As a group, we should focus on voting (both on questions and answers) as often as we can, for two reasons:

  1. It raises the overall average score, unlike on SO where it is very difficult for a Mathematica question or answer to rise above 20. This was becoming less difficult as new users found the site. Also, there is a perception of "this post (q or a) has enough votes, so I'm not going to vote for it," and I'd like to try to avoid that mentality.

  2. While in private beta, all privileges have a lower threshold than public beta, or launched. So, we need to boost people into the ranges wherein they can access the moderation tools. We will have pro-tem moderators appointed at some point after entering public beta, but they're are only 2 or 3 of them, and the rest of the community should be able to take some of the workload.

If a post is good, please vote for it. But, as always, vote your conscience.

  • I agree with this. Even though this site is only a day old I still think we need people who can moderate and perform other higher rep functions. If anything, I think we should have them already simply because the site is starting up. – Mike Bailey Jan 18 '12 at 1:53
  • Indeed, if you like a question or answer, please vote! Never ever think that "this post already has enough votes, so I won't vote for it anymore". See this as well. – J. M.'s torpor Jan 18 '12 at 1:55
  • @MikeBantegui There are SE mods floating around here, but they're not here as often as we'd like. Additionally, edit to your hearts content: they're worth 2 rep for each accepted edit until you reach 2k. – rcollyer Jan 18 '12 at 1:59
  • @rcollyer: Who can actually accept the votes though? – Mike Bailey Jan 18 '12 at 2:00
  • This may not be as much of an issue with this crowd as I thought. We've already had the mortarboard badge awarded. – rcollyer Jan 18 '12 at 2:00
  • @MikeBantegui, I believe the original author of the post can, and certainly the mods, also. But, I don't know how well the author is notified. – rcollyer Jan 18 '12 at 2:01
  • 3
    I would like to also add that people should remember to vote for questions as well. More often than not people will vote for answers than they will vote for questions. – Mike Bailey Jan 18 '12 at 4:38
  • 1
    One of the gold badges requires that at least one third of your votes was spent on questions... – Sjoerd C. de Vries Jan 18 '12 at 12:08
  • I'd like to add, I'd like to be a part of one of the few sites that makes it out of beta near 90 days. Most are taking well over a year, now. But, it would be nice if we could get there quicker. – rcollyer Jan 20 '12 at 20:06
  • However I often face a problem, due to the fact that I can give at most one vote to an answer: Quite often I see more than one good answer, but with some clearly better than the others. Then I've got a problem: If I give only the best answers an upvote, I don't give the other answers the appreciation they deserve. However if I give all the good answers an upvote, I don't give the best answers the extra appreciation they deserve (and deny them to float on top based on the votes, which is the idea of the voting system, after all). So what would you recommend in that situation? – celtschk May 31 '12 at 16:07
  • @celtschk If they're good answers, based on whatever criteria you use to define "good," then upvote them all. If you don't feel they meet those conditions, don't. The better answers will then tend to float to the top. – rcollyer May 31 '12 at 16:28
  • 1
    The point is, the better answers only float to the top if they get more votes than the good answers. If everybody votes up every good answer, then all good answers will have the same score, and the better ones will not stick out. – celtschk May 31 '12 at 16:33
  • @celtschk that's not precisely true as everyone has differing notions of what makes an answer good. – rcollyer May 31 '12 at 16:41
  • 3
    @celtschk the rule I use is "vote your conscience." – rcollyer May 31 '12 at 16:46

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .