After finding Community♦ has gone crazy on Code Review meta, I thought about inspecting Community's ♦ profiles. What did I notice? Community ♦ have more than 1 rep on some meta sites.

Why is it?

  • 3
    @TravisJ Not a duplicate. That question is about an one-off thing that happened 3 years ago. Might be related, but I wouldn't call this new question close-worthy on account of that other one. – Adam Lear Jun 27 '14 at 20:55
  • @AdamLear - So Community got reputation in this scenario from somewhere other than edits? Note that each instance is either +2 or +4 from 1. – Travis J Jun 27 '14 at 20:57
  • 2
    @TravisJ There are no suggested edits on child meta sites. – Adam Lear Jun 27 '14 at 20:58
  • @TravisJ Suggested edits aren't allowed on per-site metas. – nicael Jun 27 '14 at 20:59
  • @AdamLear - Meta rep is derived from the relative main sites though. So any rep on meta would have been earned on the related parent site. – Travis J Jun 27 '14 at 20:59
  • 2
    @TravisJ Possibly. If that were the case, though, I'd expect main site's Community user to also have the same amount of rep. Or any suggested edits associated with that profile. Neither is the case. Point being, calling this a dupe is hasty. Even if it were, we need to fix this and a closure isn't helpful. – Adam Lear Jun 27 '14 at 21:01
  • 2
    Fair enough. Redacted my vote. Related: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/77115/… – Travis J Jun 27 '14 at 21:02
  • 2
    Why does it matter??? – PM 77-1 Jun 27 '14 at 23:43
  • @PM77-1 Because it is by design. Community always have 1 rep. And now we see a bug. – nicael Jun 27 '14 at 23:44
  • 2
    @PM77-1 It is a BUG. I reported. – nicael Jun 27 '14 at 23:52
  • 9
    You still have not answered my question. Be it a bug, a feature, or whatever else, why should we care? Where is the real impact on this site? – PM 77-1 Jun 27 '14 at 23:55
  • 5
    @nicael You are leaving something out of your equation. You think you are saving people from being confused, but what you really end up doing is wasting a lot of people's valuable time with issues that don't matter and nobody cares about --- and in this case is already documented anyway for anybody that does care. If you want to help, spend more time reading up and learning about the things that do work rather than worrying so much about the ones you think don't. – Caleb Jun 28 '14 at 18:09
  • 1
    I mostly just want to make sure there isn't a bug hiding here somewhere. Overall, this is insanely low priority and we might not actually get around to it for a while, if ever. – Adam Lear Jul 1 '14 at 21:19
  • 14
    Can we please make a point of not assailing people for reporting a bug? It's a bug, it got reported, it matters because it's a bug - at least enough to be reported. – doppelgreener Jul 3 '14 at 3:45
  • 2
    @psubsee2003 Actually... you can suggest tag wiki edits on per-site metas. That might be it. – hichris123 Nov 10 '14 at 0:49

This is a bug in the system where Community collects a little bit of rep for some unspecified reason.

I recently asked a duplicate version of this question on DBA.SE's Meta site1. As you can see from one of dev's answer they removed the rep manually:

We try to never let the bots earn rep, but this one became sentient. I challenged Community to a battle of epic proportions and removed the extra 4 reputation by force. Lesson learned: never trust robots

I assume that will be needed (manual intervention) to revert the other Meta Community members back to 1 rep.

1: I wasn't aware of this question when I posted my duplicate question.

You must log in to answer this question.

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