Lower the amount of reputation needed to comment

Question

This question is a great example of people coming from Google and using answers as comments.

I understand the reputation threshold is there to prevent spam, but Answers are just as prone to spam as comments and you can post them at reputation 1. Furthermore there are already flags in place as a preventive measure for both.

Essentially the reputation threshold of comments is forcing people to use the site in ways the designers did not intend. Removal of the reputation cap would also make the site more new user friendly as newbies that use the site in this manner are commonly given a unfriendly welcome in the form of downvotes from people who forget you need 50 rep to post comments.

Answer 1

I updated the /faq to clarify this point

you can always comment on your questions and answers, and any answers to questions you've asked, even with 1 rep.

Answer 2

As a new user I've come across questions where I would have liked to comment, but are unable. I feel that an answer should indeed be an answer, not just a comment about an already given answer or a helpful hint, and because of this I've refrained from contributing anything.

I understand that spam could easily become a problem if everybody can post comments, but how about lowering it to 15. With my current rep of 1, 50 sounds like science-fiction to me :)

Answer 3

Why is a user - considered reputable enough to post an answer - not considered reputable enough to comment on someone else's answer - especially to highlight a correction, for example? If she has something to say, she's probably going to say it anyway, but she's forced to say it in the wrong place.

I like Joe Holloway's suggestion. Alternatively how about a UI element that makes it clear that the poster did not have enough rep to comment, and allow users (perhaps only those with enough rep) to promote (demote?) the answer to a comment (or flag to do so). Any answer upvotes could be converted into comment upvotes.

I admit this is probably overcomplicating things, but I do see a lot of these answers-as-comments :)

Answer 4

Totally agree with the OP. In the beginning of the week I experienced following situation: I looked for an answer to a question about mapping webcam image coordinates to screen coordinates and was directed to a Stack Overflow question.

One of the answers was very elaborate and seemed to be exactly what I was looking for. Were it not that one single mathematical detail raised a small question. The answering person clearly stated that he welcomed all questions for clarifications, but I was unable to comment anything. The only option seemed to be to word my question in an answer, and that just felt like too much abuse for a newbie to afford. So I did nothing. (although I can pledge to spend some time on the site to answer other people's questions, this wasn't an option this week, sadly)

The result: my problem isn't solved. I have spent days working out the solution on my own, while the answering person could have offered it in hours. A very frustrating experience when the solution is around the corner, but unreachable.

I understand the concept of having to contribute in order to profit, but imho asking refinement of or pointing to a problem in an answer is contributing.

My first contact with SO, as someone searching for an answer, was very frustrating.

Answer 5

Oh, please... It takes 50 rep to leave comments on other people's questions. You can leave comments on your own questions right off the bat.

You can also edit your own question to add qualifying information.

That should be enough. Users that can't figure that out are having trouble for other reasons...

---

FWIW, the question you linked to has comments left by users who are posting unnecessary "thank you" messages or asking irrelevant questions. They could and should be posting their own questions rather than trying to piggy-back on an existing one. Again, problems more severe than simply being unable to comment.

---

Just to clarify my stance on this: comments are bordering on useless compared to questions or answers. There's no revision history, no direct links, offer no contribution to your reputation, and they can and do disappear without leaving a trace... Comments are the post-it notes of SO: useful for quick and dirty little exchanges, but pointless long-term. If you have something to ask or to contribute, especially as a new user, comments should be your last choice. And, whaddaya know, the system encourages this!

Answer 6

Yes, I registered on Meta only to upvote (or at least up-answer, as I cannot vote yet) this request.

I already had several occasions, where I wanted to comment on something, but couldn't. And please don't tell me, that earning 50 reputation is that easy. On Stack Overflow you need to refresh the page every five seconds to even get the chance of answering a question first and therefore getting an upvote.

Answer 7

Commenting on other user's questions in order to gain additional information in the appropriate manner (comments instead of answers) needed to construct good answers to other user's questions is by effect discouraged for new users. I think that the reputation system is perfect for other areas (e.g. restricting the ability to rank questions/answers) but I feel that restricting comments is too prohibitive and prevents some of the potential useful community feedback. I believe that comments and answers should go hand in hand (both allowed or disallowed with low to no reputation) as they are both critical tools needed to properly participate in a question and one without the other encourages improper use. This was my experience while trying to participate as a new user.

Answer 8

Though I've been using Stack Overflow for a while, I still only have 30 points, because I was extremely careful with researching questions and answers to questions before I asked my own. Unless questions are about a brand new product, they've probably already been asked and answered.

I spent a few days composing my first question on Stack Overflow, and got 24 points or so in exchange. I spent far less time on my second question, and far fewer points: 6.

Now I'm just banging this answer out now, because I want to comment on some other guy's answer on Stack Overflow. I hate the idea (and it may be only in my mind) that people who just toss off any old question without doing research, thereby adding noise to Stack Overflow, get lots of points. And that the most fabulously "respected" users are those who have been asking questions that can only be discussed, not answered.

[/rant]

Answer 9

Comment "everywhere" (on other peoples' posts), are supposed to be suggestions for improvement. The idea is that you should need 50 rep points to suggest improvements to others, having gained some experience writing questions and answers yourself. You can always reply to comments on your own posts with any reputation.

Put another way, your answers (and questions) can be downvoted by other, which is form of "discipline." Your comments can't be, (except in extreme cases where they are flagged as spam), which is why you need the higher reputation.

Answer 10

Having a limit at 50 does stimulate people to make their first contributions.

The way you can earn extra privileges by contributing makes Stack Overflow addicting to use.

By giving too many privileges in the beginning, that element is taken away.

The addiction factor is important for the success of the site. It keeps people coming back, and it keeps people contributing.

Answer 11

The fundamental problem here is that in order to allow low-reputation users to post comments everywhere, we would need to be able to systematically monitor every comment posted by a low-rep user. This would mean that such comments would need to be subject to spam checks and reviewing, greatly increasing moderation (and server) workload.

In order for comments to be reviewable in a queue, they'd need to be searchable. Comments aren't indexed for search and enabling comment indexing would dramatically increase server load given the sheer number of comments in the system. Furthermore, on sites like Stack Overflow where the moderation burden is already extremely high, adding a review queue for comments would likely cause the burden to exceed what the community is able to handle.

Because comments are intended to be an adjunct to the main content and are not meant to be permanent, this added moderation effort (and server load) is sadly not worth it.

Answer 12

Most arguments for lowering the threshold add up to "We are barring new users from participating!"

1. You don't have to even be registered to benefit from the repository of knowledge contained on the Stack Exchange network.
2. You don't have to have any reputation to ask a question.
3. You don't have to have any reputation to answer a question.
4. You don't have to have any reputation to comment on your own posts (questions or answers), or on answers you receive.
5. If you think you are "underprivileged," prove that you are here to contribute to the knowledge base: ask and answer questions.
6. You can even ask and self-answer a question; it's explicitly encouraged.
7. If you want discussion, go elsewhere.
8. Better yet, read the tour page:

Answer 13

I agree with the OP on this.

A thought I had is what if noobs could leave "moderated" comments which simply aren't visible to the general public until they've been accepted as relevant by at least one user with, say, 2000 reputation points.

Perhaps the noob even gains a reputation point or two each time they pass the "relevance test" up to the point where they are trusted enough to leave unmoderated comments.

Answer 14

I started on this site (and Server Fault) with 100 rep, because I'm active on Stack Overflow.

Anybody who has a bit of rep on another site can link accounts and be able to leave comments and even downvote (although it may not take many downvotes to lose that privilege).

The only reason you wouldn't be able to leave comments is because you're a newbie to the whole system. There's nothing wrong with that, but I'd like to be able to vote on your answers in ways that count for rep, and leave comments on your answers, until you get a bit more experience.

Answer 15

I agree with the OP, as I've experienced this exact issue myself.

I wanted to raise the profile of a question that was unanswered, and an exact duplicate of an issue I was having. I could neither upvote, nor comment on the question. (Note: I can see the value in not allowing new users to upvote/downvote)

Another time I wanted to comment on an answer, and I was unable.

Some here have claimed that it's easy to rack up 50 rep, but it isn't when you a) Have no original questions that haven't already been asked / aren't easily google-able, and b) Aren't knowledgeable enough to answer most questions (this applies to me on Stack Overflow), beyond any answers they may have already received.

I have found SE one of the hardest communities on the internet to actually participate in any meaningful way in.

Perhaps, instead of lowering the required rep, giving new users an allowance of say x-comments per 24 hours. For people like me, who want to improve, and want to give back, but find themselves unable due to lack of knowledge and lack of new questions, that would be a nice bridge between the 'I feel as though I can't actually do anything beyond read on this site' and 'wow I've thought of several questions. [Several hours later] Now suddenly, I can vote, comment and actually take part'.

For some Stack Exchange sites (notably Stack Overflow and Software Engineering), it is still a very static read-only experience for me. The level of questions are far above my current level generally, but reading the answers I often want to comment on the question or answers, perhaps to ask a tiny question about a very minor detail (that would normally be closed as too specific) about the code sample provided as an answer.

Any new question I ask, at my current level, will be either googleable or already asked (thus not really helping me gain rep - as it'll be closed as duplicate or easily google-able). But if I could participate in comments, even with a limit as I suggested earlier, it would help me improve far more.

Answer 16

Often a new user who doesn't already have the association bonus is trying to find questions to answer to get to 50 so that he can help askers clarify their questions. Officially, a new user is supposed to skip a currently-unclear question and go on to the next. But when he tries, most of the sufficiently clear questions on the front page or the "unanswered" view are out of the new user's area of expertise (such as an R or C# question to a Python programmer on SO). So the user tries to narrow it to a tag in which the user has expertise, but everything that the user can answer already has an answer by the "fastest gun in the West" who is probably someone else camping that tag. New users in this situation can try one of three things:

• Improve a couple dozen other answers on the site. (Child metas don't count because they neither use suggested edits nor give reputation.)
• Compose answers for one or more interpretations of a question. This runs the risk of downvotes later on once the asker has clarified his question if the answerer guesses wrong.

Answer 17

The comment threshold is 1 for meta, but 50 for Stack Overflow, and I think it should be 1 for Stack Overflow, too (on other people's questions) ...

I agree with the OP, and the following from this question w/answers (my words):

• a low threshold on comments makes Stack Overflow more open to new users
• high threshold encourages misuse of answers as comments,
• ..creating negative experiences for new users, like downvoting and negative comments - pushing away new users (regardless of IQ and EQ levels)
• comments are "post-it notes", less important than questions or answers, but are definitively useful for "small stuff", like observations, associations, followup questions, etc.
• a comment is the "least bad" place to get spam, but comments are more restricted than questions or answers... (on Stack Overflow)
• a limit of 1 to comment wouldn't create more "spam" from newbies, just move it to a less disturbing place

Answer 18

If the main motivation of requiring reputation to comment is to prevent spam, perhaps users with low reputation could be required to pass a CAPTCHA in order to comment. This may put up enough of a barrier to spammers. (I too have been very frustrated by not being able to post a comment to request clarifying information or to provide some myself.)

Answer 19

Please no.

We have enough people who argue against clear community decisions in the comments, obviously without reading the FAQ. We do not need to lower the bar. If anything, we should raise it.

Anyone who is stupid enough to post an answer that should be a comment should be treated in an unfriendly manner.

Don't forget this is also one of the main ways we fight spam.

Answer 20

I think this should be done, because spammers can be banned, and either way, newcomers are going to abuse the answer system.

The faster they learn to use comments, the faster they'll stop spamming the answers.

Answer 21

I've been using Stack Overflow for a long time, but I never bother to log in, because most of the time I don't have an answer to questions; I only have comments and/or questions to an answerer. But since I don't have any reputation, I can't comment.

I find it utterly strange that as a newbie, I am allowed to edit an answer made by someone else, but I am not allowed to add a simple comment after any answer.

I wouldn't comment "thank you" or "me too" or anything meaningless, I want to comment, because I want to ask the answerer about a specific difference between OP's situation and mine, for which the answer doesn't work. The answerer might have an advice for me. This kind of problem doesn't usually warrant for asking a brand new question. In fact, it would probably count as a duplicate.

For example, if the accepted answer doesn't compile for me, and I'd like to ask the answerer what version of the library were they using.

I find this problem very annoying, and I think it's actually dissuading some new users from even logging in.

Answer 22

I know that reputation limits:

• "protect" from spam;
• create addiction;
• get glory and shine to bored people;
• increases self-esteem like a SUV;

but, as a side effect:

• bounce newbies and occasionally users (I've given up to reply to a lot of "not clear" questions that I potentially solve)
• push not "pro responders" to abandon (everyone do it for free, so why should I fight against the limits to freely help someone?)

Moreover:

• high reputation points aren't guarantee of high quality (I read some answers...no comment);
• limits aren't proportionate (generally and between them);
• anonymous downvote are the evil;
• from mobile, it isn't possible to format code properly into answers, but stupid "geeks" are always ready to downvote/edit you, mocking your outrageously affront, even if the answer is correct.

And now, storms of downvote on me, but this is my honest opinion.

Answer 23

I hypothesize that this relates to the reason an “answer” I posted yesterday is gone without a trace today. I have been able to comment in the past, but yesterday (and usually) I cannot. If, as I believe, my answer/comment accurately described a situation related to the problem in the original question, then deleting it with no explanation helped no one.

Answer 24

I think a 5 reputation requirement before one can comment is fair and good enough!

Anyone, including a newbie, would like to ask the original author if the solution was found, or add observations that could add value or further clarification to a given answer. Obviously, these would take the form of comments, not appropriate as a response in the answer section.

Answer 25

This "answer" will be more heat than light. I'd prefer to upvote a comment I agree with rather than post this but that's not an option for newbie me. I would next prefer to add a comment right below the comment I like (because I can't just upvote that comment) but I can't do that either. So, thus my "answer". +1 to all the folks who decry how SE bites newcomers, should have different and/or lower thresholds in this meta subdomain, and have pointed out good ways to improve the system that have fallen on deaf ears. Incidentally, 5 rep IS a lot for this subdomain due to its nature and when reputation from other SE sites doesn't transfer here. Few of us have a reason to be here very often and gain the rep here to vote on comments and comment here. But that doesn't mean that our votes wouldn't have value!!

Answer 26

Yes, it should be lowered to the same reputation as posting an answer. Like my own example, my answer is actually a comment, not an answer, but I can't comment.

This is strange that you need 50 points for commenting. For example, in this question I needed to ask the question asker how he resolved his problem and I was forced to ask it as an answer, not a comment. Isn't it illogical?

Answer 27

A "Comment anywhere" capability is essential for any user to use any Stack Exchange site with convenience.

Indeed, it’s necessary to have a reputation barrier for this, but the reputation score of 50 is just too much for this privilege, compared to the needed reputation for other privileges, for example, "vote up".

Also, a reputation score, regardless of its magnitude, does not ensure "spam protection". Spamming springs from the attitude of a user, regardless of his/her technical or communication skills.

To make this clearer, I give you an example of "vote up" privilege abuse. Two users of a Stack Exchange site, which are friends in real life, can upvote each other's questions and answers regardless of their quality, when both reaches a reputation score of 15 (it’s obvious that when just one of them reaches reputation score of 15 first, he will imprudently help his mate to also achieve this). When both reach 50 reputation, you may have a couple of potential comment spammers.

Answer 28

I've been using various Stack Exchange sites irregularly over the past years and recently I started using them daily. And I'm starting to get #&"@!§ annoyed by the fact that I can't comment and won't be for loooooong time since it requires 50 reputation points.

If that limit is supposed to prevent spam then first it's illogical as a single user input is enough to identify a spammer. Second it's incompetent as spam, or any problem, must be solved by the site owner without impacting the users. Stack Exchange doesn't sell products. It sells interactivity, and preventing comments and answers is like preventing sales - a sure failure.

Now if this limit is supposed to prevent low quality, well, hey, why don't you block questions and answers as well! Do you see the absurdity?

I'll add that, in my experience, the worst comments I've seen were made by users with the highest reputation (more than 1000 reputation points). Power corrupts and those users think it's ok to make comments that are rude or offensive or not constructive / off-topic.

I see that this problem was raised over four years ago and nothing has changed. Obviously, there is someone in the team who doesn't understand what the purpose of this site is and must be fired.

Answer 29

Well, the suspicion is comments from < 50 rep users will generally be not good.

You could just insert "comments from the underprivileged" into some sort of queue, that require moderator approval.