What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 134 Stack Exchange communities.

In the link on SO, it states that you must have five particular badges to be an eligible candidate.

However on the sidebar on the same link, it states that any member of 3k rep or more can nominate themselves.

Which of these is correct? They seem to conflict with each other.

enter image description here

share|improve this question
4  
@Downvoter I'm curious as to why this is unclear, not useful, or does not show research effort. –  corsiKa Nov 7 '11 at 20:37
    
On meta, downvotes mean "I disagree." –  R. Martinho Fernandes Nov 7 '11 at 21:10
1  
@Martinho If that's the case, can you really disagree with a support request? "No no, you really DO understand what it's trying to say." –  corsiKa Nov 7 '11 at 21:31
1  
While we're at it, the election doesn't begin in seven days; the primary does. –  Pops Nov 7 '11 at 21:34
    
To be clear, once the 31st member nominates, the lowest ranking member by reputation (and on SO, that's a pretty high bar) is no longer eligible. 3k is the bar for SO-style sites, it's lower for golden sites. –  jcolebrand Nov 7 '11 at 23:56

1 Answer 1

up vote 13 down vote accepted

The text on the right would seem to be from the mechanically-enforced requirements, while the text in the middle is specific to SO and is being manually enforced.

share|improve this answer
    
This is the crux of it for the moment. I don't know how edit-able that copy is, compared to the top part which I can just jump in myself as a non-dev. –  Grace Note Nov 7 '11 at 20:42
1  
The issue is too much information leads to confusion. KISS principle..don't people go by "Less is MORE" ? –  JonH Nov 7 '11 at 20:42
    
@GraceNote - O so now you agree with me? Hmm I guess after 20-30 people did it you see the UI issue I was talking about ? –  JonH Nov 7 '11 at 20:43
    
@GraceNote I wonder if simply adding to the manual description, "This is an additional requirement for SO moderator nominations" would work, for now. –  Andrew Barber Nov 7 '11 at 20:44
    
@Andrew That was rather the point why I explicitly wrote "Stack Overflow" in that section. Do you think the word "additional" would help that much? –  Grace Note Nov 7 '11 at 20:45
    
Or a simple check of the badges. If you don't have the badge - "Opps sorry [user] you're missing the [insert_badge_name_here], come back next time", instead of allowing the commit to happen and having all the comments "Hey you don't even have that badge you should withdraw." –  JonH Nov 7 '11 at 20:45
    
@GraceNote I understood it myself perfectly, but I think for some people the word "additional" might make it more clear, perhaps. –  Andrew Barber Nov 7 '11 at 20:46
    
Oh dear, I wasn't trying to open a can of worms. I figured it was like, leftovers from last election or something. runs and hides –  corsiKa Nov 7 '11 at 20:46
1  
@glowcoder Worms are yummy!!! :) –  Andrew Barber Nov 7 '11 at 20:47
1  
@glowcoder-bugs and issues are a good thing - it keeps us on our toes! –  JonH Nov 7 '11 at 20:48
    
@jon I don't think so. I once had a bug report that Jeff Atwood moved to "priority infinite plus one"... i.stack.imgur.com/AgdQq.png Although curiously, it later got moved out of "declined" and into "deferred" so maybe there's hope for that bug report after all! –  corsiKa Nov 7 '11 at 20:50

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .