What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 131 Stack Exchange communities.

This question already has an answer here:

I'm putting this up for discussion rather than a feature request. It's probably too convoluted to be implimented, but it's certainly worthy of discussion/thought.

I understand the minimum requirements for various review tasks. I understand the minimum requirements for various features and added responsibilities. What I don't understand is why bounties you've awarded count against you. If you've earned 3K rep, but have given away 500 in bounties, are you somehow less qualified to review Close Votes? If you've earned 2.1K rep but given away 400 in bounties, you're now not qualified to approve suggested edits?.

I'm looking for some reasonable discussion that might point out what's right or wrong about my thought process. Lord knows I ain't perfect and there's probably something obvious I hadn't thought of.

share|improve this question

marked as duplicate by Azik, hims056, Martijn Pieters, Shadow Wizard, Lance Roberts Nov 14 '13 at 15:34

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.

So what about if you have 1998 rep and you get a suggest edit approved, then that post is deleted? Or the other way around? –  gunr2171 Nov 13 '13 at 15:43
Related: Is losing privileges after placing bounty OK? –  Bart Nov 13 '13 at 15:43
This old request of mine to roll out the 10k tools depending on the user's participation in janitorial work is related. I strongly favour an "ability" based approach to privileges rather than reputation. So people who have <2k rep, but are good editors (say, they have the copy editor badge) should be allowed to review the suggested edits, whereas those with >2k and without the Strunk & White badge should not be allowed to. –  Lorem Ipsum Nov 13 '13 at 15:43
A fair point, however if your bountied rep continued to count towards your priveledges then there would be no reason not to bounty all of it constantly, leading to huge rep inflation and the same 2000 rep giving hundreds or thousands of people the same editing privaledges –  Richard Tingle Nov 13 '13 at 15:43
@gunr2171 What exactly do you mean? –  Bart Nov 13 '13 at 15:44
@Bart, more of an extreme (and has happened to me). You have 2010 rep, and had it for a while. You have been reviewing for a while as well, and doing great, maybe already got a badge. However, some of your old suggested edit posts are being removed, so that you lose 10-20 rep fast. You now no longer can review. This is not the same as willingly giving it away in a bounty, but similar. –  gunr2171 Nov 13 '13 at 15:46
@RichardTingle - Good point, but it sucks that douchebaggery is so rampant that you have to consider that. Maybe limit bounty to no more than 300 every 6 months? –  Johnny Bones Nov 13 '13 at 15:48

1 Answer 1


My argument against this would be an economic one, in a world where you can both have your cake and give it away there is very quickly infinite cake.


If I have 3000 rep and have close privileges but I also want my question answered there is no reason for me not to use a bounty; I'll still have my privileges after all. So I do, perhaps the full 500 on 6 questions.

I now have 0 rep (but 3000 rep of privileges)

I answer some bounty questions (possibly earning my own rep back again so I now have 500 rep (3500 rep of privileges), I immediately rebounty that 500 rep for a 7th question.

The amount of fluid rep would become huge and the rate of (hidden) rep would go up dramatically. Launching people to 10k (of hidden rep) in a much shorter time.


As a result of this proposal keeping rep would be pointless causing almost all rep to be "up for grabs". This would cause heavy rep inflation (as almost all questions have bounties on them, which would quickly push people up the privileges. It would even be possible for me to have the same (real) 500 rep 20 times over to give me 10000 rep of privileges


All this is without voting rings, or anything underhand, it would simply be the natural tendencies of a system where gaining something has value as does giving it away

share|improve this answer
This can be solved with a bounty limit, which would still enable bounty to be a commodity but not allow it to be abused. If you need to put bounty on 6 questions, you need a new career. :oP –  Johnny Bones Nov 13 '13 at 15:51
It doesn't invalidate your argument, but I assume that you'd only have privileges based on the highest rep total achieved. Meaning, in your example, after getting that 500 bounty (and having rep of 500) you'd still only be at 3000 privilege rep, not 3500. –  Esoteric Screen Name Nov 13 '13 at 15:53
@JohnnyBones, then that destroys the point of a bounty. Bounties are "I'm willing to give up part of my well-earned rep to have more of a chance at a good answer". If there is never even a consequence, even with a limit, then that system will break over time. –  gunr2171 Nov 13 '13 at 15:53
@JohnnyBones I don't think a bounty limit solves anything unfortunately. There is still a "cost" to a bounty and this lets you get around the cost. A off the wall "real" world example is some restaurant lets you pay with pretend money you print at home, but limits you to 3 dinners or $250 every 6 months. Aren't you be sure to go in to get your $250 worth of free food every 6 months? –  psubsee2003 Nov 13 '13 at 15:56
@gunr2171 - Good point, and that draws the line between the user's needs and the website's needs. My original thought centered around that nasty 93K close votes queue and how to get more people the ability to review, but you're right about bounty being the user's choice to put off his ability to gain those rights in exchange for a good answer to their question. –  Johnny Bones Nov 13 '13 at 15:58
It's also important to note that the question specifies this is for reviewing rights only. It wouldn't give access to moderator tools, as your answer seemed to me to imply (by making references to having 10k of privilege rep). –  Esoteric Screen Name Nov 13 '13 at 16:04
@EsotericScreenName I've interpreted "I understand the minimum requirements for various features and added responsibilities" as being basically; everything. And of course the 3K close vote is a moderator behaviour (just one of the basic ones) –  Richard Tingle Nov 13 '13 at 16:09
@RichardTingle It says "review tasks" right in the title, and explicitly "for various review tasks" in the sentence immediately preceding the one you're quoting. I think Johnny was trying to convey that he understands and agrees that rep limits for privileges are important. This is very clearly scoped only to review tasks, though you're correct that it would include close voting. –  Esoteric Screen Name Nov 13 '13 at 16:13
@JohnnyBones Could you settle the above discussion for us. Are you referring purely to the close review queue or a larger subset of privileges –  Richard Tingle Nov 13 '13 at 16:17
When this thought hit me, I was staring at the 93K+ close vote review task, and (to some extent) thought about the reviews you can do at 2K. I hadn't even thought about 10K+ priviledges. –  Johnny Bones Nov 13 '13 at 16:24
@JohnnyBones But it's fair for me to consider the entire rep privilege tree (It doesn't change my answer substantially but it does have a bearing) –  Richard Tingle Nov 13 '13 at 16:27
I wasn't specific about that, so yes you can consider the entire tree when you answer. But in all honesty, gunr2171's answer kind of changed my mind on how I look at rep now. –  Johnny Bones Nov 13 '13 at 16:38

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