Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 157 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

Possible Duplicate:
Why did I receive a message saying I have been granted a privilege, yet I don't have enough reputation?

Was probably lucky (?) enough to meet that possible bug.

Got exactly 1999 rep on SO, and got the top banner "Congratulations you can edit q & a" (roughly!).

While I can't since it requires 2000...

Edit Btw I wonder how the difference can occur in a system based on transactions ... :-) Provided that it is...

share|improve this question

marked as duplicate by Jon Seigel, Jeff Atwood Jan 2 '11 at 4:30

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.

up vote 6 down vote accepted

Most likely you were temporarily at 2000+, and then you got downvoted or downvoted somebody else and dropped below it. The message is pushed to you as soon as you hit 2000 for the first time, even if you later fall below it again

share|improve this answer
I don't think so - it appeared after a refresh when I was actively using SO, and there was no other rep movement than the +10 (1989 to 1999). It could be due to the lag between the rep shown and the actual rep (re)count... Pls see the other answers. – ringø Jan 1 '11 at 7:40
@ring0 I saw the other answer; I commented on it. The only rep that matters is the one you see at the top of the screen; that's your actual reputation as far as the site is concerned. If you really didn't go over 2000 then this might be a bug, but it has nothing to do with rep recalcs or the rep listed on /reputation – Michael Mrozek Jan 1 '11 at 8:47
@MM Actually I followed the instructions from Johannes in the other answer (recalc) and my rep went from 1999 to 1981... ant it both (1999,1981) were displayed at the top of the screen, so he must be right! – ringø Jan 1 '11 at 9:01
@ring0 Well of course it changed, that's the point of a recalc; how does that make him right? You asked why you got the privilege notification early, and he told you how to recalc your rep if it's out of sync -- his answer is correct, but not for the question you asked. Out of sync rep has nothing to do with privileges – Michael Mrozek Jan 1 '11 at 18:26
@Michael I'm still wondering how you can say this for sure unless someone of the SO team told you. The software could do anything under the cover. Why would it use the cached rep if it could accurately calculate it and give the badge based on the calculation result (using a cron job every 10 minutes for example)? – Johannes Schaub - litb Jan 2 '11 at 2:27
@Johannes Because doing the complete calculation is slow, that's why they cache the rep in the first place. It's fine to do the calculation when a user requests it, but to use it for badge purposes they would have to recalculate every user's rep, every 10 minutes. (I also don't know where badges came from; this question doesn't actually have anything to do with badges, he asked about privilege notifications) – Michael Mrozek Jan 2 '11 at 2:35
@MM I'm afraid there was a digression, followed by a confusion. My point was simply that I never reached 2000 when the banner congratulated me as new editor - and I think there is a bug. The recalc story is just to emphasize that even though the actual score would have made me an editor, while the top rating was still 1999, it was not the case: doing the recalc decreased the score. I never reached 2000 and was visibly at 1999 when the banner appeared. The banner comes from the virtual score. Actual rights are based on the actual score (i was not editor at 1999 despite the banner). – ringø Jan 2 '11 at 2:58
@ring0, Let's say you load the page. You've got 1989 rep. You get an upvote each from PersonA and PersonB. This puts you at 2009 and the system queues up the privilege banner. PersonB removes their vote. Your rep is now 1999. You refresh the page and see the banner and your rep at 1999. This matches exactly the scenario presented by Michael in his answer. Just because you didn't see your rep go above 2000 doesn't mean it didn't. There's no notification if a vote is removed from one of your posts, so you cannot say that this is not what happened. – Rebecca Chernoff Jan 2 '11 at 3:41
@Rebecca (nice name) Agreed 100%. However I was using actively SO at the time, checking the score while answering many questions (wanted to reach those 2000!). So I think it is unlikely the scenario +x -x did happen. But it is possible. – ringø Jan 2 '11 at 3:49
@ring0, why do you think it is unlikely? – Rebecca Chernoff Jan 2 '11 at 3:53
@Rebecca Unlikely because I was very active and saw my score every 30 seconds :-) So the probability that it happened is pretty low. Also, if it would have happened, my guess is that the banner would have appeared during the brief history of time my score was above 2000 - but when the banner appeared my score was 1999 (I didn't do a refresh or page change between the banner apparition and my score check!). Logically, the banner and the score (even though it would have changed slightly after) should have matched - when the banner appeared the page was a "screenshot" of the score :-) – ringø Jan 2 '11 at 4:20
@ring0, It could take someone maybe 2 whole seconds to add a vote and then remove it. – Rebecca Chernoff Jan 2 '11 at 4:22
@Rebecca Ok, it depends on how the SO system works - and I'm not sure about that. My assumption is that in order not to make useless checks, the banners triggering check is performed when the user (me) refreshes/changes page. So even though someone else would have upvoted me for a Planck time, I doubt SO would have triggered the editor mode. Again, logically, the banner display and score display should match. We should have a coffee sometime ... :-) – ringø Jan 2 '11 at 4:28
@ring0, your assumption is incorrect. That's what we've been saying. – Rebecca Chernoff Jan 2 '11 at 4:29
@Rebecca, that's what I understand from your replies, but I'm not convinced. Unless a moderator endorses any of the assumptions... – ringø Jan 2 '11 at 4:30

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