5

The beta guidelines suggest that we should have a number of users with 2000-3000 rep. Should we vote more aggressively in order to meet the guidelines?

| |
9

I don't think we need to vote more "aggressively", (i.e. 'game the system'.) We simply need to be active. The quality of answers on here is stellar, so there's reason to up-vote a lot, but I'm finding I don't normally use all of my daily votes.

I think the overall trend is the key: number of users is increasing, daily accesses continues to increase, etc. Meanwhile, the quality of questions and answers is very high, the 'noise' ratio, (stuff we're closing or heavily editing,) is low.

| |
  • 1
    +1 I think this needs to happen "organiscally", as these are democracy lead sites, it should come as a result of out the natural output of the users. We don't want any user who is more beneficial to the site to not receive votes, and cast a load of votes to a less productive and committed and worthy user by mistake. – jwbensley May 19 '13 at 21:02
4

I think we should vote like we would do on a live site, i.e. on quality of the content.

However, it would be good, to be even more aware on the beta phase, that voting is important. So, vote often!

  • Our votes help to develop the style of the site, distinguishing good questions and answers from not so good ones.
  • Giving deserved votes helps users to access more site features. At this time the majority of users has just 1 point reputation. This means they cannot even vote or comment. Below 100, one has to wait 8 hours to be allowed to answer the own question - not a great motivation to share the own know-how.
  • Votes for good content encourages to post more, and motivates users. Especially now, at the beginning, we need this.
| |

You must log in to answer this question.

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