Welcome to Codidact Meta!
Codidact Meta is the meta-discussion site for the Codidact community network and the Codidact software. Whether you have bug reports or feature requests, support questions or rule discussions that touch the whole network – this is the site for you.
Post History
In the reference, Monica had said If you suspect voting fraud, please flag or use the "contact us" link. Moderators can't see who voted on what (even I can't), but there are people on the team w...
#1: Initial revision
Voting fraud on posts
In [the reference](https://meta.codidact.com/posts/282904#fn1), Monica had said >If you suspect voting fraud, please flag or use the "contact us" link. Moderators can't see who voted on what (even I can't), but there are people on the team who can look at the data. We also limit the number of votes a new user can cast. Hence, I had flagged a question for admin review. Then, an admin had replied >Downvotes on posts do not require moderator attention unless there is targeted voting. People are free to use their votes how they want, including downvoting posts that you don't think should be downvoted. I have 2 questions. 1. Why flag reviewer had replied that? Suppose, I am going to voting fraud. Today, I am going to downvote a post tomorrow I will do another. Everyday, I can downvote one or two post. Hence, that's not counted as serial voting. So, we always take a look at posts. Which post I had flagged that wasn't totally bad. Even, without that the UI wasn't looking good. (Note: That's not my post[^1]) 2. How many post down-voting remark as serialized voting? (I think the phrase didn't match. So, I would request someone else's suggestion cause, I don't have any idea what it should be) [^1]: I am writing it cause, some people (most of people) might say the owner always say that there post isn't bad.