Choosing Downvote when User hearts are empty, will add to Quality and doesn't immediately mark Users as red (needing attention). Is there any downside to boosting Quality in this way, or would it be a better choice than first raising the User hearts (thru upvotes)?


Downvote does not reduce the User count (unlike Close, it drains 1-2 hearts immediately) but instead makes User Count drain faster. (around X1.5-2.5.) This lasts for 1-2 hearts. That's why Close is worse on questions than Downvote is bad on Users. (Close drains 1-2 hearts immediately while Downvote does it slowly)

|improve this answer|||||
  • Good info, but it doesn't answer my question re. downvoting when User count is 0 – Alok Apr 2 '15 at 2:16
  • 2
    It does. If you keep it this way, it will turn from 0 hearts to red quicker than normal. – Rikri Apr 2 '15 at 2:17

Actually, the code is now out on GitHub and the values can go into the negatives (but you won't see it). That's how stats get red and need attention when they reach a certain negative value (below -1.5)

public IEnumerable<StackEggStat> CriticalStats() {
  return StatsLessThan(-1.5);

Considering this, and the fact that upvoting or downvoting as the same effect regardless of the User stats real value, it doesn't matter which is done first.

|improve this answer|||||

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.