Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 158 Stack Exchange communities.

What is meta?
Here's how it works:
  1. Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
  2. The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
  3. Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates

Reputation could be earned more slowly after reaching the daily cap, rather than simply stopping altogether. This would still have the effect of encouraging people to get a life after contributing their bit for the day, but not completely discourage keen posters.

I don't fully understand the motivations behind rep cap, so maybe this is a bad idea. I just thought I'd put it out there as a suggestion.

share|improve this question
up vote 4 down vote accepted

The rep cap isn't there to encourage people to get a life; it's there to prevent someone from posting one really mega-awesome question or answer that, in the course of a day or two, grants them the powers which come from rep expansion. If you could hit 3K off one post, in just a couple days, you'd have the power to vote for closure -- without having spent the time on the site to know why one would do so and understand the culture here.

I get where this suggestion is coming from, in that it provides incentive to participate even after rep-capping, but my hunch is that those who rep-cap on a regular basis (coughJon Skeetcough) already need no incentive to continue participating after reaching the cap.

share|improve this answer
+1 plus, as Jon has mentioned a number of times, you get more focused on accepted answers after hitting the cap. I think that this dynamic is benefiting the site as a whole. – Pëkka Apr 22 '10 at 13:57
@Pekka: The change to the rep cap around accepted answers has shifted things somewhat; accepted answers are still more valuable than votes, but now it doesn't matter when the vote comes in. – Jon Skeet Apr 22 '10 at 16:45

It would complicate the system and generate more support requests for why rep was generated, or why it wasn't generated at the expected rate. It would also be more difficult to explain to new users.

Those issues are not a problem if the results are worth the cost, but I'm not sure you make a compelling argument that this change would significantly improve the site. Can you elaborate as to what you expect the outcome to be, and why that would be a positive change?

share|improve this answer
"It would complicate the system "... because it's already a finely tuned machine, why start complicating it now.... – Zombies Apr 22 '10 at 13:46
@zombies - lol - true. How about, "It would complicate the system more with no equal increase in benefit." – Adam Davis Apr 22 '10 at 14:04
my motivation for the suggestion was that I like to continue contributing after I hit the cap, but it just doesn't feel as good to keep answering question and seeing my rep stuck on the same number. I agree that my argument isn't particularly compelling, it was just a thought. – Marcelo Cantos Apr 23 '10 at 9:44

I am not sure this is duplicate or not, but I personally agree that.

For example, 2 points for answers upvote and 1 point for question upvotes.

share|improve this answer
It's ironic that someone who agrees with my suggestion gets an upvote but my question gets pounded. – Marcelo Cantos Apr 23 '10 at 9:45

You must log in to answer this question.

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