Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 158 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

Openning voting might encourage new users to get in the habit of participating. We'll all benefit with fewer "one-hit-wonders" on the site (Ask question, without any feedback on answers, etc.)

Since SO is intended to be an open site, why not remove any limitations based on reputation? Everyone should be able to vote to delete a question or edit a question.

Apparently, your points don't matter: Don't Make Opinions Based on points

share|improve this question
Excuse me, but you just don't get it. I hate being ad hominem, but from this and your previous question, you seem to not have a clue about how the SO system works. – balpha Aug 19 '09 at 18:07
You spelled Guinness wrong. And you're from Boston. That makes me a sad panda. That -1 is just for that, and I'd give you another one if I could for the proposal (since I disagree and all). – Eric Aug 19 '09 at 18:09
Don't pick which questions to answer based on points. Points don't matter as far as asking and answering questions go. But they do matter in administration. – jjnguy Aug 19 '09 at 18:09
Time to abuse the no negative rep glitch and give OP +rep for no reason! – Ian Elliott Aug 19 '09 at 18:13
Eric, typo made while under the inflooense – JeffO Aug 19 '09 at 18:18
Good news is that you could just create a new account spelled properly since you are at a rep of 1 (and trying to stay there apparently) anyway. – EBGreen Aug 19 '09 at 18:19
@GuinnessFan: I take my Guinness and my Boston super serial :) – Eric Aug 19 '09 at 18:26
The voting threshold is very low for upvotes (15) and relatively low for downvotes (100). I think the system is fine. We don't want random people placing votes on things. That would greatly reduce the value of a vote. – jjnguy Aug 20 '09 at 14:40

Completely disagree!

The reputation system works.

Points don't matter as far as asking and answering questions go.(that part of the site is free and open) But they do matter in administration.

We don't want brand new users running around deleting questions...(that's just fucked upsilly)

share|improve this answer
The phrase clearly is "That's just silly" – jjnguy Aug 19 '09 at 18:10
I normally don't approve of swearing on SO, (or MSO), but for some reason that phrase makes me titter. – devinb Aug 19 '09 at 18:19
Well, I'm glad that someone appreciates my 'work'. – jjnguy Aug 19 '09 at 18:22
jjnguy has managed to take cursing to a new artistic level. – TheTXI Aug 19 '09 at 18:35

The closest thing the reputation system measures accurately, (or at least representatively) is time/effort.

We know that a user with a higher reputation has spent at least some time on the site, and contributed something. (It doesn't really matter what, but their contribution was approved by someone.) Because there is a reputation cap, I know that a user who has 3000 points has been around and very active for at least fifteen days, or mildly active for many many moons. But either way, I know that this person is not just a drive-by. They have contributed enough to help shape the community in some moderation ways, as well as the 'question/answer' ways that they could already participate in.

In your initial question, no one was claiming "Reputation doesn't matter" they were saying that the judgments you were making based on reputation (essentially "new users are a waste of space") we foolish and counter-productive.

Put another way, my current opinion of you has nothing to do with your reputation and everything to do with the two questions you have contributed, and the comments you have clarified with.

share|improve this answer
"Put another way, my current opinion of you has nothing to do with your reputation and everything to do with the two questions you have contributed, and the comments you have clarified with." - +1 for that! – jjnguy Aug 19 '09 at 18:19

I didn't work this hard to get 10,000 points so everyone could have as much power as me damn it!

share|improve this answer
+1 Funny. – Brad Gilbert Aug 19 '09 at 18:23
@Spencer Ruport: Yeah, you clearly showed your expertise here: :-) – balpha Aug 19 '09 at 18:30

People often ask for this and compare the site to wikipedia, which lets everyone edit right away. They forget two things:

  • StackOverflow posts have a greater sense of ownership than wikipedia articles, and therefore we need to do a better job vetting editors.
  • WikiPedia still has different levels of editors, based on (unscored) reputation.
share|improve this answer
What about letting them vote (Requires 15 pts)? – JeffO Aug 20 '09 at 14:29
You need a minimum threshold for voting to prevent basic sockpuppet upvoting. Removing the voting rep requirement would completely undermine all scoring on the site. – Joel Coehoorn Aug 20 '09 at 14:44

Reputation more than anything else is a measure of your mastery of the system and the community conventions. If you went through and did not know how to use the system and everything you posted was against community standards, you likely would not achieve much in reputation. Therefore rep is a great measure of how much you should be trusted with "the controls".

I agree with all of the other answers on here when they say that just opening up all abilities to everyone when they first come in is sure to lead to absolute chaos. We are an open community, but we are an open community where the "elders" still hold positions of respect and authority.

I like to think that letting the best behaved inmates help police the other residents of the asylum is a LOT better than giving every inmate the keys to all the cells.

share|improve this answer

The reputation system is designed to allow for the sites to be self-moderated. You cannot allow everyone to have full rights within the system, or you would quickly lose control. Therefore, reputation is used as a measure of trust the system has in a particular user, and as it raises, they are allowed to do more.

share|improve this answer
I just tend to answer questions asked by people I trust - call me human. – JeffO Aug 19 '09 at 18:13
That doesn't make you human, that makes you a snob. – jjnguy Aug 19 '09 at 18:14
@GuinessFan, as I said in response to your other question, I take no issue with you choosing to answer questions by whatever criterion you wish; I simply don't believe the system will or should cater specifically to knowing the question askers reputation. – Timothy Carter Aug 19 '09 at 18:15
Seems like there are a lot of complaints on the superuser site about poor questions and a need to get rid of them. We'll have to see if there is a solution that does not involve your rating. – JeffO Aug 20 '09 at 14:32

The proliferation of this site is a testement to the merit system in both who should be in control and as a reward to those who are using it properly, but we also need to be careful in how much attention we give to unwanted behaviors. I recall an educational game that had a brilliant graphic display when the user made an incorrect answer than when they made a correct answer. The teachers wondered why the students would opt for the stick man exploding than the 25 points.

share|improve this answer
I feel that the rep system encourages correct behavior. You get to see heads explode and pr0n (if that's your thing) when you answer a question well and get upvoted. – jjnguy Aug 19 '09 at 18:39

You must log in to answer this question.

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