Timeline for Why can't a user have simultaneous bounties any more?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 2, 2011 at 0:34 | comment | added | Jeff Atwood | well now it is at 3 :) | |
| Jul 27, 2011 at 11:37 | comment | added | Kaos | @Jon: Ah, pretty obvious that I didn't do my research before posting that comment.. :-} Thanks for the link. | |
| Jul 1, 2011 at 15:31 | comment | added | Jon Seigel | @Kaos: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/96481/queue-for-bounties | |
| Jul 1, 2011 at 8:54 | comment | added | Kaos | Why not have a queuing system. So you can put a bounty for a question in a queue. Each time your current bounty is closed, the next bounty in the queue becomes active. That way you don't have to mark your calendars, and it keeps a arbitrary limit in place (be it 1, 2 or some other limit on concurrent bounties). | |
| Jan 13, 2011 at 19:42 | comment | added | tim | The argument is invalid as high hit-point users can spend LOTS of hit points on their questions. Also, the limit for putting a bounty out is VERY low. THis argument is not a valid reason for such an arbitrary limit. | |
| Jun 19, 2010 at 19:10 | comment | added | Grace Note StaffMod | @Down 3 makes sense. That sounds very reasonable, but like Jon I'm in favor of testing the waters with the stricter limit first. | |
| Jun 19, 2010 at 19:06 | comment | added | Pekka | @ccomet that is a good point too. Still, I think three at a time is still a reasonable demand - or apply the limit to bounties on other people's questions, which is something I could understand. | |
| Jun 19, 2010 at 19:02 | comment | added | Grace Note StaffMod | @Down Beefy reputation users may ask fewer questions, but that doesn't mean they can't be interested in a fair number of them. It still falls that the more reputation you have, the more questions you can promote. Yes, it'll be promoting other user's questions, but it'll be promoted because those beefreps wanted it to. Which means that beefreps would get a significantly larger voice on what questions are featured. | |
| Jun 19, 2010 at 18:54 | comment | added | Jon Seigel | @Dow: Good point. As I mentioned in my answer, we should probably wait a while to evaluate how the changes to the system will be accepted and utilized (or not). The limit of 1 question may be a sign that the dev team is taking a cautious approach to this, since they did, after all, open up the system considerably. | |
| Jun 19, 2010 at 18:43 | comment | added | Pekka | @Jon this is an interesting point you raise, and certainly worth being considered. However, on the other hand, the higher your reputation, the less questions and - usually - bounty questions you are likely to ask. I see your point but I'm not sure to what extent the danger of questions from high-rep people overshadowing others really exists. Anyway, I could live with a 3-question limit. But that really should be. One question is not enough. | |
| Jun 19, 2010 at 18:25 | comment | added | Jon Seigel | @Dow: I updated my answer. Don't get me wrong -- I like your idea for spending rep on bounties, but I think it's the kind of thing the limits were designed to help avoid. Besides, if you set up 1 bounty question at +500 every week for a year, that's 26k rep spent. Is that too little? | |
| Jun 19, 2010 at 18:21 | history | edited | Jon Seigel | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 687 characters in body
|
| Jun 19, 2010 at 17:24 | comment | added | Pekka | @Jon I am a serious bounty shopper: I've spent about 3,000 points for bounties this year alone. When I heard about the new system, I started a 500 bounty straight away just for the hell of it, and I would have spent another 1,500 on good questions I had in my sights. I start bounties rarely out of a dire need, but more often to get a variety of opinions, to take care of a question I find worth grooming, or to find out what is the best option to do X. It's fun to do (and a good way to spend rep) but I'm not ready to do this if I have to keep a weeks-long schedule when to start the next bounty. | |
| Jun 19, 2010 at 16:59 | history | edited | Jon Seigel | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 55 characters in body
|
| Jun 19, 2010 at 16:56 | comment | added | Jon Seigel | @Dow: You would already be taking advantage of the new ability by putting a bounty on someone else's question. I think if you're really serious enough about getting an answer to a question (maybe you need it for work or something), then you will write it down for later if you can't start a bounty immediately. I suggested an increase to 2 questions because it could be seen as one ongoing question, and one "emergency" question. | |
| Jun 19, 2010 at 16:49 | comment | added | Pekka | The thing is that I won't take advantage of the ability if I can't start more than one bounty at once. When I come across a question I find interesting and worthy sponsoring, I want to be able to start that bounty straight away and not in a week's time. I'm not going to write a new item into my calendar for this. Therefore, this sucks big time and takes away all the fun. Good explanation for why the limit is there in the first place, though. Thanks. | |
| Jun 19, 2010 at 16:31 | history | answered | Jon Seigel | CC BY-SA 2.5 |