What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 130 Stack Exchange communities.

Possible Duplicates:
New reputation changes. Is applying it retroactively fair?
Should the weight of question upvotes be reduced?

My proposal is to reverse the effects of the recalc on all actions that have occurred before the recalc. My argument for this: Just because something is free doesn't mean that there isn't a contract of sorts in play (not legally binding of course, but still important). If a user does things according to the FAQ and guidelines, they should reap the benefits that come with these actions, such as No no-follow in their link, and all other points-required features of the site. To take these all away (or even some of them) from people who have already earned them isn't fair.

To sum it up in 2 words: Grandfather Rights

For those who haven't noticed yet, The global reputation recalc of March 2010

share|improve this question

marked as duplicate by dmckee, jmfsg, Andreas Bonini, John Saunders, Ether Mar 22 '10 at 0:50

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.

2 Answers 2

up vote 7 down vote accepted

This was discussed on the blog and we won't be pursuing that for several reasons:

  1. It's complicated -- and complicated means hard to explain and understand, which increases the support burden.

  2. Leads to discontent as "old" users gained rep using different rules and may enjoy significant advantage.

  3. It's more honest and equitable to say we value answers more than questions across the board as a sort of gravitational constant rather than "oh, except for these users during this time period".

That said, there will be some short-term pain with this change, but we believe it will make the entire trilogy Q&A ecosystem healthier for everyone in the long run.

share|improve this answer
    
Only #2 is even remotely reasonable. The others fall under the bait and switch category. –  orokusaki Mar 22 '10 at 5:50

To take these all away (or even some of them) from people who have already earned them isn't fair.

Life isn't fair, and I'd argue it's not fair to give people higher reputation than the reputation algorithm says they've earned.

share|improve this answer
    
When I'm an old lady in a rocking chair with cats on my lap, I'm going to have a saying: "There's no fair this year." –  Ether Mar 22 '10 at 0:51
    
@Ether Thanks for the value added. –  orokusaki Mar 22 '10 at 20:01
    
@cee Life has been pretty fair to me. I make lots of money, have no kids, am happily married to a women who doesn't want kids, go on vacation for 3 months per year to FL and the Bahamas, and snowboard in the winter. Life's fair to winners. Winners always win. –  orokusaki Mar 22 '10 at 20:03
1  
Until they don't, at which point they're no longer a winner. –  ceejayoz Mar 22 '10 at 20:34

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