Timeline for Should we reduce rep bonus for upvotes on posts with a negative score?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:31 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Apr 23, 2014 at 13:35 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration
|
|
| Apr 23, 2014 at 9:11 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Migration of MSO links to MSE links
|
|
| May 10, 2011 at 20:46 | comment | added | L. Cornelius Dol | Complexity is precisely why rep should be based on net-votes for questions and answers. Net-votes positive == positive rep, net-votes zero == no rep, net-votes negative == negative rep. Maybe the factors for rep could be different for a negative vote score than positive, but it should be and should always have been a net-votes game. | |
| Jul 1, 2009 at 9:30 | comment | added | Shog9 | Ah, got it. Yes, good point - anything that increases the complexity of the reputation system will no doubt cause some amount of confusion, and resulting emails and questions for the SO team. | |
| Jul 1, 2009 at 9:12 | comment | added | Ladybug Killer | That's not my point. I mean, if they got more rep then they will wonder why it is when reduced, increased, not increased. Depending on the order: downvote - upvote, upvote - downvote. Hard to figure out for a newbie. | |
| Jul 1, 2009 at 8:30 | comment | added | Shog9 | Down-votes don't really affect new-new-users - their rep can't drop below 1! But i would like to be able to use down-votes for their intended purpose, rather than up-voting every other answer. | |
| Jul 1, 2009 at 7:16 | history | answered | Ladybug Killer | CC BY-SA 2.5 |