Timeline for A cap on reputation from a single answer (not daily, but forever)?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 3, 2020 at 13:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Jan 9, 2014 at 8:18 | history | edited | slugster | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Jan 8, 2014 at 17:08 | comment | added | badp | You lost me at "communism." Reputation is not a finite resource where if I hoard too many points, there's not enough left for everybody else. I think it's reasonable to rate limit reputation both on a time scale and on an answer scale; it makes exceedingly simple questions less appealing because, while they still generate a lot of views and votes in the mad rush for precious reps, the rewards are capped. | |
| Jan 8, 2014 at 13:39 | comment | added | Shahbaz | By the way, the argument in paragraph that says: "If someone ...", can be applied to daily reputation cap too. If it's not ok to stop awarding rep to a user because they already have enough, then why is there a daily rep cap? If we shouldn't be in a position of asking "How much rep is too much?", then why was 200 rep for daily cap was chosen? The answer seems to be contradicting some of the choices already maid in the system. | |
| May 10, 2012 at 10:18 | comment | added | Shahbaz | I don't really care how the problem is solved (as long as it is). My problem is not with the number that represents your reputation, but with other stuff that come with it. The privileges are an example. The same user I mentioned is considered one of the top 9% users of this quarter even though he has done nothing. See what I mean? The side effects are many. | |
| May 10, 2012 at 0:34 | history | edited | slugster | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| May 10, 2012 at 0:23 | comment | added | Jon Ericson | @Bruno: I'd argue (as someone who knows sed better than c#) that you are never going to solve the problem of the vagarities of the universe rewarding the lucky over the deserving once in a while. In the big picture, throwing out the advantages of luck will hurt the persistent more than the lucky, believe it or not. | |
| May 10, 2012 at 0:08 | comment | added | Bruno | There is a general issue, though, about some of these scores. There are general inequalities between tags and specificity of questions. Sometimes, the more expertise is required to write a question, the less likely it is to be highly upvoted. I think these lottery questions (often based on low-hanging fruits) will ultimately drive more expert users away. | |
| May 10, 2012 at 0:03 | history | answered | slugster | CC BY-SA 3.0 |