What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 122 Stack Exchange communities.

I think more reputation points should be required to add a new answer than to upvote an existing answer. I don't continually watch for new questions, so usually when I find a question it has already been answered. It seems bit inappropriate to answer an already-answered question in order to contribute to the conversation, but until you earn reputation, you can't upvote or comment; you can only add new answers, which prevents me from contributing at the moment as much as I would like to.

This seems backwards to me. If someone incorrectly upvotes a bad answer, the damage is minimal, as other users can down vote it and upvote the correct answers. On the other hand, an incorrect answer wastes the time of everyone who reads it. So, IMHO, it should require more reputation points to add an answer than to upvote or comment on an existing answer.

I wouldn't say say that users should be prevented from answering unanswered questions until they have x reputation points, as that might prevent users who have answers from providing them, but perhaps it should be required if the question is already answered, to discourage users from reiterating previously given answers.

What do you think?

share|improve this question
3  
I dunno, but I doubt this question is going to help you get to 15. –  Larry Lustig Mar 5 '10 at 21:27
6  
Didn't read it all, but upvoted to get you to 15. :D Happy friday. (And it even "took" before the migration.) –  Hogan Mar 5 '10 at 21:27
1  
It should at least be possible to upvote one answer to my own question without a minimum reputation. In the Android tag we have many newcomers and many good un-upvoted answers because they cannot upvote them. –  Dirk Jäckel Jun 24 '12 at 11:32
1  
Also an asker without rep can't upvote an answer even if it helped him. –  Qwerty Mar 1 '13 at 10:12
add comment

migrated from stackoverflow.com Mar 5 '10 at 21:27

This question came from our site for professional and enthusiast programmers.

2 Answers

up vote 40 down vote accepted

Probably to prevent people from upvoting themselves with a large number of new accounts.

share|improve this answer
2  
This is probably the intent but the threshold is way too low. I bet I could get 15+ rep by re-asking, word for word, an existing question ;-) –  Cory Charlton Mar 5 '10 at 21:47
    
@Cory Probably. But you'd need to do it for every single vote you wanted. Which might allow you to "dominate" an individual question, but would be a pretty steep impediment to increasing your rep. –  AaronSieb Mar 5 '10 at 21:54
3  
So what prevents spam bots from adding answers to existing questions? –  user144266 Mar 5 '10 at 21:56
1  
@Cory: yeah, but you'll also get the attention of the mods. Besides, its hard to encourage people to contribute if there's a higher barrier to answer than to up-vote. –  AnonJr Mar 5 '10 at 22:02
1  
@Kurt There's some throttling in place on SO to catch bots. The more activities a bot needs to perform, the more likely it is to run afoul of that. In addition, rep takes non-zero time to accumulate, so the accounts have to be kept track of. I doubt that it's bullet proof, so much as it's intended to make the process harder. –  AaronSieb Mar 5 '10 at 22:11
add comment

This would essentially bar anybody from participating who hasn't asked a question worth a few upvotes. A newcomer has to get reputation somehow, and for an experienced person the usual way is to start answering questions. This is not only instant participation, but it allows the newcomer to start gaining rep.

I don't see any reason to bar answers over questions or questions over answers for a newcomer. Either will be annoying if bad.

share|improve this answer
add comment

You must log in to answer this question.