Timeline for How can we make SO reputation more realistic
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 4, 2009 at 21:53 | comment | added | GManNickG | I've made this a suggestion: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/31902/… | |
| Dec 4, 2009 at 17:12 | comment | added | John Rudy | @Chuck: You do understand that the rep cap itself helps limit the amount of rep a person gets from a single post one way or the other, right? | |
| Dec 4, 2009 at 16:21 | vote | accept | Chuck Vose | ||
| Dec 4, 2009 at 16:19 | vote | accept | Chuck Vose | ||
| Dec 4, 2009 at 16:21 | |||||
| Dec 4, 2009 at 15:54 | comment | added | John Rudy | To answer the question about what happens to pre-wiki rep, no you don't lose it: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/16750/… | |
| Dec 4, 2009 at 12:07 | comment | added | tvanfosson | Awesome idea. Once its implemented I only need maybe 4-5 other people to help me edit all of @Jon Skeet and @Marc Gravell's answers so as to reduce them to the reputation-less noobs that they are. Wait, my reputation is melting, melting...oh, what a world, what a world. Who would have thought such a little change could destroy my beautiful reputation.... | |
| Dec 4, 2009 at 9:36 | comment | added | BinaryMisfit | @Robert. Diamond moderators can't revoke rep as far as I am aware. We can however convert complete questions and answers to wiki. Also, we can re-calc rep on a user, which leads to rep generally going down due to deletions. | |
| Dec 4, 2009 at 8:18 | comment | added | GManNickG | I think your first premise isn't sound. Many times, people make questions that should be CW, but they don't know any better. The questioners original intent is not what's fair. by your logic, if something posts an answer on a CW question that wasn't always so, they should get rep for their answer since that's what the OP intended. This of course defeats the entire purpose of making it CW in the first place. | |
| Dec 4, 2009 at 7:48 | comment | added | user102937 | If a question asker does not mark a question CW, I assume that the asker of the question intends for people to make rep on a question. Only a moderator can reverse that decision, and my understanding is that they only do so when a question should clearly be CW. If people make points from the question, they do so under the question asker's original intent. Remember, the asker of the question gets to decide on CW ("make this cw" bullying notwithstanding). Whether they read the numerous FAQs available to them or not doesn't change this basic fact. | |
| Dec 4, 2009 at 7:45 | comment | added | user102937 | You'll have to ask the moderators, but I believe they also have the power to revoke rep, although they rarely do except in egregious circumstances. | |
| Dec 4, 2009 at 6:39 | comment | added | GManNickG | Robert, I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from. As it stands, when a new "should-be-CW" question comes up, some people jump on the wagon and try to get lots of rep before it becomes subjective. It seems strange to me that this would be possible. If you can't get rep on a question after it's CW, why should you get rep from before? | |
| Dec 4, 2009 at 6:29 | comment | added | Ether | When a post becomes CW, does it lose all rep earned, or simply fail to gain any additional rep? | |
| Dec 4, 2009 at 6:20 | comment | added | user102937 | If you really need this kind of correction, just flag the question for moderation, and put "Should be Community Wiki" in as the reason. The moderators have the power to wiki both questions and answers. | |
| Dec 4, 2009 at 6:18 | comment | added | user102937 | Please don't do this. Community Wiki is muddy enough as it is. The few people who might benefit from it don't really understand what it is, and adding incentive to force more questions into Wiki would just make it the ultimate mosh pit. | |
| Dec 4, 2009 at 4:14 | comment | added | John Rudy | It would help if after I post my nice comment about agreeing with you, I actually click the upvote button I meant to click. My bad; corrected. +1 fer relz this time. | |
| Dec 4, 2009 at 4:03 | comment | added | John Rudy | Whilst I disagree with whining about a closed post on Meta, I totally agree with this suggestion. BTW, I say this at my own risk -- I'm very certain I'd lose about 200 - 300 rep on SO if this were implemented, and I'd be happy to do so. | |
| Dec 4, 2009 at 3:17 | history | answered | GManNickG | CC BY-SA 2.5 |