Reputation level for close privilege should be subject to inflation [duplicate]

Question

I've been using S.O. for a few years, and one thing which I have noticed these last few quarters, is that more and more questions get closed faster and faster.

The questions closed are not just the typical "do my homework for me" from some kind of "reputation 0" guy. They can be very interesting, come with references, explain what has been found so far, missing points, guidance, etc. More and more often, I stumble upon interesting questions I can't even answer due to them being closed "on sight".

This is happening especially on S.O. proper. I'm not commenting for affiliate sites.

My theory is that S.O. may be experiencing the equivalent of a money devaluation problem. It's kind of inevitable, since the system distributes much more points than it takes away. Simply said, too many points have been accumulated overtime. As a consequence, it's becoming too easy for too many people to lock others. And some of them just "experience their right to silence others". It's no longer a pondered choice, rather along the line : "I don't like that, let's annoy the guy, after all it's free, I still have a gazillion points to use."

I know there are a few limitations to avoid extreme behaviors, but you get the idea : too many points distributed = too many people having the cheap right to use their power against others (and typically against newcomers).

So, now to the question : if it is an inflation problem, maybe inflation rules could be used? For instance, instead of having a fixed threshold to get some offensive powers, and a fixed cost, maybe these threshold and cost could evolve overtime, taking into consideration the amount of "money" (points) available on the site?

[Edit] Sorry, I wasn't accurate enough. I meant "closing", not locking. But the question is more about dealing with inflating number of points accumulated and using offensive powers.

Answer 1

Stack Overflow suffers from a scalability problem. In the early days, when the site only attracted software professionals, folks could be counted on to stay more or less on-topic, and the rules were more relaxed.

But today people with all sorts of backgrounds want to participate, including people for whom English is a second language, people who are underage, students wanting help with their homework, and people with little to no programming experience trying to write the next Angry Birds and get rich. Many of these folks don't get our primary mission, which is to be a repository for quality programming knowledge. Many of their behaviors are not consistent with that mission.

Consequently, it has become necessary to follow a stricter interpretation of the rules, and to put in automated safeguards. Some of us remember when the site was being flooded with low-quality questions; tightening the rules was part of the response to that.

I'm not sure that "since more people now have close privileges, questions are getting closed too easily" is a defensible position. If anything, the increasing size and diversity of the user base demands greater participation from the community to maintain a reasonable state of order.

Answer 2

I have to agree that I think it is too easy to close a question. The second question I asked here (how to use a Java SDK to establish a connection to a local service) was closed as 'off topic', yet one of the people who flagged the question as "off topic" has asked a question about "empirical technical reasons not to use jQuery?" and that is still alive and active.

From the About SO page, a user should "Focus on questions about an actual problem you have faced. Include details about what you have tried and exactly what you are trying to do." - I think I meet the criteria with my question; feel free to look. The jQuery question has none of that in it.

The question that was posed about not using jQuery sounds like it would be a better fit for the Programmers SE site, given it's charter is "Q&A for professional programmers interested in conceptual questions about software development"

Answer 3

Your underlying point about the devaluation of reputation is valid. Privilege thresholds should be raised gradually to keep the value of the privileges in sync with the value of overall reputation in general. If the thresholds remain static as the overall number of points increase, one can envision a future in which large percentage of users have access to high-level privileges without the necessity of maintaining regular activity on the site.

Stated another way: Should an intermittently-active user who joined the site many years ago have the same privileges as one who is actively involved on the site on a daily basis now? Is there not a possibility of abuse as old, highly-ranked users come back on a whim?