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.

Possible Duplicate:
Is losing privileges after placing bounty OK?

I recently earned more than 2k reputation. 2020 to be specific. I got the privilege to review suggested edits. Fine.

Now I offered a bounty of 100 rep on my question, thus falling back to 1920 reputation. Now I do not have the privilege to approve suggested edits.

Seriously? I think all the concept behind privileges linked with reputation is to award them to people who are serious about the community. Once earned if I lose reputation because of offering bounties/deleted question (in case I answer a question and get 10 rep, then when the question gets deleted so is my reputation) or any other cause, I don't think it's appropriate to take away the privileges.

Comments? Views?

UPDATE:

i was introduced to this discussion

That is actually a discussion, no outcome.

outcome could be any of two

  1. This feature will continue to be as is, why? Privilige page says As you earn reputation from your peers, you earn the community's trust – and will be granted additional privileges on Stack Overflow so how is it legit to take away that trust, in case a user offers a bounty on his or someother question?

  2. This is a bug/ flaw with priviliges

share|improve this question

marked as duplicate by Martijn Pieters, animuson, Bo Persson, casperOne Nov 23 '12 at 18:34

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

1  
This discussion from a few years back mostly covers this, as well as the principle logic (reputation and privileges are linked) behind it. –  Grace Note Nov 23 '12 at 16:57
1  
@GraceNote yea read that. Thats a couple of years back in time. Just discussion. Some say its ok some say its broken.but no outcome. SO will keep it this way? Why,on what grounds? Is it just that it will make system more complex, if it got to implement that?? A user who is participating more in community gets his privilige taken away doesnt sounds good. Loss of reputation because of bounties should not result in privilige loss. Also the point here is not that i lost my privilige, rep would soon be up again n so the privilige. But this functionality looks flawed to me. –  Mukul Goel Nov 23 '12 at 17:07
1  
Would anyone be kind enough to tell, why the downvotes?? –  Mukul Goel Nov 23 '12 at 17:26
2  
@MukulGoel: Because people disagree with your assertions. –  John Dibling Nov 23 '12 at 17:26
    
    
@johndibling okkie..dint know about the interpretation difference here. –  Mukul Goel Nov 23 '12 at 17:30
    
@Bart thank you :-) –  Mukul Goel Nov 23 '12 at 17:31
3  
@MukulGoel: Would you not agree that "people who are serious about the community" should read the site's FAQ? ;) –  John Dibling Nov 23 '12 at 17:31
    
@JohnDibling excelent point, i must agree i have not read meta FAQ, reason I am not serious about meta , thus my reputation speaks for itself here(126, 100 joining bonus :-D) I am serious about SO , i have read those FAQ –  Mukul Goel Nov 23 '12 at 17:35
    
You may also be interested in Notify user when setting a bounty will revoke a privilege. –  Pops Nov 23 '12 at 18:18
    
You tagged this with discussion and feature-request and say it's a bug in the body of the post. Which one is this? –  casperOne Nov 23 '12 at 18:30
1  
@casperOne : initially I thought of it from point of view of discussion and feature request. on enlightenment given by GraceNote, that it has been discussed much in detail earlier. A bug for me now –  Mukul Goel Nov 23 '12 at 18:33

1 Answer 1

You're not being punished for placing a bounty on a question, but you do have to pay a price for placing the bounty. Since the currency of the SE sites is reputation, the price you pay is reputation. OK, fine, simple enough.

You seem to be suggesting a change in the system so that the privilege level is not determined based on a user's current reputation, but on the user's accumulated reputation. Now I'm not a programmer for SE, but given that I am a programmer and presumably you are as well, I think we can do a little hypothetical cost/benefit analysis on implementing a system that you seem to suggest.

What are the costs of implementing a system in which the metric for privilege is based on accum_rep_ rather than rep_? There will need to be a database change if accum_rep_ is not already present in the system. Then there will need to be code changes everywhere reputation is computed, so that accum_rep_ is also computed. Any time reputation is changed -- such as upvotes, downvotes, edits and accepted answers -- will now also need to change accum_rep_. The device which computed privilege levels will also need a code change to look at this new value. The whole thing will need to be retested and then rolled out across the network. Sounds like a lot of work to me.

What are the benefits? Users on the cusp of a priv level will get the new privilege sooner. How much sooner depends on the activity of the user, so what's the normal case? the reputation level of a user is going to be the same as the accumulated reputation in all use cases except for one that I can think of: bounties. The normal case for bounties in my observation is that they are relatively rare. How many thousands of non-bounty questions are there for one bounty question? Based on the rarity of bounties, the normal case can't consider bounties. Since the normal case doesn't consider rare bounties, the accumulated reputation is the same as the actual reputation. Hence for the normal case, there are no benefits for implementing this system.

Since the costs in this hypothetical analysis are high and the benefits are nil, I'd suggest to you that the system is designed and works correctly as it is today.

I'd also suggest that since you are an active user, you'll regain the needed rep soon enough, and be able to edit posts before you know it.

share|improve this answer
3  
I'm not too big on the whole "if we're gonna do this, we'll have to change the software" thing. Yes, you have to change the software if you want to implement changes. That's a fact of life. –  Mr Lister Nov 23 '12 at 17:39
    
@MrLister: I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with my post? –  John Dibling Nov 23 '12 at 17:41
    
Agreed with the "rep as currency" idea though. If placing bounties is not supposed to count towards accumulated rep, then what is? Do downvotes count? Or what if you accept an answer (gaining 2 points) and the answer gets deleted, should the 2 points be counted in the accumulated rep? No, such a system would only lead to more questions and more frustrations and bug reports! –  Mr Lister Nov 23 '12 at 17:43
    
@MrLister: I'm still not understanding you. I did say that these changes would require a code change. Are you saying they would not require a code change? –  John Dibling Nov 23 '12 at 17:46
    
No, what I'm saying is, protesting that "the software needs to change" as the reason for not wanting to implementing a new feature isn't a good enough reason. Not by itself. –  Mr Lister Nov 23 '12 at 17:50
1  
@MrLister: Right, that's why I did the Cost/Benefit analysis. –  John Dibling Nov 23 '12 at 17:55

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