Please return to the old sorting by time method of answers with the same number of votes

I agree. If we don't revert, you could track Jon Skeet's recent activity and immediately clone his responses (change variable names, at most) and submit :)

As a result, IMO, not only downvoting strategically is ethical now, it's even encouraged to fight gaming the system with the Slowest cheater in the east (SCITE) problem. You should downvote any duplicate you see in the new system.

I agree. I don't see any reason why we ever departed with encouraging the FGITW issue, but the solution is far worse than the cure.

Completely agree that the old method needs to return. The potential for abuse on both ends is higher now. People will start downvoting much more to move people down the list who tie with them, and you are also giving equal footing to people who post duplicate answers. As long as the vote totals remain the same, any normal user would be unable to determine who actually posted first. Therefore the first answer they see (even if it was the duplicate) has a higher probability of getting the upvote.

Stop punishing those of us who contribute quality answers quickly. As I have said numerous times, bad answers go to the bottom regardless of when they are posted and good answers should bubble to the top regardless of when they are posted.

I knew that Jon Skeet should never have posted his random shuffle code.

The new algorithm introduces a gaming tactic of downvoting an earlier answer that was upvoted. Previously, this would have done no good since it would still appear higher in the default sort order. Now there is some gain to downvoting this answer (as long as it is only one greater than yours) since you can increase your visibility on the question. As long as the OP can select the best answer and accept it I think we ought to be using the old system. Good, early answers will continue to get votes over later answers, but the best answer will rise to the top due to the ability to accept an answer.

Personally, I don't think that I am often the first answerer -- unless I'm the only one. My tactic is to try and write complete answers with references and examples. More often than not the inclusion of references and examples trumps quickness.

I rarely look at meta and I am perplexed by the few people who are constantly obsessed with strategic downvoting. For what it is worth, I have posted several answers late on various threads and they got upvoted pretty fast.

If I post my answer and then see that an equivalent answer was posted while composing my answer, I just delete mine.

I get hit by the occasional drive-by (or revenge) downvoter. Usually, I post a comment asking why my answer was downvoted and that elicits a couple of upvotes. All in all, things balance out.

If someone is fast enough to copy & paste my answer in a few seconds, get a few upvotes and cost me a few potential upvotes, so be it.

I like my points, I like my perl badge, but, at the end of the day, I answer questions because that motivates me to learn new things, read docs I have neglected for a while.

Thank you Jeff. Starting meta was a great idea so these kinds of discussions do not end up dominating SO.

I find the resistance to the new votes sort ordering from a vocal minority very perplexing.

First, to clarify: this has nothing to do with tactical downvoting. It is not meant to address that issue at all. Tactical downvoting is the same as it ever was.

(edit: this other change is meant to address the tactical downvoting.)

It's purely a fix for the votes sort order. The answers are sorted by votes. But what sort order do you use when every question has the same score? We had to pick something, so we picked LastActivityDate. I was never happy with this choice (it wasn't even really a conscious choice, honestly), since it had a side effect -- we were implicitly rewarding behavior other than composing answers worthy of upvotes!

Now answers with the same vote score are in random order. Which means answers can correctly be judged based on their merit as answers, not by who happens to end up first in the accidental secondary sort order we didn't even intend to be relevant in the first place.

To the extent that people have "optimized" strategies around that behavior, it's completely a side-effect. A distraction.

Bottom line: if you want to get upvotes, WRITE A GREAT ANSWER.

I believe that this new change is just fine.

For people who want the answers sorted by time, they can simply change their sort to 'oldest'. For those who want to sort by votes, they will receive a list that is (as they requested) sorted by votes.

In general, being the first to post is still advantageous, it means you have more time to gain upvotes while there are no other responses. However, once the other responses appear, why does it matter which is first, the upvotes should be based on whose response is better.

A side effect of the previous system was that if there were many posts with the same number of votes, and mine was the earliest, I was unlikely to edit it for fear that I would lose my top spot. Usually it was grammatical mistakes (I'm aghast I made them in the first place) but occasionally they were links or other such helpful tid-bits. Sometimes I edited and got upvotes, other times I edited and found that the other answers (with less information) got upvoted soon after. In making my response better, I lost reputation.

This new system is meant to combat that.

I don't know if it will work. But I'm willing to try it, rather than explode with indignation after only 8 hours of it.

If you write great answers, what do you have to lose by this change? Doesn't random imply that if you have the same number of votes, you are just as likely to be on the top as on the bottom with those who have the same vote/score?

I tend to think that this will help people who answer 2nd or 3rd with a more complete answer compared to number one who people give votes to for being first. Being first doesn't make you the most correct. It is the content.

Since content drives this site, I ask, what are all of you so concerned about? You have high rep due to content, not the fastest gun in the west, right?

There can only be one answer.

Revolution! http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/9602/reckai.jpg

When did this happen? I've always used "Oldest" sort rather than "votes". Maybe that's a better solution: registered users see it sorted that way instead, or some variation thereof.

At the risk of being flamed some more, I am offering my opinions on this matter, and a possible solution. Scroll down if you just want to see the solution.

1. I have noticed that users with a large amount of reputation, including some of the people in this very thread, have a vested interest in the old style. A random sampling of answers for these high rep users show that they are often the first to answer, usually within 1-5 minutes from when the original question was asked.

   The "they would have reached the 200 rep cap anyway" argument is wrong because its all about how fast you can get 200 rep, and then how much extra time you have to get accepted answers afterwards.

2. SCITE: From what I've seen recently, this hasn't been a problem. Voters who really care about who answered first will be refreshing often, and will know who answered first. Voters who don't care will equally distribute the points to whatever answer is on top. But in case this becomes a bigger problem in a future, see my suggestion below.

   The timestamp is also accurate unlike the old FGITW system where people can steal answers in the first 5 minutes.

Solution

Remove the 5 minute free edit time.

You can then reinstate the last activity ordering which will still encourage fast but good answers.

How will this solve the problems?

1. FGITW: If someone posts a fast but bad answer, they will get ignored or downvoted. If they try to copy someone's answer, they will get bumped down.

2. SCITE: If someone posts a slow and copied answer, the sort by last activity ordering will relegate them to a lower position.