41

I imagine this request has to be a duplicate (and I know for a fact has been mentioned in comments before), but I can't find a similar one via search other than Jon Skeet's per-post cap.

I've seen several posts of users upset that you could get higher scores based on the order of answer acceptance. As an example, someone who has earned 185 rep in a day could get his answer accepted and then upvoted (resulting in +200), or could get upvoted then his answer accepted (resulting in +210).

Also, an accepted bounty at the beginning of the day usually eliminates the chance of earning any more rep on that day, but if awarded at the end then it gets applied above and beyond what the user has earned for the day.

Wouldn't it be easier to implement the system such that only upvotes and downvotes are capped at 200 points per day? That way, this would never be a problem and people wouldn't have to play games to get around these restrictions.

Edit:

TheTXI and cletus have brought up the other issue I forgot to mention. If you get 21 upvotes in a day followed by 1 downvote, you are only up 198 for the day. If you get 20 upvotes, a downvote, then another upvote you are up 200 for the day.

Update:

Bounty added for no reason whatsoever.

Final Update:

This feature-request has been implemented! https://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/03/important-reputation-rule-changes/

Improve this question
2
  • 1
    Agree. The rep system's primary goal (from the perspective of the majority of users who do more asking than answering) should be to motivate answerers to answer questions! Anything that stands in the way of motivating answerers or which encourages delaying answers should be examined. Rep is just a means to an end, where the "end" is that everyone gets their questions answered real fast!
    – Justin Grant
    Jan 29, 2010 at 23:50
  • Has the accepted answer been implemented as stated? the blog post linked doesn't mention anything about this particular feature/change.
    – NH.
    Nov 15, 2017 at 18:27

4 Answers 4

Reset to default
31
+100

This has been suggested many times always declined without much of an explanation (not a satisfactory one at any rate). This intrangisence borders on pigheadidness. Personally I think consistency is a goal worth attaining where ordering of things like accepting an answer and upvoting don't actually matter.

It's easy enough to do too:

  • Upvotes and downvotes received go into bucket A
  • Downvotes given, answers accepted (given and received) and bounties go into bucket B
  • Rep for the day = MIN(200,A) + B

Problem solved.

Improve this answer
3
  • 1
    Thanks for the comment, I specifically remember you suggesting this idea along with Mehrdad
    – John Rasch
    Aug 11, 2009 at 23:43
  • s/Intrangisence/Intransigence/
    – ベレアー アダム
    Aug 12, 2009 at 11:24
  • 3
    Voted up just because I got 250 point bounty 30 minutes after the server time rollover and now I won't earn anything for another 24 hours, LOL.
    – TheTXI
    Aug 20, 2009 at 0:48
10

I'm not particularly for or against this, but you could even make it simpler: cap at 20 upvotes. Then the ordering doesn't matter (in terms of when you get upvotes vs downvotes).

Improve this answer
2
  • 2
    I wouldn't say cap at just 20 upvotes. That would imply that if you get 20 upvotes and then start getting downvoted, any further upvotes would not cancel out the downvotes.
    – TheTXI
    Aug 11, 2009 at 23:12
  • @TheTXI: Indeed - it's much simpler to understand. Yes, downvotes hurt a bit more (although not much more than they hurt now, given the current 200 + 1 acceptance + downvote = unrecoverable) but everyone knows where they are.
    – Jon Skeet
    Aug 12, 2009 at 5:20
4

I fully agree. I find it annoying that you have to watch the clock and wait for the end of the day before accepting answers or granting bounties.

Improve this answer
1

I like the current system, because as more and more people understand how it works you'll have more and more people waiting until later in the day to accept answers to their questions. In other words, it encourages you to allow enough time for others answers or votes to show up.

Improve this answer
5
  • I'll share some love. I don't mind the rep system, no matter how flawed it may be. It's what I married into.
    – Ian Elliott
    Aug 12, 2009 at 4:25
  • Hi @Joel - luckily your "waiting until later in the day" hypothesis is easy to verify with data. Do you have hourly data of bounty accepts plotted over time? In my experience, the problem isn't quick answering (in 15-ish bounties I've only had 2 accept immediately). The problem is the reverse: many bountiers (25% ?) don't remember to accept bounties before expiry, despite loud warnings to the contrary. (e.g. stackoverflow.com/questions/1727369/x/1751752#1751752) Asking the same askers to remember to accept at a particular time of day seems unrealistic.
    – Justin Grant
    Jan 29, 2010 at 23:05
  • "later in the day" has no meaning for people that don't live in the USA, e.g. most people!
    – Ian Ringrose
    Feb 2, 2010 at 17:11
  • Sure it does. It's later in the utc day. If it meant later in the usa day, it'd be after the daily reset.
    – Joel Coehoorn
    Feb 2, 2010 at 19:51
  • "more and more people waiting until the end of the day" -- this has not borne out in reality, IMO. Most users do not understand how the rep cap works or the relevance of 00:00 UTC.
    – Ether
    Feb 22, 2010 at 5:13

You must log in to answer this question.

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