What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 133 Stack Exchange communities.

Upvoting requires 15 reputation, but the association bonus is taken into account, so if you have at least 200 reputation on any site, you can upvote on all sites in the network.

This is a bit problematic when it comes to per-site metas. The votes there are used to gauge the opinion of the community, and they are often taken into account when implementing new policies.

What can happen is that a post from a per-site meta is linked in an unrelated high-traffic chat room, usually because there is some entertaining drama going on or because someone posted a particularly bad idea. This can lead to an influx of votes from external users that usually wouldn't visit or use the site, but currently still can vote on their meta due to the association bonus.

I think a very low minimum participation on the site should be required to vote on meta issues. This would make the votes on the per-site meta more robust and less easily skewed by being linked from outside.

Not counting the association bonus for the upvote privilege would be enough, then all users would have to earn 14 reputation on the site itself.

share|improve this question
8  
This makes sense, and we should also consider not counting the association bonus for the rep requirement to vote in mod elections. –  Yannis Dec 16 '12 at 11:01
    
Good idea basically, but I would apply this only on specific questions. Preventing voting on all meta questions seems like an overkill to me. Maybe only on questions with a specfic tag? –  Shadow Wizard Dec 16 '12 at 11:07
2  
@ShaWizDowArd That would be... too complicated. What happens, for example, if the tag gets applied at a later time, do previously casted upvotes from 101 users get invalidated? –  Yannis Dec 16 '12 at 11:18
    
Good point @Yannis but still, totally preventing upvotes looks too "harsh" to me. –  Shadow Wizard Dec 16 '12 at 11:26
    
I've been trying to construct a devil's advocate argument for the other position but I'm not getting very far. My basis was going to be the alleged wisdom of expereinced users of the network, but I suspect that questions for which that is directly applicable belong on the mother meta and of course the low threhold for association bonus requires scare quotes: "wisdom". Any way, I would find the change untroubling. –  dmckee Dec 16 '12 at 18:27

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .