Frankly, the most likely explanation is that you are mistaken. We've certainly had bugs in things, but the way that reputation tracking is done, what you described is an extremely unlikely type of bug.

But you give no information to look into. What node(s) did you see this happen on? When did you see "(+0 -2)" and then when did you see "(+0 -1)"? With something specific like that I could check.

Taking a guess, I could see some confusion resulting from seeing a node go from "-1 (+0 -1)" to "0" then "1". That isn't what you described, but inaccurate descriptions are not unheard of. Anyway, that happens because "insignificant" numbers of downvotes are not shown if the node's reputation is not negative, as documented in Display of Node Reputation.

When I run the vote recounter, I see an awful lot of nodes get corrected; I wouldn't be surprised to see something like the OP describes happen, unless you really think it impossible.

Another thought: unreaping resets reputation/votescast to what they were when reaped.

I wouldn't be surprised to see something like the OP describes happen

I don't think you thought about this carefully. Going from "(+0 -2)" to "(+0 -1)" would require votescast to be decremented. We never decrement it.

What does happen sometimes is that updates get lost. If both parts of the update got lost, then the reputation display simply wouldn't include that vote. It would not go "backward".

If only half of the update got lost (only votescast getting incremented or only reputation getting inc/decremented), then you'd see something like "(+0.5 -2.5)". People would remember seeing such a thing so I don't think that has ever happened (which makes sense, considering how the node cache works, such would be quite unlikely though perhaps not completely impossible).

- tye        

It depends on whether shown and recorded are the same thing. If "no significant downvotes" means history of previously significant downvotes gets recorded in its canceled-out form then this would explain the behaviour in itself - but as for the suggestion I am misreporting this, I think Woody Allen would probably have put it something like this:

"Just because you're hallucinating doesn't prove anybody else's world is real."

-M

Free your mind

Is it possible that you've pressed the back button and seen an older rensition of the same node later, which was sent by the server when the node only had less votes?

Surely you could come up with a more exciting fantasy than that -- preferably one in which I am distracted from typing correctly by some dusky maiden climbing in between me and the keyboard ;)

-M

Free your mind

I have seen the inconsistency as well, [...]Having read the docs tye pointed out, I concluded it is on purpose the way it is

If you mean that you think that showing "-2 (+0 -2)" and then later, due to additional votes, showing "-1 (+0 -1)" is intentional, then you would have misunderstood the documentation that I linked to (and didn't understand my earlier reply in this thread either).

I think ambrus has hit on the most likely explanation ("stale" browser cache -- a mostly good thing, IMHO, except that sometimes the viewer doesn't recognize that the displayed content is slightly "stale").

- tye        

Yes, "stale" browser cache is a good explanation of the effects actually described by the OP.
I still think you got me wrong - the inconsistency I was referring to is when node XP goes from "-1 (+0 -1)" to "0" then "1" and that is only inconsistent if you contrast it against plain counting of all up- and downvotes. My fault if I did not state my thoughts clear enough :)
Inconsistency does not have to be a bug if it is there for a good reason and I think there are enough good reasons around.

Regards,
jonix