Just so you know, some of us actually read through a chain of comments first, trying to get the full argument before making judgements, and then go back and upvote and downvote all the comments quickly in a row. So, that might seem like a bot doing it at the same time, but its just someone batch voting after reading.
To make it clear what I am talking about - I would expect any voting distribution for 16 votes to be at least semi-random on a controversial comment, in example such as this:
However, the distribution as it occurred looked like this on the first 16 votes:
A controversial comment will have such a ratio, but any comment controversial or not will almost never have this kind of distribution unless there are multiple accounts waiting for vote up events to occur so that they can send a vote down.
I can believe this happening 2, 3, even 4 times by chance, but not 8 times.
Im pretty sure you’re seeing a pattern where there isnt one, your post is just controversial
As I said, certainly possible, I was just surprised by the distribution over time, not the distribution of vote type.
Just so you know, some of us actually read through a chain of comments first, trying to get the full argument before making judgements, and then go back and upvote and downvote all the comments quickly in a row. So, that might seem like a bot doing it at the same time, but its just someone batch voting after reading.
To make it clear what I am talking about - I would expect any voting distribution for 16 votes to be at least semi-random on a controversial comment, in example such as this:
However, the distribution as it occurred looked like this on the first 16 votes:
A controversial comment will have such a ratio, but any comment controversial or not will almost never have this kind of distribution unless there are multiple accounts waiting for vote up events to occur so that they can send a vote down.
I can believe this happening 2, 3, even 4 times by chance, but not 8 times.