Almost every time a colleague of mine asks a question, we have discussed this problem beforehand. Also, we sometimes meta-discuss the question for stackoverflow (why did I get the "this might be subjective" warning, is this understandable enough, etc). This is less so with answers, but I could believe for some groups this works the same. For now I'll stick to questions, but you could s/question/answer
if you like.
The resulting question is almost always
- Interesting for me, and a problem I don't know the answer to.
- I probably would favorite it
- According to me a valid and good question (as we talked about it beforehand)
- I would probably want to upvote it.
Now I believe to read that "ring voting" is a thing, and I tried to find some questions about this, but didn't find many. I did find and read this blogpost from 2008: https://blog.stackoverflow.com/2008/12/vote-fraud-and-you/ .
It reads to me that upvoting 'fraud' is more commonplace then downvoting and it might seem anomalous that I would upvote almost all questions from one user. If all colleagues would do this to their team, you'd get some mediocre questions getting a lot of votes, and some users getting a lot of attention, points etc from that. If you would -as seems to be done -, sort the amount of upvotes for my colleague, you'd get me being 'anomalous' in front of the crowd.
On the other hand, as explained above, I do want to upvote almost all stuff some of my colleagues put on here for (I believe) the right reasons: they are questions I consider good and interesting. It's just that I know of all their questions (as they tell me about them), which obviously isn't the case for a random user.
So what is the deal?
- When is upvoting content from one user frowned upon?
- Would my usecase be in danger of being a (what I consider 'false') positive for the fraud-detection? (and would you agree with that or not)
- How to prevent this false positive (if you agree with me it is one, otherwise this is a moot question) -> As noted in the comments: I'm not looking for tricks, so an answer could be "don't vote for your colleagues". I agree that there should be no to 'tricks' around that could be used for real fraud of course
prevent this false positive
would allow people with actual voting rings to bypass the fraud scripts...