The upvote guidance on questions is:
This question shows research effort; it is useful and clear
It does not suggest that an upvote should, in any way, be related to whether the question receives any answers i.e. it is purely about how the question presents itself.
I am one of the most frequent upvoters on this site, and I am about 1.25 times as likely ...
About the mechanics
It takes five community votes and/or one moderator vote to close a question. Don't worry if you see a stray close vote or two--sometimes these are made in haste or are just plain mistaken.
"Second, the much-requested “reopen queue” has been introduced. The sister component to the close queue, this queue contains questions that have ...
With the special case of new users (perhaps with English not as their first language) addressed in a separate Q&A at Should there be a grace period before downvoting questions from a new user? my answer applies to any remaining cases of experienced and English speaking users, and when it is appropriate to downvote their questions.
The tooltip for ...
Can someone explain to me why my answer got that highly ranked?
Besides becoming a HNQ (see here), people evaluated your answer as useful.
Research effort is only one variable among other which is determinant for usefulness. Simple as that.
When searching for programming questions on the web I often get Stackoverflow as first result. When viewing the questions and answers over there, I sometimes get a popup reminder "dont forget to vote if this answer or question was useful to you" (something like this). It is quite similar to this one: Remind new users to choose some answers?
So I finally ...
Voting to close your own questions is always fine. That leaves it up to the community to judge their value.
However, my advice would be to only delete questions when they really have no value to anyone, and that no one should delete questions when they are new to the site, because that can feed into the algorithms that determine question bans and rate ...
It seems to be related to the same event as is being asked about at Meta SE in
Massive user removal in one night?
As @Animuson has answered there:
One or more users deleted their profiles, and there's really not
anything further we can discuss about the topic for privacy reasons.
I think the decision on whether to retain reputation on (self-)deletion ...
It's not about update frequency. It's about vote-totals:
While 28 people have voted here this month, no one's voted more than 10 times. The votingest voter has cast only 8 votes. So, no one meets the 10-vote threshold for display on the page.
At the moment you have 3 upvotes and 1 downvote (net 2 upvotes).
I assume that when you checked, you received 8 rep because at that moment you had 1 upvote and 1 downvote. Sometimes it takes a while for the system to update :)
I help manage a different site (not StackExchange based) and I find it incredibly difficult to get any voting on questions. Most questions have zero votes. I think many reasons are the same as here.
I suspect that users find answers through searching, probably Google. Unless the search engine is sophisticated enough to sort by upvotes, then voting doesn't ...
Traffic to the site has decreased since 23rd March 2020 due to the global impact of covid-19.
(more people choosing video/conferencing over browsing?)
The trend is a slow rise, people working from home finding more time to visiting GIS.SE.
Stats over the year (votes/traffic)
via mod tools (data is anomalised)
This question has of course been discussed before on meta.stackoverflow.com: Accepting answer without upvoting?
I particularly like this answer:
Accepting w/out upvoting makes sense in one situation IMHO.
If you end up using an answer that you don't like, but works.
For example, if you put some constraint on your question that says "I need to do X, ...
I am against historical locking questions in such situations, because it bothers me not being able to edit a post I authored, even if that post had the community wiki status (then, I would had coauthored). Other arguments can be found in @KHibma's answer in Using wiki answer lock on particular highly upvoted community wiki question that would be closed if ...
The ability to retract re-open votes is the subject of a feature request at Meta Stack Exchange - see Ability to retract reopen/delete votes.
It has been open for more than 5 years and appears not to have been implemented nor declined by the Stack Exchange developers.
I feel that the main situation that requires downvoting AN ANSWER is when it is mistaken, incorrect, dangerous or proposes a gunblazing approach without informing potential users of pitfalls.
PolyGeo's answer is very precise, covers the rest of the ground very well and i totally agree with it.
In addition to the HNQ prominence, I think people (myself included) tend to hit the "this answer is useful" selfishly rather than altruistically. It would be appropriate to click that up arrow anytime one feels, as an impartial reviewer, that the answer is well-written and answers the question posed well. But we're more likely to do so if we ...
I too would "like to see an increase of voting across the GIS SE community" and I think the onus for this should not fall just upon those users who are already volunteering their time to answer questions.
Instead I think we need to also look at the poor quality of some questions asked, and the poor quality of some answers given, as being a reason for our ...
This comment from @animuson from here answers my question quite well:
allowing them to vote again would allow them to quickly retract their vote then vote to close again to bump it back into the Close Votes queue after receiving enough Leave Open votes to kick it out. It's just as prone to abuse. Once you've cast your vote, you've cast your vote. That ...
Which types of questions do get much more than average participation/voting?
If we can identify these, maybe there is something on them (like a pattern) we can try help replicating to other questions.
One small set of those engaged questions are the ones which makes the Hot Network Question (HNQ) list. Of course, after they turn to be HNQ, participation ...
I think the terminology of "thread", which is suitable for discussion forums, is out of place at Stack Exchange sites and, in the case you cite, should be replaced by "post" (i.e. question or answer), or by "Q&A" if you are talking about them together.
That aside, I just searched Meta Stack Exchange and cannot locate an answer to your question.
I think ...
Any way to combat abuse of downvotes?
Yes, please take a careful read on What is serial voting and how does it affect me?
Is there any mechanism on Stack Exchange to report abuse of downvotes by other users?
Yes, hit the 'Contact' button in the bottom of the page and choose 'Other' in the dropdown. Explain the situation in details.
However, please take ...
Votes are revoked when a user deletes their account
Help Center > My Account
How do I delete my account?
User deletion is irreversible! By sending this request, your votes
will be revoked, and all of your content will be made anonymous.
There was a recent modification in the system about how dropping of votes works when an user is deleted or decides to leave the Stack Exchange community (see Don't throw away all votes when a user is deleted).
Now, there is a threshold based on the number of votes cast, as was suggested in this question. The threshold is unknown, but it has been said ...
A comment was made today on a question that I had voted to close, and the reason I voted that way was nothing about duplicates, so I'm providing an answer separate from the excellent one by @whuber to explain why I voted to close sooner rather than later.
This question was an example where I felt I had better than average expertise, yet I could not get a ...
To me that level of viewing and voting does not arouse any suspicion of a voting irregularity.
Most likely it was either shared on Twitter/Facebook/etc, appeared in a GIS SE newsletter, or reached the Hot Network Questions.
If you are suspicious you can always flag for a moderator to investigate, but I think the evidence presented would need to be much ...