Timeline for A cap on reputation from a single answer (not daily, but forever)?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 23, 2017 at 12:36 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| Jan 8, 2014 at 15:21 | comment | added | Shahbaz |
When I had posted the question I hadn't thought about that. But then again I imagined adding an if (post.up_votes < 20) before increasing the reputation wasn't that much of a trouble either.
|
|
| Jan 8, 2014 at 15:10 | comment | added | Jonathan Garber | Okay, I can agree with you on the specific point that Remy should have edit/close privileges. That's perfectly true. But again, if it's a problem, why hasn't Remy come to Meta to ask about it? Again, I'm not trying to say that this isn't slightly unequal toward people like Remy, but what can you say to the developers to convince them that this should have a higher priority if it ever makes it into their request queue? | |
| Jan 8, 2014 at 15:00 | comment | added | Shahbaz | Just a couple of clarifications: As I mentioned, I don't care about the number, just the side effects. Your example shows another problem with SO. If Remyabel is a top C++ user, but can't cast close/reopen votes while a user with a single answer can? Does that look alright to you? Also, I don't know if those users go rampant with vandalism, probably not, but don't you agree that the robo-reviewers shouldn't have had review rights? Could it be that they gained their previleges from such reputation points? (Again, I don't know, it's for SO developers to actually check) | |
| Jan 8, 2014 at 14:52 | history | answered | Jonathan Garber | CC BY-SA 3.0 |