Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 155 Stack Exchange communities.

What is meta?
Here's how it works:
  1. Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
  2. The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
  3. Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates

There are users who answer questions on all days of the week except Saturdays. I am sure that there are cases when this restriction is not entirely self-imposed. This places some users at a distinct disadvantage in the "rating game" based on purely non-technical reasons.

Do you think that it makes sense to change the voting cap rules, and introduce a single 400-point limit for the entire week-end to replace two separate 200-point daily limits for Saturday and Sunday?

share|improve this question
But SO is not about the rating game.. – Martijn Pieters Sep 17 '12 at 16:29
This isn't just restricted to certain days of the week by the way. There are various days (holidays?) throughout the year with such restrictions as well, which would make a 1400-point limit for every week, or (200 * number of days in a given month) for each month, or 73000 for every year, etc "more" sensible... – BoltClock's a Unicorn Sep 17 '12 at 16:29
A user can gain all sorts of rep without being on the site at the time. Does not using the site one day a week really have a negative effect on ability to use the site (or anything else that actually matters)? – yoozer8 Sep 17 '12 at 16:30
@MartijnPieters I'll be polite, and say only that there are alternative points of view on what SO is about. – dasblinkenlight Sep 17 '12 at 16:33
@BoltClock'saUnicorn Had I expressed such a suggestion, it would clearly be an absurd; however, I didn't. – dasblinkenlight Sep 17 '12 at 16:34
@dasblinkenlight: Hey, I like to play the rep game just as much as you do, but the point of SO is to provide great answers to good questions, right? :-P – Martijn Pieters Sep 17 '12 at 17:10
@dasblinkenlight There are alternative views, but they are wrong. Stack Overflow's purpose is to provide an authoritative, reference-quality list of questions and answers. Reputation and rankings are a mean to this end, they are not the purpose of the site. – meagar Sep 17 '12 at 17:12
Also, adherence to the Sabbath is absolutely self-imposed. It's not the job of any given site on the Internet to adhere to your scheduled, quite the opposite. – meagar Sep 17 '12 at 17:14
@meagar Yet Martijn was not talking about the purpose of the site :) I was only pointing out that SO is not the same thing for every participant. – dasblinkenlight Sep 17 '12 at 17:14
@meagar Right, it becomes self-imposed after a certain age. Before that, parents do the bulk of the "imposing" job. – dasblinkenlight Sep 17 '12 at 17:18
@MartijnPieters You are absolutely right about the point of SO from SO's point of view, but there are also participant's points of view, and they may drastically differ (the "ant colony vs. individual ants" analogy comes to mind). – dasblinkenlight Sep 17 '12 at 17:21
Now you're talking about an even more absurde situation. Parent's are free to impose any arbitrary limitation on the computer use of their children. If parents tell a child that they're not allowed to use the computer for more than an hour a day, should we factor that into our rating system? Or does the restriction have to be grounded in religion to be applicable? Should we accomodate people currently incarcerated who may only have weekly or bi-weekly access to a computer? – meagar Sep 17 '12 at 17:21
@meagar "If my parents tell me I'm not allowed to use the computer for more than an hour a day..." That's a "straw man" argument with a rather questionable relevancy. – dasblinkenlight Sep 17 '12 at 17:24
@dasblinkenlight Hardly. Parents regulating and/or monitoring their children's Internet use is hardly an edge case, and you introduced it, it's as relevant as the rest of your argument. I'm simply stating that if you allow for some parents making arbitrary weekend restrictions, you should also allow for week-long restrictions imposed by other parents. – meagar Sep 17 '12 at 17:28
@meagar I mentioned parents only to counter your "self-imposed" note, not to make a broader argument about "parents making arbitrary weekend restrictions". – dasblinkenlight Sep 17 '12 at 17:37

I don't think this is a big enough issue to warrant complicating the rules.

I am sure that there are cases when this restriction is not entirely self-imposed (links to Sabbath).

If we start augmenting rules to take into account specific sub-populations, then how about others? Some have Fridays+Saturdays and even Friday+Sunday as weekends; how do we then account for them? I have [some important event] on Wednesday nights, can I extend my rep cap to Thursday?

I believe we should keep things simple and stick to a daily rep cap. Same rules for everyone -- isn't that what level playing field is all about? We each have our impediments and we make up for them in our own way.

share|improve this answer
I kind of wanted to make this argument too, but I felt my answer was long and wordy enough already. So, thanks! – Pops Sep 17 '12 at 16:39

I disagree. The "rating game" is a part of the site, but it's not the part we should be focusing on. People who do come here to "play the game" — and, to a lesser degree, everyone else — will get confused by having to keep track of which day it is, and not even in their "home" time zones, but UTC. And by the time you're consistently hitting the rep cap, you should be able to exceed it by hunting bounties and receiving acceptances, negating any disadvantage caused by choosing to not use the site on a weekend day (in your local time zone).

share|improve this answer
My point was that the playing field remains uneven for everyone who's playing the rating game: having to hunt bounties to compensate for inability to answer questions on Saturdays is what makes the field uneven. There's even a poster boy for my case (I'm sure you know who he is). – dasblinkenlight Sep 17 '12 at 16:39
I don't know why you feel so sure, because I have no idea who you're talking about. – Pops Sep 17 '12 at 16:40
Okay, I saw your comment about the "example case," but I don't see how I was supposed to know that this situation would apply to him. In fact, one could argue that the fact that he has so much rep already shows that this change is unnecessary. More importantly, though, why does it matter that this situation applies to him? – Pops Sep 17 '12 at 16:47
I thought that the pattern jumps at you if you causally browse the history of high-rep users. It's not important at all that the situation applies to the particular user, only an illustration that it's not a purely imaginary issue. Again, I am not arguing about the current situation making it hard to earn high rep if you limit yourself to participating only on specific days, only that it makes it harder. – dasblinkenlight Sep 17 '12 at 16:57
The more I think about this, the more I think a better answer would have been "who cares?" Reputation has little to no real-world value. It's not even that good as a metric for site participation or domain-specific knowledge. – Pops Sep 17 '12 at 17:10
I like your second answer a lot more than your first one :) – dasblinkenlight Sep 17 '12 at 17:12

You must log in to answer this question.

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