2

The answer here indicates that there is a minimum reputation threshold of 200 that one should have in a SE site for it to be eligible for sorting in the 'all sites' list of the StackExchange global box in the top left.

The comments in the answer indicate that people feel the 200 threshold is high. It would be helpful if that threshold is reduced/removed. It seems logical that I would want a SE site where I have reputation of just 6 to be listed above the site where I haven't even registered.

I propose the threshold to be reduced to 1. This would help users see all the sites they have registered to at the top of 'all sites' list and help them find and navigate to them quickly. I don't see any benefit in having the threshold at 200. However if it is reduced to 1 users get the advantage of finding and navigating to the sites they have registered to more quickly.

Improve this question
1
  • 1
    I think it should definitely be removed. This is something that really all (registered) users should have access to, regardless of their reputation. There are some places where it is a necessity however (like the user flair or association bonuses) but this is not one of them. I'd also like to put out there that the list should have some sort of indicator for which sites you are registered to so they can be easily identified.
    – Jeff Mercado
    Aug 3, 2011 at 22:31

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
3

It would be helpful if that threshold is reduced/removed.

I totally agree.

Currently I never use the StackExchange "all sites" feature for navigation simply because it randomly sorts sites that I've answered questions on etc but only have mid-100s rep on with sites that I have no interest in and will never visit.

If you want to lump every site between 1 and 199 rep into the same "low interest" bucket, that makes sense to me. I do think there is a very clear difference between zero and non-zero, though.

Improve this answer
2

I believe that dialog is trying to sort the sites based on your activity. A simple sort based on rep would have a problem in one special case. You can get a 100 point association bonus on any site once you have reached 200 on any site. For me there are a large number of sites I have hardly every visited and have done nothing on, but have a rep of 101. In my opinion it wouldn't really make sense to place the sites I haven't visited above the sites, I had visited and shown no interested and done absolutely nothing.

A sort by rep with no limit on the lower bound of the rep would make sense to me only if you where able to ignore the account association bonus.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .