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.

Right now, the maximum privilege "unlock" is at 10k reputation:

http://meta.stackoverflow.com/privileges

We're considering adding a new 20k reputation privilege, but having a hard time figuring out exactly what it should be.

Two guidelines:

  1. I would like it to be more than cosmetic -- I'd prefer to add a new and useful privilege that gives people actual power to effect more change on the site they have invested so much time in.
  2. It would also be clever, though by no means required, if the privilege scaled so the more reputation you get above 20k, the more potent this hypothetical privilege is. Although this could be risky and even dangerous, so be careful and think through the consequences of what you're proposing.

Let's hear it -- please propose a new 20k reputation privilege, ideally meeting at least one of the guidelines above!

share|improve this question
62  
This is the last thing that I, a 9665-rep user, needed to see. I'm already hooked, man! –  Pops Nov 11 '10 at 22:59
13  
Lol, most of these answers are by users between 19-21K rep here on meta. –  Joel Coehoorn Nov 11 '10 at 23:15
11  
I don't think that 20k rep users are more thrustworthy than 10k users. I believe after 10k one has proven one's dedication and that one knows the way around SO. I'd rather give the proposed priviledges directly to 10k users. At the moment, they don't gain much power. –  Georg Schölly Nov 12 '10 at 17:55
1  
@Georg: When you have as many users above 20k as SO has (which correlates to the number of users total), it might be worth giving them some additional privileges to reduce moderator load — and I think that should be the goal of any of these high-rep privileges. SO is getting a lot more 10kers, and the specific rep requirement is higher to both reduce the number of users (thus hopefully avoid some abuse) and make it meaningful+fun. The latter includes not swamping users with a ton of new abilities at once, which is already a problem with 10k. –  Gnome Nov 12 '10 at 18:07
3  
This list of privileges that 10k users don't have is useful: blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/05/a-theory-of-moderation –  Gordon Gustafson Nov 13 '10 at 18:13
23  
I propose the inability to answer questions that don't already have several answers. This is to take the stress of always needing to be the first to give a decent answer off their backs. (With the added bonus that other people on stackoverflow also get a chance to contribute) ;) –  Joren Nov 16 '10 at 10:11
5  
@Joren that would just increase the number of bounties offered. Also, Jon Skeet would kill you. –  Tyler Carter Dec 17 '10 at 17:51
2  
How about, the higher over 20k you are, the more points you get for upvotes, accepts ... yes I am lazily trying to increase my rep, what of it! –  Aiden Bell Feb 5 '11 at 22:14

44 Answers 44

The ability to edit questions and answers in-line.

This will make our jobs of cleaning up questions and answers much easier.

See my feature request.

share|improve this answer
1  
How is this different from the ability at 2k rep? –  jcolebrand Nov 12 '10 at 14:52
2  
@drach, there is some precedence for this type of feature. 10k users get the ability to re-tag inline. –  jjnguy Nov 12 '10 at 14:55
2  
Like with some of the other suggestions, this feels a bit underwhelming for getting 20k. It really feels like something that should be gotten with 10k, if not nearer to it than getting 10k again. This doesn't feel like something that requires waiting for double-devotion. –  Grace Note Nov 12 '10 at 15:03
1  
I agree. This sounds more like "more work for the SE team" than "useful addition to the site as a reward for being a community member" –  jcolebrand Nov 12 '10 at 15:10
2  
I'm in favour of this as an additional privilege if the team can implement it relatively easily, but wouldn't want it to be the meat of it. –  Aarobot Nov 12 '10 at 16:46
2  
I'd rather have this as a 5k rep :) –  badp Nov 12 '10 at 21:07

Let 20k+ users' votes to close as duplicate (not for the other close reasons) count twice or even thrice, so that two 20k+ users are enough to dupe-close a question.

share|improve this answer
1  
@radp I disagree. There may be frivolous duplicate votes, but all in all, the number of unclosed real duplicates overshadows them any time of the week –  Pëkka Nov 12 '10 at 10:18
1  
@radp that adds too much hassle to the process IMO. People don't necessarily want to get involved in chat discussions. I think we have too many unclosed dupes, and this would be a good way to battle them –  Pëkka Nov 12 '10 at 17:43
2  
I was going to suggest this myself - some questions in niche areas fail to reach the required number of votes to be closed as a dupe. –  Andy E Nov 12 '10 at 18:32

Someone needs to watch what users with new 10K rights are doing, so should 20K users see a list of actions being taken by new 10K users and be able to contact these new 10K users to guide them?

Maybe each new 10K user should be monitored by 2 or 3 20K users.

share|improve this answer
2  
The only new action that 10k users get is deletion/undeletion, which is pretty basic and already tracked by the 10k tools. Everything else they get is mostly reporting and tracking features, while everything they do was earned earlier. At 10k reputation they're probably less necessary to watch than users who are new to those abilities (like the newly 3k users as @Gamecat mentions). –  Grace Note Dec 17 '10 at 14:03

Give 20k trusted users more ability to help cleanup Closed As Duplicate questions.

Being able to change the close as duplicate link, so that it would point to a real canonical question would be a good start.

share|improve this answer

The ability to put a bounty on someone else's question, spending only a fraction of the reputation it would normally take.

For example, when you saw a question that you really wanted to help, you could spend 50 of your own reputation to give that question a +250 point bounty.

This would allow 20k users to shower a little bit of extra attention on highly deserving questions.

share|improve this answer
31  
If you have 20k does it really matter if you give 50 or 250? And what's up with the inflation that might lend to the system? –  jcolebrand Nov 12 '10 at 0:24
3  
If you've got 20K rep does spending it on a bounty really matter? –  Rebecca Chernoff Nov 12 '10 at 0:25
2  
well you made a good point. I can delete mine if you want to compose a better retort. –  jcolebrand Nov 12 '10 at 0:28
8  
we'd have to watch for bounty rings, of course –  Marc Gravell Nov 12 '10 at 8:05
3  
Instead of this, leave the system as is, just remove the parts that suck: The 24-hour waiting period before you can award a bounty, and the limit of one bounty at a time. That would make the system really work. –  Pëkka Nov 12 '10 at 9:35
1  
I love giving bounties to random, unanswered questions. I don't mind laying down 500 rep if anyone needs it (in fact, I was thinking of starting a chat room for it). I'd much prefer @Pekka's idea so I can throw down a few k of rep for several questions at once. –  Andy E Nov 12 '10 at 9:41

The ability to get moderator powers for reps/20k hours every week.

  • You cannot moderate questions you asked and/or answered and/or have an active bounty for.
  • If you moderate a question, you cannot answer it until your mod powers expire.
  • Once in moderator mode, you stay in moderator mode until your mod time runs out.
  • Unused mod time is lost and not saved up for the following week.

I'm against adding new features above 10k reputation because it takes a lot of time for a SE site to get even just one 20ker. Having 20k-rep-only votes makes such a privilege useless for SE sites for a long time. Super User only has four 20kers, to name one of those young sites (the fifth is just 700 rep short, however.)

share|improve this answer

Moderators on the site get a cute little icon next to their name, 20K+ should get some sort of visual indicator. This could scale well too (Color, shape, etc).

(I know this is just a "fun" thing -- it has no functional purpose -- but aren't badges just fun too?)

share|improve this answer

The ability to award extra rep or a badge to users who make some kind of great contribution, kind of like the Wikipedia Barnstar idea.

Advantage (at least of rep) is that it is completely scalable (e.g. 200 rep awards for 20K users, 300 rep for 30K etc.).

Disadvantage because it is subjective some people who don't get these awards may ask, "Hey, what about me? That's not fair" and it may create a bad atmosphere.

share|improve this answer

They can cast multiple up\down votes.

E.g. Ability to cast one more +1 for every additional 15,000 points above 20,000 and -1 with a similar penalty.

I do believe in equality, but these guys are supposed to be the most experienced\enlightened programmers and hence I think should have the ability to nudge some things in the direction that they think appropriate.

I was thinking of an implicit bonus\penalty for every vote they cast, but I guess it's better that they have the discretion to decide whether or not to.

share|improve this answer
1  
No, no, no, no. This has been proposed, like, 500 times already in different forms. Just having a high reputation doesn't guarantee higher expertise, especially in unfamiliar areas/tags. A high reputation is the result of effort and not necessarily expertise. There's a huge difference and the voting system absolutely needs to recognize that difference. –  Aarobot Nov 14 '10 at 15:31

Is there a way to allow 20K users to contribute to the code of the SO sites? I mean develop a new feature or implement some of the existing feature requests?

I'm not sure how you'd do that (since it is not open source) but I could see them creating optional add-ons.

Add-ons could be: things for easier formatting, for making database queries, for "pimping" your view or avatar, etc.

Then they could earn further rep each time the add-ons are used (for the inevitable 30K bonus).

This idea needs a lot of work, I know.

share|improve this answer

How 'bout a 20K-only chatroom? By the time you get to 20K, you've probably interacted several times with a few other high-rep (frequent) users and it would nice to have a place to get to know them in a different setting with less noise from occasional users. For scaling points you could add rooms at other thresholds as well (50K, 100K, and the private Jon Skeet-only room, where he receives new answers directly from God).

The danger here is this would pull these users out of more public chat rooms.

share|improve this answer
6  
Would this upper-crust lounge also include personal servants? –  mmyers Nov 12 '10 at 16:52
3  
Because chat is just so extremely populated right now... –  TheLQ Nov 13 '10 at 1:55

Increase daily reputation cap by 10.

share|improve this answer
16  
And the rich get richer... –  Aarobot Nov 14 '10 at 15:36

Allow 20k users to see who downvoted their questions/answers, so they can call people out. =)

share|improve this answer
22  
Oh when I reach 20k, there'll be a reckoning for this! –  hyperslug Nov 12 '10 at 2:31
16  
Combine this with letting them suspend users and watch the fun begin –  Michael Mrozek Nov 12 '10 at 7:12

You must log in to answer this question.

protected by Jon Seigel Feb 12 '11 at 23:03

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality answers, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site.

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

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