I just noticed that I've been a member for 1 year and 2+ days. I hovered over the 1 year text to see the date. I have exactly 200 rep.
I found multiple questions about the Yearling badge not being awarded, but the users hadn't quite reached the 1 year mark yet.
I thought maybe I needed more than 200 rep, but the badge description says at least 200.
So perhaps the association bonus doesn't count? Or perhaps the description is incorrect and should read more than 200. Or perhaps the badges aren't awarded in real time and I have to wait for some scheduled calculation?
This answer says that rep > 200 is required. However, this answer says rep >= 200 is required. And this answer says the association bonus does count, but rep > 200 is required. A comment on this question says the calculation is done nightly.
Just curious. Why haven't I received my Yearling badge for meta? If I need more than 200, the description should be corrected. And does that mean I have to wait another whole year?
Updated
If we consider the comment by Sha Wiz Dow Ard and take the definition of earn literally, we didn't earn our first rep point. But that is misleading because what about rep that you earned and then gave away as a bounty (or lost by other means)? You still earned it.
For reference, this is the description at time of writing.
Active member for a year, earning at least 200 reputation
It seems that it is calculated on how much you have and not how much you earned. So you need to have rep > 200. And thus, it should be explained that way.
I think the description on the badge page and the description in this wiki answer should be updated. I know I can edit the answer, but while I now have anecdotal evidence, I am still not exactly sure how the calculation is done behind the scenes.
For reference, the wiki answer has this description at time of writing.
Have a reputation ≥ (number of years as an active user) × 200
>
), not the greater than or equal to symbol (≥
) -- the difference is crucial. Assumingx
is an integer,x > 200
is the same inequality asx ≥ 201
, so it is technically correct. – Qantas 94 Heavy Dec 4 '13 at 9:41>=
to>
. It was indeed>=
when I quoted it. The quote in my question above is a copy and paste. – toxalot Dec 4 '13 at 10:00