Timeline for Revisiting the rep cap (yes, again)
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
23 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 3, 2020 at 13:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Jun 14, 2012 at 20:28 | comment | added | jcolebrand | @voretaq7 that's precisely what I mean. We need to give some decaying momentum, but it doesn't have to be a whirlwind and then nothing. I literally think decayed momentum is the way to go. I'm even inclined to introduce an aging factor to artificially advance votes to the next "tier" but that seems even more grossly complicated and the sort of thing that I would only do if I were really bored, or really wanted to push the edge of rep. | |
| Jun 14, 2012 at 20:25 | comment | added | voretaq7 | The big advantage in the decaying momentum approach is a 5 year old post may still gain some rep for the user if people find it useful (and it hasn't already hit its max potential) - I can get behind this for that reason alone. | |
| Jun 14, 2012 at 20:21 | history | edited | jcolebrand | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 425 characters in body
|
| Jun 14, 2012 at 20:04 | comment | added | jcolebrand | I am no more tied to 1000 than skeet is to 100. I just see some merit in this concept. | |
| Jun 14, 2012 at 20:00 | comment | added | voretaq7 | @jcolebrand I'd rather see the per-post rep cap lower (200-500 range) to encourage people to keep coming back and posting more (hopefully excellent) answers. That sword can cut both ways though... | |
| Jun 14, 2012 at 19:59 | history | edited | jcolebrand | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 874 characters in body
|
| Jun 14, 2012 at 19:54 | comment | added | jcolebrand | @JeffAtwood so that's what I'm saying, daily rep-cap and per-post rep cap but I think that we should recognize really good answers well past 500 rep. | |
| Jun 14, 2012 at 19:53 | comment | added | Pekka | @Jeff yeah, that sounds most sensible to me, too | |
| Jun 14, 2012 at 19:53 | comment | added | random Mod | Don't worry about deleting (if you could on accepted) @pekka the new rules state that even if the question never belonged, because it's over 60 days and everyone has more than +3, they keep all that rep | |
| Jun 14, 2012 at 19:53 | comment | added | Jeff Atwood | @pekka those seem like totally valid answers to me, and people continue to find them useful. I could maybe support a per-post rep cap IN ADDITION TO the daily cap to prevent some of the insanity, but much higher, at like +200 ~ +500 | |
| Jun 14, 2012 at 19:49 | comment | added | Pekka | @Jeff I can show you some from my very own account - and I'm sure they're not the worst cases. eg stackoverflow.com/questions/6992793 (which I'm considering deleting) stackoverflow.com/questions/1683843 which is a correct answer, but does it deserve 450 (theoretical) points? stackoverflow.com/questions/5103283 40 upvotes for a manual link because the OP happened to miss it? My point is, over time, the bike shed effect takes place on all sorts of answers. I see users who have accrued a lot of rep (north of 50k) by answering brain-dead questions with manual links. | |
| Jun 14, 2012 at 19:48 | comment | added | jcolebrand | Oh I see, that is a good point. I think if we keep the per-day then we limit the per-post to something well beyond 100 rep, but that's just me. | |
| Jun 14, 2012 at 19:47 | comment | added | Pekka | @jcolebrand not completely: Jon is arguing in favour of getting rid of the per-day limit. I mean keeping the per-day limit, and adding the per-post one | |
| Jun 14, 2012 at 19:46 | comment | added | Pekka | @Jeff not all of them. An individual cap might even help having more calm discussions about what should be deleted and what shouldn't. I'm not saying people are rep-envious but seeing a (in your opinion) crap post gaining thousands of points does add emotional fuel | |
| Jun 14, 2012 at 19:46 | comment | added | jcolebrand | @Pekka I think "per-post-rep-limit" is what mr "all time highest rep" is trying to "fix". I think that's the point of this post. | |
| Jun 14, 2012 at 19:45 | comment | added | jcolebrand | Hence "prorated vote worth", because I think that it's important that they keep getting upvotes, and that they should be rewarded, but I wonder if a solid cap is the way to go, or if it should wear down smoothly. Maybe the max you can earn from one excellent post is 1000 rep, and the first ten are at max value, then 9 pts per ten, then 8 pts, etc, leveling out at 1 pt for the remaining upvotes. Downvotes count against, so 998 max, 996 max, 994 max, etc. | |
| Jun 14, 2012 at 19:45 | comment | added | Pekka | @Jon would the per-post rep limit be something that is worth discussing on its own, then? | |
| Jun 14, 2012 at 19:45 | comment | added | Jeff Atwood | @jon that's a bit of a strawman though, since the "questions" those answers are on tend to be bikeshed/opinion in nature and really should never have been allowed in the first place. | |
| Jun 14, 2012 at 19:44 | history | edited | Gaffi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Jun 14, 2012 at 19:44 | comment | added | Jon Skeet | More than just that - I think the "every post has a maximum potential value" is actually the most important aspect. A post which has garnered 1000 votes over the course of a year (at a few per day) isn't really so good that the user deserves 10K rep for that one answer, IMO. | |
| S Jun 14, 2012 at 19:42 | history | answered | jcolebrand | CC BY-SA 3.0 | |
| S Jun 14, 2012 at 19:42 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by jcolebrand |