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.

Update: the current amount of downvotes is enough to understand the suggestion is not welcome. No need to go further.

Look at the spring tag, for example - skaffman is the ultimate spring helper, with more than 10% of the spring questions answered, with average of 2+ upvotes. Yet, he hasn't even received a silver badge.

So, we have a logical distinction of tags, like:

  • language tags (lots of questions)
  • framework/tool tags (less questions)
  • other tags (subjective, best-practices, web-development, etc)

I suggest to lower the number of votes required to gain the tag badges for the second group, because:

  • these tags don't have that much questions in them compared to the language tags
  • it will encourage people to answer very specific questions, which are rarely upvoted

How to achieve it?

  • make the limits 300 and 750 for questions that have currently below 4000 questions total
  • (extra) introduce bronze tag badges (for 10-20 upvotes)

This wouldn't differentiate between the 2nd and the 3rd group, but that's no harm.

share|improve this question
2  
4 downvotes, At most 2 explained (as an answer). Be rational :) –  Bozho Jan 28 '10 at 19:25
4  
1: On Meta, downvotes typically mean "I disagree." 2: Votes in either direction don't need to be explained by the voter. 3: It's entirely possible (and frankly likely) that some people who downvoted you felt the posted answer(s) expressed their opinion well enough that they didn't have to write an explanation. –  John Rudy Jan 28 '10 at 19:27
    
I didn't downvote, but you should interpret votes on Meta differently than on SO. People tend to treat them as "I agree" or "I disagree" instead of helpful versus not helpful. –  gnostradamus Jan 28 '10 at 19:27
1  
that's clear, but "I disagree, because " is more preferable :) –  Bozho Jan 28 '10 at 19:33
    
@Bozho: You should totally make a suggestion to banish the voting system then! Or require comments with votes! –  GEOCHET Jan 28 '10 at 19:38
1  
@Geoffrey - not quite, don't make such generalizations. But in this case you a rejecting a suggetsion. Democracy allows to reject it anonimously; sense advocates explaining ones reasons. @State of the union: the downvotes are more than the upvotes to answers or comments :) –  Bozho Jan 28 '10 at 19:51
1  
maybe I should explain with more words. When there is a suggestion, and the votes are "for" and "against", sensible and intelligent people explain the reasons behind their decision. I guess it's simple enough now –  Bozho Jan 28 '10 at 20:29
1  
No, when there is a voting system sensible and reasonable people use it. People who feel like discussing the issue with you will stop and discuss it. Otherwise, there is no purpose of an anonymous voting system. –  GEOCHET Jan 28 '10 at 20:38
1  
For what it's worth, I got the silver Spring badge this morning :) –  skaffman Feb 4 '10 at 13:52
    
+1 useful for new/emerging technologies too –  Perpetual Motion Goat Feb 5 '10 at 10:07

3 Answers 3

up vote 3 down vote accepted

The goal isn't to hand out badges (although I do agree that badges are a good aspect of the system). The goal is to provide useful content which is obviously being achieved in your examples.

Toward your suggestion, how do you dynamically determine what the logical distinction is? And further, how do you apply that over on SF and SU?

I think it's fine as it is.

share|improve this answer
    
The word currently is emphasized - the distinction is done once, at a certain moment. This is achieved by two poeple. If there were badges, it might have turned out that better content is generated. –  Bozho Jan 28 '10 at 19:09
    
@Bozho: the badge system is automated so, at least in my mind, it follows that any change to it be implemented in the system and not a manual process, which takes "currently" out of the picture. I see what you're suggesting as a manual process. Nothing personal, just don't think the change needs to be made. –  squillman Jan 28 '10 at 19:13
    
a manual process once, so not a big deal from a technical perspective. It doesnt necessarily need to be made, but it could turn out providing a bit more answers to very specific questions –  Bozho Jan 28 '10 at 19:15
    
@Bozho: what about the next time a low-volume tag gets created? What are the cutoffs for the logical distinctions? And, again, how does it apply to the other sites? –  squillman Jan 28 '10 at 19:21
    
the other sites will just have lower limits. New so-popular tags are not that likely to appear. –  Bozho Jan 28 '10 at 19:24

I think that the current limits are fine. If you are truly dedicated to your "small" tag you'll get your rewards eventually, and you will appreciate them that much more for the hard work it took. I don't mean to brag, but the MATLAB tag has fewer than half the questions of the two tags you linked to, but I am currently 26 votes away from sweet, sweet gold.

...Okay, maybe I mean to brag a little. ;)

share|improve this answer
    
So begins the serial-upvoting? ;) –  squillman Jan 28 '10 at 19:22
1  
@squillman: I hope not. They'll probably just get nixed by the voting anomaly detectors. I want to earn it fair and square. ;) –  gnostradamus Jan 28 '10 at 19:25
1  
What a braggart. OK. Actually I'm pretty impressed. –  dmckee Jan 29 '10 at 2:26

Complicated and unnecessary. I say no.

::sigh:: Still no LaTeX specialists. But Will is banging along toward it. Go Will!

At the current rate I should only need another 3-4 year to get that one, and I am OK with that.

share|improve this answer
    
It appears that I shouldn't be OK with that. Ho hum. –  dmckee Jan 28 '10 at 22:04

You must log in to answer this question.

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