19

Stack Overflow locks your downvote after some time, and if you try to un-downvote it, then it says

You last voted on this answer MMM DD at HH:mm. Your vote is now locked in unless this answer is edited.

If the user who has downvoted my post says that they want to undo it but can't because their vote is locked, in such situations may I edit it just to allow the user to un-downvote the post?

If yes, then what should be the Edit Summary?

| |
  • When some user downvotes an answer that I posted, Then I try to find the root of my error and edit the answer to fix it. I also add a comment or text to the answer that indicates I changed the answer – user3629249 Nov 7 '15 at 7:50
  • 10
    That's why I always add one typo to a post, just so I have an excuse to edit it in this situation. – GolezTrol Nov 7 '15 at 11:40
  • 1
    @GolezTrol what if someone else edits it first :P – SMR Nov 9 '15 at 5:37
20

As long as you don't make a habit of this and spam edits, I think it's fine to edit your own posts with the intention of unlocking votes. Make any improvements you can to your post and use that as the edit summary. It's your post, so an edit summary is really just a note for yourself and not required. As for why I think this is acceptable:

  • You can almost always find some more stuff to polish on any given post, so your edit would likely be appropriate anyway. Depending on the edit, you might make you post even more worthy of upvotes from other users as well.

  • Improving the accuracy of voting will help the site overall. Voting is the most important piece of the SO engine. Following this advice, you should probably also do the same for anyone claiming they want to change their upvote on a post you own as well. Your edit might convince them to leave that upvote alone anyway.

  • The other user could be following Jongware's advice of what they should do if they want to retract a vote that's been locked. The advice is basically to make a request in a comment for the OP to edit their own post. Because it's an edit to a post you own, there's no reviewer time wasted on a suggestion.

| |
  • 4
    Editing the post has always been the work around and officially sanctioned as far as I can see meta.stackexchange.com/questions/98673/… – Martin Smith Nov 6 '15 at 14:36
  • @MartinSmith the main difference that answer I linked points out is that suggested edits that are too minor are a waste of time and should not primarily be used to unlock a vote. If they improve the post, then anyone can act on the side effect of unlocking votes. But in this case since the OP won't create a suggestion on his own post, you're correct. – ryanyuyu Nov 6 '15 at 14:40
  • TY @ryanyuyu I will remember your second point.. :) but as Mr.Aziz said is it a appropriate approach? – Prabs Nov 7 '15 at 4:12
  • 1
    @Prabs it's fine if done occasionally. It's not like this situation pops up often anyway, so I say unlock your post in the unlikely scenario someone offers to un-downvote. Most of the time, any downvoter offering to revoke the vote will tell you why they downvoted. So any edit you make to address their concerns will be non-negligible. – ryanyuyu Nov 7 '15 at 5:43
  • It's great to know you can edit your own posts, besides when you can't.. – Daniel Springer Nov 7 '15 at 23:17
  • @DaniSpringer - I'm not clear what your comment is trying to say? – Martin Smith Nov 8 '15 at 19:48
  • Not always can you edit, even your own posts. – Daniel Springer Nov 8 '15 at 19:48
  • @DaniSpringer - The only time you can't edit your own posts is if they are locked by a moderator AFAIK. Which should be a very rare occurrence. And if it is locked voting is disabled too. – Martin Smith Nov 8 '15 at 19:56
  • I got a message saying your post has anwers, flag for help etc – Daniel Springer Nov 8 '15 at 19:57
  • If this is some automated message that would indicate that you were trying to delete a question. Not edit it. – Martin Smith Nov 8 '15 at 19:58
4

Has that user provided any reason for taking back the downvote? Maybe your post was not clear enough and the user understood it differently and ended up giving a downvote. In which case you may edit your post, improve/clarify it, and remove the misunderstanding. This will give other users an opportunity to take back their downvotes. Negligible edits just for the sake of removing vote locks is not an appropriate approach.

| |
  • Talking about this post ,user followed it and I guess it didn't worked for the first go later it worked, user mentioned no changes made I'm pretty sure the answer is correct and clear – Prabs Nov 6 '15 at 6:50
  • @Prabs sure, it looks good to me as well. I think your edit was fine. – Aziz Shaikh Nov 6 '15 at 6:56
  • 1
    Why would a user have to provide a "reason"? If they had to provide a reason, they could always lie (who here would know) so what would be the point? You're not going to get 73 edits on the same post just for people to remove votes, so I really don't see a problem at all. – Bill Woodger Nov 6 '15 at 9:20
  • 2
    @BillWoodger My point was that if any user have provided any reason for giving a downvote then it can be used to update the answer/question. I am not saying that the downvoter should always provide a reason. – Aziz Shaikh Nov 6 '15 at 10:33
  • 3
    Have the user provided any reason for taking back the downvote? If someone says "can you edit your post so I can remove my downvote" I don't see any problem at all with even a trivial edit. Yes, the question gets "bumped", but once, and unlikely to genuinely cause anyone a problem. Win-win-noloss. – Bill Woodger Nov 6 '15 at 10:39
  • 3
    @BillWoodger I tend to agree with your point. However if an edit can be turned into a meaningful edit then why not. – Aziz Shaikh Nov 6 '15 at 11:38
1

It is rare the case of a user trying to honestly undownvote something or unupvote something. AFAIK the timelimit for undoing either of the actions as imposed to avoid a kind of attack to a user (e.g. enumerate all the stuff I upvoted you and make your reputation fall).

In your case, perhaps there was a legit reason to downvote and perhaps a legit reason to upvote. The intention of reversal is clear. So do what the system encommends and make a minor change. It is true that this is usually not the best approach but if the user misread your post and wants to reverse their vote, you can seize the opportunity to also make additional edits to prevent this continue happening. Or... at least a minor edit (but do not abuse).

Once upon a time I told a user "You have a downvote from me. Your question sucks in [reason 1, reason 2, reason 3, ...]. Please clarify/fix your question in [item 1, item 2, item 3, ...] and I will remove the downvote". Said and done, he edited, I removed (and even upvoted since it turned to be the case) and notified. Even when users are not forced in any way to do that, consider that perhaps the question was a bit misreadable (perhaps in minor details) and try to improve it: you will likely prevent future events like that in such question, and will allow the user to undownvote you.

| |
  • A downvote is so much stronger a signal that an answer should be improved than a 'mere lousy comment'. And, while technically it is not required to add a comment, to enumerate your reasons, I also indeed try to do so, giving the OP a chance to fix it (unless it's unsalvageable to begin with). And keep an eye on such an answer; revisit it after a while to see what's being done with it. I regularly go over my recent votes list to do just that. – Jongware Nov 7 '15 at 1:11

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/309564/may-i-edit-my-answer-to-let-some-user-un-downvote-if-they-indicate-they-want-to
meta.stackoverflow.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2020-50
156590
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:IFXXUIWIXQWJMMWGMUGBRC4RNV2NHNWZ
<urn:uuid:c3cd06ae-bccd-4838-bf1e-813d2a7a6d73>
2020-11-24T06:56:59Z
151.101.65.69
text/html
sha1:JA2HXTLIHAMG23AWLHAX7KZ3M56V4O3P
<urn:uuid:207d5fe1-fa6b-425a-b1e1-633ebbd604ae>
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/309564/may-i-edit-my-answer-to-let-some-user-un-downvote-if-they-indicate-they-want-to
response
<urn:uuid:e4d20ec5-d3a8-41b3-9421-88348879da41>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2020-50
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for November/December 2020
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-25.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.17 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.2-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/