@XanderHenderson There is one person with 1.5k whom I have mentioned before in CURED chat room. He is not followed EOQs guidelines and I have flagged him for mod advice twice. Should I continue flagging his answer to contextless question or 2 flags are enough and leave him to mod?

Is it normal for a question to get 3 upvotes in ≈30 seconds?

@Wolgwang It is not "normal", but it is not unusual, either. It can happen.

@XanderHenderson This is the question. 3 users out of ≈6 users upvoted it even with the typo '$74=100-24$'. No great efforts and no $\LaTeX$. O_o

@Wolgwang That is a screenshot of an image. I can't do much with that.

@XanderHenderson Link

I just didn't want people to target it for downvoting. :-)

@Wolgwang From the reputation timeline it looks more like 15 seconds

It often happens that bad questions get a number of upvotes just after they are posted (when they are at the top of the queue on the front page). Given the age of that question, this seems like a plausible explanation.

It is also possible that there are shenanigans happening, but there are no obvious signs of it there.

@XanderHenderson Just because, descriptively, it happens, doesn't mean (prescriptively) it ought to. I believe Wolgwang is asking whether it is right, prescriptively. Because 3 upvotes in 15 seconds meets criteria of serial voting. Again, you are sort of minimizing the concern of a user, this time, of @Wolgwang.

@amWhy 3 upvotes in 15 seconds does not meet the criteria for serial voting, as serial voting is the action of one user voting on multiple posts. A single user cannot vote on one post more than once, so this cannot possibly be an example of serial voting. It could be an example of sockpuppet upvoting (where several accounts controlled by a single person vote to artificially inflate the score of a post). But, as I said above, there are no obvious signs of such shenanigans here.

@XanderHenderson We don't know it was not one user. My point is that it ought to be a reason of concern, given the handful of users on this site who flood poor questions with upvotes to mediate the downvotes they know will come.

It is also quite common for poor questions to get a number of upvotes shortly after they are posted, or shortly after they are answered (i.e. when they are on the top of the front page). HNQ questions have a similar pattern. I don't claim that this is a good thing, but there is nothing happening here which obviously violates site policy, aside from a user asking a low-quality question.

No signs of Shenanigans, is impacted by one's refusal to actually look for them (as it takes too much time.) You answer is fine, for someone not giving a damn to actually view the posts.

@amWhy Your assumption that I did not investigate the question is incorrect.

I don't think there is anything that can be done for this sole question, but it is interesting to note that the question was posted (and hence upvotes were given) at a time of day where voting usually occurs least.

@XanderHenderson No. But as mods' actions are intentionally hidden from users, you simply ask us to "simply trust you", That's a tall order to demand of peons, when we have no means to verify whether in fact a mod examines adequately or not. So please stop pointing fingers or attempting to read our minds, when given no data, there can be no accusation.

@TheSimpliFire Interesting point.

@Wolgwang I just wanted to know whether it was the new normal as I was active on the main site after a long time.

@XanderHenderson You didn't minimize my concern. :-)

I trust mods.

Thank you.

amWhy Please don't ping me...it's a humble request.

I don't speculate without facts as you do and don't post baseless comments.

@Wolgwang You do not know me, clearly. Ingratiating a mod in your last to posts to gain favor. That's fine, you'll need that. But please do not make accusations against me that are false. You see a black and whght world, and It is rude, when you make false claims against me, and it violates the code of conduct.