Privileged only if 10% in last 365 days?

Question

I haven't been to SO in awhile. But every so often, I log back in & often note a rise in my reputation. As I slowly creep toward 10k here, I've caught myself wondering...

Should the upper echelon of privileges require that users have done something recently?

What if all privileges required the user to have gained 10% of the reputation within the last 365 days? For example, requiring the user to have gained 2,000 rep within the last 365 days to maintain 20k privileges.

• If a user wanders off, then coming back there will be a natural learning period where the, "Oh yeah, that's what that means..." can happen without additional oversight.
• If a user's content is consistently, over time, deemed valuable, then "upvote momentum" should help them maintain current privileges.

I'm not sure if the number of users that would be affected by this suggestion is obtainable. I looked for metrics & was playing with:

https://data.stackexchange.com/stackoverflow/query/150371

but I'm thinking it's not what I'm really suggesting - we'd need access to the date reputation was earned - which might be obtainable when a rep recalc is done?

EDIT

Reputation decay is not what I had in mind. In my opinion, reputation decay would "de-value" the existing knowledge-base's worth. For more info:

• What to do about rep inflation?
• Will reputation spiral out of all control?

What I was suggesting was that for privileges (let's focus on the top 5):

- 20,000 = Expanded editing, deletion and undeletion privileges
- 15,000 = Mark questions as protected
- 10,000 = access to moderator tools
- 5,000  = approve tag wiki edits 
- 3,000  = cast close and reopen votes

To maintain 10k privileges, you would need have obtained 10% of 10,000 = 1000 reputation points within the past 365 days. Having listed the numbers out - maybe 180 days makes more sense? It would seem quite easy to get 10 answer upvotes (1,000) over the course of a year??

Clearly the percentage & time frame could be tweaked to acheive the desired effect.

Answer 1

While I'm always open to suggestions of decaying reputation and such, I don't see why people should lose privileges through inactivity. Being active on Stack Overflow is a lot like bicycling - you learn it once and it doesn't ever really go away.

Also, by amassing some reputation you're supposed to have proven you are a person with some common sense, some competence, some interest in the community and helping people, some communication skills, etc. which also are things that aren't affected by longer bouts of inactivity.

Answer 2

I think this is is a reasonable, well-motivated idea, just in response to a problem we don't actually have, and I think you've overestimated the benefits.

• Firstly, it's quicker to get to 1k reputation than it is to get to 20k reputation. If someone reaches 20k rep quite slowly, your proposed system might invalidate their privileges immediately. In practice I don't think so, but I should note a linear scale does not work here.
• Secondly, I agree with Pekka that SO is more like learning to ride a bike. Yes, there is a little bit of relearning to do (e.g. close reasons changing), but this is very small compared to the weight of having proven oneself to be an experienced developer and reasonable person.
• Thirdly, I don't like the bad will this will create. "You were a great contributor over the years, but you haven't been as much recently, so we don't want your kind here" is the message. That's horrible community building.

Answer 3

10 answer upvotes is 100 rep, not 1000. Under your plan, it would actually take a fair bit of time and effort for someone to regain the higher priv levels. It would even take a decent amount of effort to maintain them, for someone who only showed up from time to time. 2,000 rep per year is a not entirely trivial bar to reach, even if you stop by from time to time - and I really don't see how regular, concerted effort is necessary for maintaining the degree of discretion, wisdom, and understanding that these things really call for.

It also reduces the appeal of the rep game. As I am, I can see that some day, I might make 3K or 5K. It's of interest to me, and I may work towards it over time. If keeping that level meaningful means that I also have to put in enough work constantly to maintain 300 or 500 per year, I'm a lot less interested.

Answer 4

I think there's an overlap between 2 distinct ideas.

On StackOverflow (as opposed to meta), there is a perception that

high rep score = guru-professional

This contrasts greatly with the StackExchange idea that

high rep score = we-trust-you

In the first case, I could understand how time away brings into doubt whether you are as capable of a professional (how much is open to serious debate). The second case is the one everyone else is speaking to, because, as pointed out earlier, for SE purposes, you have proven yourself.

Side Point: residual rep earned is no less legit than original rep. I might argue that votes you get weeks, months, and years after your original post reinforce the lasting value of your words.