Timeline for On the paucity of voting
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 30, 2014 at 15:11 | comment | added | TheCleaner | Gotcha, and I don't think it is "stingy with their votes" but laziness. I doubt they are holding onto their votes like Scrooge McDuck. If they are in chat, call them out on it! We could use the drama! | |
| Jun 30, 2014 at 15:08 | comment | added | user9517 | It is several people probably quite a lot. I don't know if you do it, we don't inhabit the same tags. | |
| Jun 30, 2014 at 14:48 | comment | added | TheCleaner | @Iain - in that regards, I see no reason not to vote. Hopefully it wasn't me, but going forward I will definitely be diligent in that regard. If you have taken the time to edit or comment then yeah, you should be voting on that question/answer IMO. | |
| Jun 30, 2014 at 14:09 | comment | added | user9517 | I can be reasonably confident that the people who provide the activity didn't provide the original upvote because they will most likely have been asleep. | |
| Jun 30, 2014 at 14:06 | comment | added | user9517 | What prompted this question is something I have noticed recently, and I think you have to get to fairly low levels of voting to notice it is this. An answer will be provided early on in the BST/CET day and it may attract an upvote. later in the day there will be more activity and the people who provided that activity (an edit, a comment etc) will have known that the answer was correct but they didn't upvote it. I'm trying to find out why a correct answer with (perhaps) a single upvote wasn't worth a second or a third. What is it about SF that makes people, so stingy with their votes? | |
| Jun 30, 2014 at 14:02 | history | edited | TheCleaner | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 17 characters in body
|
| Jun 30, 2014 at 13:22 | history | answered | TheCleaner | CC BY-SA 3.0 |