What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 127 Stack Exchange communities.

Should the amount of votes allotted to a user increase based on a user's reputation?

This includes up/down votes and close votes.

share|improve this question
    
related, but not a duplicate - meta.stackexchange.com/questions/54494/… though I'm sure I've seen this asked for before –  ChrisF Aug 15 '10 at 16:31
    
It would be impossible to discuss every single vote type in one feature request like this. Moreover, each of the separated components is more than likely a duplicate. –  Jon Seigel Aug 15 '10 at 20:44
add comment

2 Answers

up vote 3 down vote accepted

One case that I think should be explored, although I'm fairly sure it's been rejected before, is giving 10k users more close votes. To be clear, this doesn't make their close votes more powerful, and it doesn't let them close a question multiple times, it only lets them vote to close more than 12 questions per day

The reason is one of the moderation tools tabs lists questions with close votes, and it always has 45 questions on it, because that's the maximum it will show and there are always at least 45 questions on SO with active close votes. Thus an 10k user who cares about that sort of thing can use up their measly 12 close votes in a couple of minutes by going through that list and adding a vote to the questions they agree should be closed.

If the SO team doesn't want to grant extra close votes to all 10k users, it would at least be useful to give them to the users that regularly run out of votes, although that's obviously more complicated to implement, and might lead to users closing things they wouldn't have just to try and get extra close votes (everything is a competition, no matter how small).

Changing the number of up/down votes is less useful I think, but it comes down to how often active users run out of those votes; is it actually a common occurrence? I almost never do, but I'm certainly not the most active user on the site, and I probably don't vote as much as some people. If active users are voting well, there's no reason to stop them just because they're so active they run out of their daily vote allotment

share|improve this answer
add comment

I guess this is the 'long-term listener, first-time caller' conundrum - are they as important as the talk show regulars?

I think that there is some merit in allowing high contributing users more leeway in voting. They are the users that keep the site vibrant yet their voting rights (not on closures) are the same as someone who may be using the site actively for just one day - and then never return.

But I would differentiate between users who built their rep in 2008 and those who still contribute day to day - perhaps giving more voting rights to those who have built up at least 2k rep in the last 12 months?

share|improve this answer
add comment

You must log in to answer this question.

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