For context, see https://security.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1208/836.

In essence:

"This question is protected to prevent "thanks!", "me too!", or spam answers by new users. To answer it, you must have earned at least 10 reputation (not including the association bonus) on this site."

Suggested addition to existing message is in bold.

  • 4
    Why would we need that?
    – ɥʇǝS
    Apr 2, 2013 at 17:49
  • 5
    It already says: "you must have earned at least 10 reputation on this site". Seems clear enough to me.
    – Bart
    Apr 2, 2013 at 17:53
  • Agree with Bart. It says "on this site". Why is removing an informational link going to make it more clear?
    – Cody Gray
    Apr 2, 2013 at 18:00
  • 1
    @Bart Please read linked disscussion.
    – user11153
    Apr 2, 2013 at 18:08
  • @user11153 I did. Still don't see the point. So it confused you. Just read it again. The information is already there.
    – Bart
    Apr 2, 2013 at 18:20
  • 8
    Shouldn't it be "excluding the association bonus"? But otherwise I'd agree, I've had to tell several people why they can't post even though they have 101 rep
    – Ben Brocka
    Apr 2, 2013 at 19:37
  • 2
    @CodyGray mis-interpretation of what I wrote. It's better explaining the removal. The "not including" part is actually the text that would be written, not a suggestion to remove that info. Apr 2, 2013 at 20:01
  • 3
    It's worth noting that the privileges page says explicitly that you gain the privilege to answer protected questions at 10 reputation, which is very confusing.
    – user206222
    Oct 27, 2014 at 8:00
  • 5
    As a user, when I look at the 101 rep I have on my profile, I don't see 100 bonus + 1 site, I see 101 site. I don't make a distinction because I am completely oblivious to how SE internally counts rep. This is further reinforced on the privileges page where all the privileges up to 100 are ticked. So in my mind, I do have 101 rep on the site. This is why just having "on the site" is not enough.
    – stanri
    Oct 27, 2014 at 8:54
  • 1
    related: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/267073/…
    – TylerH
    Oct 1, 2015 at 17:43

2 Answers 2


I think it's a good idea - to me, it isn't immediately clear that you must earn the reputation exclusively through other people's votes on that site, given the original description alone (I can see that I have that much reputation - how is it not on this site?). I assume the reputation link goes to the general FAQ on reputation, which also doesn't address this particularity.

As an added bonus, it also introduces newer users to the association bonus (I didn't know that happened until it actually did, although that was a nice surprise).

That said, your suggested rewording made more sense before the edit. It should be something like:

You must have earned at least 10 reputation on this site (without an association bonus).

The link should still be there, but you must earn 10 reputation without the association bonus.


I think that just having "on this site" alone is not enough.

When a user looks at their rep on the top right hand corner, there is no distinction between bonus rep and site rep. In the mind of the user, that number is their rep for this site, since they are oblivious to how SE internally counts rep.

This is reinforced because on the privilidges up to 100 are ticked when you get 100 bonus rep:

my privileges at 101 on puzzling

Notice that the "remove new user restrictions" explicitly mentions that now protected questions can be answered.

  • 4
    That's better be reported as a bug in the privileges page, which should remove the "answer protected questions" in case the user can't really do that. Oct 27, 2014 at 9:18

You must log in to answer this question.

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