Somewhat in the same spirit as this question, and somewhat inspired by my (recent!) discovery that one now needs 125 reputation to downvote stuff, I have to ask:

Can the question protection feature be modified so that users with less than or equal to 101 reputation cannot answer protected questions?

Additionally, I would propose that the threshold for posting in protected questions be raised to the same level as that for downvoting; that is, 125 rep. (If there are other justifiable values, well...)

This question from math.SE features a rather irrelevant answer given by a 101-rep user. I understand that this request, if granted, would have prevented the 15-rep user who at least had the courtesy to post something pertinent for the question, but I was thinking in the same line as preventing "drive-by" downvoting by 101-rep users. This (rather infamous) question also acquired a few irrelevant answers by 101 rep users (which have subsequently been deleted) until protection. (I believe there are other examples, but I can't seem to find them.)

(Since this is a meta-site, I wouldn't mind downvotes from people who disagree, but I sure would also be interested in seeing reasons why this feature request should not be implemented, in the interest of finding out my biases/blind spots.)

Thanks in advance!

  • Downvotes that go "poof". Odd...
    – user154639
    Commented Oct 12, 2011 at 18:35
  • For the record, protection on that question didn't happen until after that user's answer had been posted.
    – Grace Note StaffMod
    Commented Oct 12, 2011 at 18:50
  • 1
    Yes, I should have mentioned that filigree. Thanks @Grace.
    – user154639
    Commented Oct 12, 2011 at 19:05
  • As I said, I was hoping to see reasons for disagreement, but I guess people are just gorram lazy and clicking a button is easier for their wrists... :P
    – user154639
    Commented Oct 14, 2011 at 18:28
  • Would it not have been simpler just to raise the threshold to 111?
    – finnw
    Commented Jun 19, 2012 at 13:18

1 Answer 1


Apparently, this is already being done.

Who can answer a protected question?

Users with 10 or more reputation can answer a protected question. However, the +100 account association bonus is ignored for this check, so you must have earned 10 or more reputation on that specific site to answer a protected question.

Of course, this wouldn't block someone who reached 101 rep without the association bonus, but I think this is in the same spirit as your request.

  • I see. Should this question be closed as a dupe?
    – user154639
    Commented Oct 12, 2011 at 18:43
  • More to the point, shouldn't this be added to the list of feature changes? Commented Oct 12, 2011 at 19:46
  • @Chris Should it? I mean, Jeff Atwood edited that part in, but I have no idea when that actually changed, or even if it changed at all. Maybe it worked like this since protected questions were introduced, and the FAQ post was just missing that bit of info.
    – a cat
    Commented Oct 12, 2011 at 20:05
  • Hm, good point. Just throwing it out there... Commented Oct 12, 2011 at 20:08
  • I don't see the bold part of the message here meta.superuser.com/questions/3877/cant-post-answer-on-community-blocked-question-have-enough-points/3897#3897
    – gcb
    Commented Dec 19, 2011 at 22:28
  • What's the point of the +100 account association bonus then? "We're giving you 100 points because we trust you on other sites"... just not here?
    – JS.
    Commented Sep 16, 2015 at 20:37

You must log in to answer this question.