-9

OK, people answer questions because,

  • They want rep
  • They want recognition
  • They want something else

So when a question is asked, if that question becomes a Hot Network Question their answer will obviously pull more votes and a highly up-voted question will become one of those with the caveat (That the answer are also highly up voted).

So why do so many people who answer questions not up the questions that they answer to?

  • 2
    Btw, I have not voted on your question – Simpleton Nov 13 '18 at 13:36
  • @Simpleton, what question? – KyloRen Nov 13 '18 at 14:11
  • 2
    @Gnemlock, on contrary, if it is good enough to warrant an answer it should be good enough to post an up-vote for someone asking it. Lets all remember, no questions, no answers. Question that have very poor content are usually deleted, so those remaining are 99% good enough to get an answer. – KyloRen Nov 14 '18 at 5:18
  • @Gnemlock, Really? I thought my comment was understandable, but here is a link of what I was talking about. meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1867/… – KyloRen Nov 14 '18 at 7:00
  • @Gnemlock, Hmm, I keep getting into trouble on the site for this exact topic (Well between you ,me and Rand al'Thor♦ , my constant bans were probably due to the way I handled the discussions, which I am really trying my best to not repeat) but, back on topic. I don't see how discouraging people to ask questions by down-voting them is conducive to help grow the site. I will say it again, no questions and no answers and no rep for those concerned. – KyloRen Nov 14 '18 at 7:09
  • @Gnemlock, So why is a low quality question deserving a down-vote? If it generates good answers, then it is has done its job. Don't like the question, don't up-vote it, is that not enough? If no one up-votes a low quality question then a score of zero is enough to show it is not good. I keep saying this, but without questions, there are no answers and I keep waiting for a comment of that as well. I am fairly sure I have covered all your points and replied to them. – KyloRen Nov 14 '18 at 9:55
  • 1
    I think you should probably ask about that on the stackexchange meta. Your asking about a system that is a fundamental part of all stack exchanges..Deleting prior comments, due to redundancy. – Gnemlock Nov 14 '18 at 14:08
  • @Gnemlock, Can't, I don't have enough rep. And when I asked why there is rep on Meta I was severely down-voted. This system is broken and and it stops people from questioning it. – KyloRen Nov 14 '18 at 14:19
  • 4
    @KyloRen - Downvotes discourage people from asking bad questions. – Valorum Nov 15 '18 at 9:51
22

For me at least, upvoting a question means I find the question useful, well-written, and at least moderately well researched. Answering a question means I looked at it and went "I can contribute here". This dichotomy means that I'll often answer questions but when it comes to voting on them they get no love; being clear enough to be answerable doesn't necessarily make a question good enough to get my vote.

  • 7
    This is often my thinking, especially if the OP has included a bunch of irrelevant chatter, incorrect facts or resisted quality edits from other users. – Valorum Nov 13 '18 at 14:26
12

We (as regular users) have no way of knowing if this is the case.

Simply put, the person who answered the question may have up-voted it. Other users who have not answered the question may have down-voted it.

A User's voting preference is not public information and is used at their discretion. This a basic premise of how the Stack Exchange Network operates. If you feel like you are being targeted by a specific user, there are mechanisms to detect voting fraud and reverse it.

  • Agent Peña, I thank you for your time and persistence with the Cali cartel, and for answering this question. UV from me. – KyloRen Nov 13 '18 at 14:16
  • 6
    Technically, we might know this is the case, if a question has answers and no upvotes. – Rand al'Thor Nov 13 '18 at 18:39
11

There's no quid pro quo agreement in voting, I guess. The tooltip advises you to upvote a question if you find it useful.


Initially when I signed up for the site, this issue annoyed me. The question which I posted would receive an answer first, and then start receiving votes. I used to think, that if a question is "useful" enough for someone to take time and answer, then it is also "useful" enough to receive an upvote from the same person.

But later, I just decided that we can't control the votes on our posts.

There's also a post in main meta that asks why people upvote answers more often than questions, which could be useful to you.

9

Just for the record, there is a golden badge to be earned having a highly-upvoted (+20) answer on a -5 question.

In my mind, this is encouragement to still try and give helpful, meaningful answers to questions that are sub-par. These scenarios then act like advertisements:

Don't ask questions like this
But do answer questions like that

Whether or not an answer is available or warranted doesn't change the quality of the question.

  • For a Programming site, that would be very true, but this is not a programming site, it is a "Fantasy" web site where I really think it is hard to ask a really bad question. – KyloRen Nov 25 '18 at 6:46
-4

I often will not upvote a question I'm answering simply because I feel it would be self-serving - that, as someone whose answer to the question might garner votes, raising the visibility of the question by upvoting potentially drives voters to my question. I would rather the votes on the question reflect parties with no potential ulterior motive.

I will grant you that that's defaulting to the most cynical interpretation and that I should probably reconsider - so I'm upvoting this question, as it made me think about the issue :).

  • 1
    That's really not a good reason to eschew from voting (on content you would otherwise upvote). You should definitely reconsider, especially since you seem to be aware that you aren't acting with an ulterior motive when you upvote a question because you think it's good. (Of course this assumes that you carry a certain degree of conciousness about your very own motives for doing something.) – TARS says Reinstate Monica Nov 24 '18 at 17:56
  • 1
    @TARS I'm not claiming it's a good reason - it's a reason I had without having put enough thought into it, until this question made me examine it. – gowenfawr Nov 24 '18 at 18:25

You must log in to answer this question.

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