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.

The FAQ does say:

What kind of questions can I ask here?

If your question is about:

  • Stack Overflow
  • Server Fault
  • Super User

... it is welcome here. No question is too trivial or too "newbie".

People already hate me here, but for whatever reason I still want to try it.

I don't really care that much for reputation system. I just want to be able to post decent answers or questions (with more than 1 hyperlink) and upvote people, just like I do in other SO-powered sites.

So, should I just give up?

share|improve this question
16  
Being downvoted doesn't mean people hate you... –  mmyers Mar 2 '10 at 19:06
4  
If you associate your account with one of your other accounts, you can get 100 rep here, and be able to post all the hyperlinks you want. –  Lance Roberts Mar 2 '10 at 19:13
1  
@mmyers C'mon, let me add just a little drama to it! ;) @Lance It is associated. –  Cawas Mar 2 '10 at 19:15
2  
Wow, you must have worked hard to lose that 100 rep, but then again I probably have the record for most downvotes on this site, so I know how it goes. –  Lance Roberts Mar 2 '10 at 19:31
    
Cawas has a Meta question that is particularly negative. If he deletes it (can he with his rep level?), will it benefit him? –  rlb.usa Mar 2 '10 at 19:34
    
Only after a recalc (maybe, not 100% sure). –  Lance Roberts Mar 2 '10 at 19:37
    
@Lance I never had 100 rep in here. I associated my account when on superuser I had also 1 or 0 or whatever. Maybe that's what was broken in this solution. I'll undo it and try to associate again. @rlb I don't want to delete a question just because it's negative. –  Cawas Mar 2 '10 at 19:38
    
you can also associate to the other two sites, but yes you have to have 200 rep on the associating site to get the bonus. –  Lance Roberts Mar 2 '10 at 19:46
    
@Lance now it worked. But I'm afraid I'll soon lose it all again. :P –  Cawas Mar 2 '10 at 19:51
6  
@Cawas: Maybe you should learn how SO works before posting silly suggestions, then. –  XMLbog Mar 2 '10 at 19:55
    
@Cawas: With that attitude sure you will. ( I'm afraid I'll sonn lose it all again ) If your are constantly thinking you're doing thing wrong, you'll end up by doing the wrong indeed. Stop crying and start looking at what the other do to be part of the community. –  OscarRyz Mar 2 '10 at 19:59
    
Look, I'm not trying to be accepted in. I do bad jokes, I write too much some times, and I do write a lot of crap. I'm not arguing against the reputation system or the community at all. I just don't think it should be mixed up with the spam prevention system as it was proven to me it disturbs at least 1 newcomer such as myself. Maybe it also disturbs a lot more people who just don't care enough to show up. –  Cawas Mar 2 '10 at 20:03
4  
@Cawas: Here's the thing. Meta is the only site in the trilogy where you get downvoted when people disagree with you. On the other sites, it's easy to get enough rep to get past the spammer-prevention mechanisms. Then once you've done that, you can associate your accounts to get enough Meta rep. You've followed this sequence precisely, and now you aren't restricted anymore. Congratulations, you've won the game! –  mmyers Mar 2 '10 at 20:11
1  
Yes and no. Sometimes a few bright ideas fall through the cracks either for lack of attention, priority, or simply no one wants to implement it. But for the majority of things the Stack community is usually right. You are right a little, a lot of times Meta posts are critiqued like an employer goes through resume's - but whatddyagonnado? I think Meta works exactly the way it should 99.99% of the time. –  rlb.usa Mar 2 '10 at 20:44
1  
I have downvoted answers on SO I disagreed with, when I was very sure they were wrong. Meta is the site where they'll downvote you for more subjective and personal disagreements. –  David Thornley Mar 4 '10 at 15:30

5 Answers 5

up vote 3 down vote accepted

this site is dedicated to questions about ponies and waffles, and wafflepony/unicorn avatar creation; all other questions and answers are irrelevant fillers

share|improve this answer
    
@Steven you have an hour to edit Unicorns in there. One hour. Starting now. –  Pëkka Mar 3 '10 at 11:35
    
@Pekka done!!!! –  Steven A. Lowe Mar 3 '10 at 16:56
    
I now deem this answer officially upvoteable, even though Unicorns could have been put more to the front of the answer and separate from waffleponies, Unicorns' less relevant cousins. A close +1 –  Pëkka Mar 3 '10 at 17:37
    
I had to change the accepted answer now... This is much simpler and way more complete! –  Cawas Mar 3 '10 at 17:58

People already hate me here, but for whatever reason I still want to try it. ... So, should I just give up? Am I insisting too much in trying to be part of the community?

I took a look at your profiles - your votes here at Meta are in the negatives, while you have a 200ish rep at SuperUser.

I think maybe you are trying too hard. If you really came to ask and answer questions, you should be just fine (just watch out if you post incorrect answers). However, if you came with the primary purpose of collecting rep points and becomming "popular", this can be the root cause of your problem. I see a lot of users ask non-questions and dupes, trying to grab a gold medal, but they usually end up with zero or lower score.

Also, please don't whine. >__< (Sorry, had to say it).

I noticed one of your Meta questions has a very negative score - I think what happened was that you worded your question/comment in a way that was slightly offensive and pressing of your thoughts/opinions that did not agree with the rest of the group.

share|improve this answer
1  
Sorry for the whining. And since you were honest, I'll try that too: I think you read me dead wrong. But thanks for trying. :) –  Cawas Mar 2 '10 at 19:26
    
Remember, it's a question and answer board reputation, not, your Credit Rating! = P –  rlb.usa Mar 2 '10 at 19:31
    
I have no credit rating, I like better saving money under the matrix. –  Cawas Mar 2 '10 at 19:37
    
Look, somehow I just got 4 downvotes for apparent no reason... Too much of a coincidence they came together like this - It's most likely someone who saw this question and clicked on my name to seek for other places he/she could downvote me. And that's fine as it's how the system works. I just don't think I should be considered a spammer and unable to upvote just because of some random crazy people. –  Cawas Mar 2 '10 at 19:41
1  
@Cawas: More likely is that someone clicked on your name out of curiosity and discovered that you'd written other things they didn't like. You seem to have a bit of a persecution complex. –  mmyers Mar 2 '10 at 19:46
    
@mmyers so it was you! :P –  Cawas Mar 2 '10 at 19:52
3  
No, mmyers knows about the serial downvote detection so he'd be careful to space out his downvotes over a longer period of time. –  Ether Mar 2 '10 at 20:02
3  
@Ether: Right on. I've been serially downvoting you since July. –  mmyers Mar 2 '10 at 20:03
    
@mmyers: I'm way ahead of you. –  squillman Mar 2 '10 at 20:09

You're exactly the kind of person the reputation system is meant to slow down! You got here two weeks ago, and the first thing you do is start to criticize? Apparently, you feel you're very fast at assessing a site and determining how it should be run. You believe you can do this without using the site long enough to understand how it actually works.

If we allowed you and those like you free rein, we'd have total chaos, as everyone would immediately start making over the site in their own image.

Take your time. Learn what the sites are about. Once you've done that, you'll be able to make intelligent suggestions. You'll find that such suggestions don't get downvoted nearly as much.

Check out my questions on meta, and you'll see that I'm speaking as someone who gets not a few downvotes.

share|improve this answer
    
+A(100,100), A being the Ackerman function –  Pavel Shved Mar 2 '10 at 20:31
    
@John you condemned me and then did the exact same thing by starting to criticize me without even knowing me. I don't see anything wrong with doing that, but if you do you started just as wrong as you said I did. And my questions are way ahead yours on downvotes! :D –  Cawas Mar 2 '10 at 20:37
    
Again, please don't whine >_< . Critizing needs to be thought through more carefully, and with more experience. Everything here on the Stacks has been meticulously thought through and tested, nothing about the system is willy-nilly thrown-together. Blech this comment sounds like arse-kissing, but, things are how they are for good reasons; ya gotta learn/experience those reasons before you go suggesting alternatives. Just as a side-plug, do you read Jeff's blog? He writes quite a bit about SO, you might be interested codinghorror.com/blog/2008/04/… –  rlb.usa Mar 2 '10 at 21:03
1  
@Cawas: I can only know about you that which you expose through your posts here. I am not impressed so far. Learn how the site works, and show that you know how the site works, and my opinion of you will improve. I may not be alone in that. –  John Saunders Mar 3 '10 at 1:10

You just have to learn what the community is all about and eventually that will happen.

Be patient. You just have 14 days using this site and you are already thinking people hates you and you are insisting too much. You are just beginning.

So, go back to SuperUser ( or even better StackOverflow ) and post more questions, add more answers. Analyze and understand why some questions are upvoted while others are downvoted.

You'll need 2 or 3 questions with 4 to 5 upvotes to get your first 100 rep and you can post links from there. If you don't care about rep. mark your posts as community wiki and you'll still be able to be upvoted.

Finally, StackOverflow has a series of rules to which you must adhere to be part of the community ( for instance you're not an spammer, but we had bad experiences like - this is covered in the blog.stackoverflow.com: New question / Answers rate limit - )

Those limits were set and if you want to be part of this you must observe them and not start your posting by criticizing them

So, relaaaax, enjoy the ride be smart, think positive!

share|improve this answer
    
"mark your posts as community wiki and you'll still be able to be upvoted" from what I've been reading, wiki questions don't earn rep to anyone. can you confirm that? –  Cawas Mar 2 '10 at 20:41
    
That's correct but, cw can still be voted. You can have 10 upvotes and no rep from a cw Q/A. People trust more in a highly upvoted question/answer/user and a highly downvoted one. Remember this is a virtual environment, whether you like it or no, reputation reflects the trust the community members gives to certain participant. –  OscarRyz Mar 2 '10 at 20:43
    
@Oscar: I think his point was that wiki posts don't help the system trust him. –  mmyers Mar 2 '10 at 21:37
    
@Cawas: I recommend against marking a post CW unless you want the post to be frequently edited by many users. Some of the users of SO are more inclined to allow a bad post to remain unclosed if it is marked CW. Others, including myself, ignore CW in deciding to close bad posts. –  John Saunders Mar 3 '10 at 1:12
    
@John I thought that we should mark any discussions as CW if they're not really questions. This one sure wasn't. I was expecting reviews rather than answers. Anyway, maybe I should mark most of my previous questions, including this one, as CW. Shouldn't I? What you guys think? @Oscar? @mmyers? From the system point of view. –  Cawas Mar 3 '10 at 1:34
2  
@Cawas: that's not what CW is for. Have you read the FAQ (meta.stackoverflow.com/faq)? The link to the FAQ is at the bottom of each page in SO. –  John Saunders Mar 3 '10 at 6:07
    
My point is. If you don't care about rep, gain just enough ( about 100 ) to post links and start cw from there. It is true, CW are intended for well "community editing it" but nothings prevent a 2k user to edit your question anyway cw or not, it is just easier to edit cw ( the threshold is 100 pts to edit cw ) But really, I think most important thing here is, first understand what is this all about, understand its rules and then apply them. –  OscarRyz Mar 3 '10 at 18:23
    
Well, now I'm confused. From its name (Community Wiki) and what @John said, I shouldn't change my discussion questions to CW - they are discussions and probably not a relevant wiki subject to the community. But I couldn't find anything on the FAQ about this. From @Oscar maybe I should because I still understand subjective subjects shouldn't be treated as regular questions. –  Cawas Mar 4 '10 at 15:47
    
Yes. Discussion in StackOverflow in discouraged, still some relevant topics may have room there, but since they are not question what John suggest is to use CW ( in the past People abused and gained unfair reputation by asking "non-programming" related, but interesting questions - like what's your favorite programming cartoon - ) But really, discussion post should not be in SO in first place. Meta SO in the other hand is pretty much about SOFU discussion, so CW doesn't make much sense here. What I finally suggest you to do, is, keep using SO by some weeks more and it will make sense. –  OscarRyz Mar 4 '10 at 17:48
    
@Oscar @Cawas: I have not suggested using CW for discussions. I have suggested not posting discussions to SO at all. The development team for SO are aware of how CW is being used, yet have not chosen to remove it or rename it or add something else like it. That suggests to me that we should use it for what it was originally intended for, and make sure the team knows we want something different. We should not take it upon ourselves to change what CW means. –  John Saunders Mar 5 '10 at 2:23
    
Well, thank you both. I'll follow @Oscar suggestion and forget about all this for now. :) –  Cawas Mar 12 '10 at 17:10

Whether or not you care about the reputation system, you need reputation before the site will trust you to do certain things. reputation == trust ... on all the stackoverflow sites.

share|improve this answer
    
Maybe it shouldn't be mixed up like that. This makes it really difficult on new users such as in my case. –  Cawas Mar 2 '10 at 19:20
7  
@Cawas: yes, it should definitely be like that. Otherwise there would be anarchy. –  squillman Mar 2 '10 at 19:28
    
Keep giving good answers/comments and you will get those privileges. –  rlb.usa Mar 2 '10 at 19:29
    
My point is I don't think those minor things should be "privileges" or associated with that reputation and I'm a living example of why. It says it's a spam prevention system, and I'm no spammer. I may become close to a flooder, but definitely not all repeated garbage. –  Cawas Mar 2 '10 at 19:35
    
The community's point is that it thinks those privileges should be associated with rep (aka "track record"). Stack doesn't want brand-newbies editing, re-tagging, down-voting, etc - and for good reason! This serves also to show new users that first and foremost, it is a question-answer board, and to whisk all of the other details away for later. Stack is like a MMORPG where you learn things one step at a time (upvoting... and then downvoting... and then editing... etc etc). –  rlb.usa Mar 2 '10 at 21:33
    
One of your questions somehow got labeled SPAM. I don't know how or why, but this isn't about you being a spammer. Its about your rep. Aka, track record, current standings, and community endowed "trust" as Joel Coehoorn mentioned. –  rlb.usa Mar 2 '10 at 21:35
    
@rlb I completely lost track of your comments @ me here. Well, maybe I was miss-interpreting the meaning of SPAM in here all this time. But the privileges you are talking about are completely different from the ones I've mentioned. By the way, @Joel, is your "search" broken? askjonskeet.com/user/3043/Joel/search –  Cawas Mar 3 '10 at 1:29

You must log in to answer this question.

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