I think you get the wrong idea of what actually is the function of an edit.
An edit should contribute to the clarity of a post. A good edit may also clarify that the question is a bad one. Sharing in the possibly bad response (implicitly also what you suggest) would be the opposite of what is reasonable, and the opposite of what we want.
Your suggestion ...
Saying "It can or should be answered" is not the same thing as saying "Good question".
How do I optimize my disk performance?
How do I install and use flashcache/bcache to cache HDD to SSD?
I might answer the first, but I would and did upvote the second.
An additional note after some discussion in comments is that some voters in an attempt to "...
This feature request has been brought up multiple times on Meta Stack Exchange, and as far as I know it has always been poorly received by the community.
I think the main objection is that making high-rep users (even) more powerful is not a good thing.
I agree with many of the points made in answers to the MSE posts. For example, in this answer, devinb ...
This site is about questions and answers, not comments
Comments are second class citizens, and can be (and are) destroyed without warning. Have something useful? Stick it in a answer.
Related: Why don't "useful comment" results give reputation?
Reference that I'm not the guy who came up with this.
Yes/No/Maybe, its up to you, are all answers to your question.
This is personal and case dependent. In my view everything I edit is perfect (up to my low standards of just good enough most of the time, but does it's job well), so I give it up-votes after editing and move along. If I see something nice I up-vote and move along. Do we really need rules for up-...
As Jacob Vlijm says, this is because the answer has recieved 8 upvotes and 1 downvote. Each upvote gives you +10 reputation and the downvote gives you -2.
This can be verified by viewing the vote counts on the post:
This post from 2017 suggests the vote does not get registered on the real post. If you want your vote to stick, you have to go through to the real post and vote.
I (correctly) upvoted it as a reasonable post and passed the review audit; however, when I looked at it later, my upvote hadn't actually been applied. (I was able to manually upvote it later).
Meta is for discussing things about the main site.
Unless you're posting something that is a huge problem that people care about this is just the day-to-day boring admin side of the site. I can't imagine being passionate about tag-synonyms. :) I personally don't usually vote often here, to me it's all about the main site.
A question doesn't have to be good, or even particularly clear, to have good answers. However, when a question has good answers, that suggests there may be something good about the question.
Furthermore, if a question is not clear or lacks detail, but you are able to answer it, then often (not always) one or both of the following apply:
You requested ...
Every vote on posts has to be cast taking into the merit of the particular post. If the post is good, clear and useful, I'd upvote it. If it is useful, I would edit the post to make it good and useful, especially in the case of answers, and then possibly vote on it. If the post is not useful in the first place, I don't generally spend my time on it and move ...
In the system as it stands, for a question to be upvoted, it should have all these three characteristics:
I personally (don't shoot me) like the concise three characteristics of a good question. But showing effort is a relative thing and is judged differently by different voters. I feel the criteria are really usefulness and ...
Nothing you do in a review audit is real. I think of review audits as mock-ups based on real posts. The post score will be shown differently from the real score, the author's picture and reputation may be fake, and the post itself may already have been deleted. We cannot interact with this mirage. Follow the link to the real post to upvote for real.
I gave the question an uptick, but I'm in the high rep use boat. I don't downvote though.
I think it's a solid concern that easy to answer questions can get rep rockets, while hard to answer questions that are highly specific, but can indicate a very large amount of "trustworthiness" or "ability" get underweighted.
All of that said, I don't think ...
Yea, I guess it is in the beginning normal not to be up-voted too often, cause one is somehow a "greenhorn" with less than 100 or less than 200 points in reputation. - Ma, but you can enfluence being up-voted a bit, by up-voting yourself others contributions. In the end it is a matter of each others giving and taking ( not praying here for "christianity-over-...
I don't think that this will be a good idea at all. One caveat I see, if the up-voting is weighted the down-voting should be weighted too. Many of us higher reputation members give out many up and down-votes a day when we roam the site. I for myself run regularly out of votes toward the end of the day. And before you ask its max 40 votes from which only 30 ...
In addition to what Eliah linked, or if you just don't have the reputation to see the vote counts on a given post, you can also just check your reputation tab under your profile, sort it by "post", and you'll see a listing of rep by post by day, and can expand things to see exactly when and how you were voted.
In your case, you'll see this (click the image ...
Mods can't actually see who you voted for. I'd suggest not doing it again.
In theory you could take back your downvote, and turn it into an upvote if someone edited the post, but of course, someone needs to find something to edit.