While we encourage everyone to up-vote great posts, the motivation for doing so needs to be anchored in the merits of the post, not the person who wrote it.

That's why we ask users to refrain from targeting specific users' posts when voting. Stack Exchange strives to ensure that everyone who has a question sees the best information first; intentionally voting for content simply for the benefit of your family, friends or co-workers unfairly skews that system. Suspicious voting patterns are detected by the system and removed. If you believe a colleague might wish to vote for your content specifically, please ask them to refrain from voting for your contributions simply because you wrote them. Additionally, please don't engage in this behavior yourself.

| |

You must log in to answer this question.

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