On smaller beta sites, GL for example, people rarely hit their rep limit, but when they do, it seriously affects their rep. Why do small sits that don't have a Jon Skeet still have a limit? What good does it do them, and can it be removed?

  • 3
    It gives the other people a chance to play too. This isn't about Jon Skeet, it is about everyone that is not Jon Skeet. Jul 24, 2014 at 6:50
  • 2
    The cap is there to regulate how quickly people get to gain privileges, it is there to help focus on producing quality, lasting answers and not just live of a few popular posts, etc. Jul 24, 2014 at 6:52
  • 3
    You failed to tell us what harm the cap does on smaller sites, and how removing it would benefit beta sites. Forget about the individual user for a moment, how does it help the new community? Jul 24, 2014 at 6:53
  • @jmusser: Right, and that is exactly what the cap is for; making sure that those that didn't get so lucky also have a chance, and that you don't gain privileges too easily off the back of one such post. Jul 24, 2014 at 6:59
  • 3
    @jmusser: Why is that a problem on beta sites? Jul 24, 2014 at 7:00
  • 1
    @jmusser another argument against removing the cap in small/beta sites is that the best users can be appointed as moderators, then reputation is not relevant. Jul 24, 2014 at 7:01
  • 1
    @jmusser: so with a low voting volume, you won't be hitting the cap all that often then. Again, you failed to explain why the cap is a problem on beta sites, and why removing it is better for such sites. Jul 24, 2014 at 7:08
  • @jmusser: yup, and that's one of the goals of the cap; because it makes you come back the next day and do it all again. Jul 24, 2014 at 7:13
  • @jmusser: and again, that isn't unique to beta sites. Jul 24, 2014 at 7:13
  • @jmusser: You are still arguing against the cap in general. I still haven't had an answer from you as to why this would have to go for just beta sites. So far it's just a it's not fair I am being capped, which I disagree with. Jul 24, 2014 at 7:18
  • 2
    @jmusser: I completely disagree with that; voting behaviour is dependent on the community, not on the beta status. And that still doesn't exempt a site from the protection, just because it is harder to achieve doesn't mean it is impossible or should not be prevented. Jul 24, 2014 at 7:24
  • 2
    Rep cap on small betas helps the community grow together, rather than help one individual gain vast amounts of rep from a lucky post.
    – Rory Alsop
    Jul 24, 2014 at 8:33
  • I guess I've read this somewhere, "If you're doing it for reputation, you're doing it wrong" (couldn't find the exact quote, but more or less like that). Sep 3, 2014 at 1:09

1 Answer 1


What happens when the site graduates or otherwise grows? Do you apply the rep cap then or leave the site with no cap?

In the former case you are going to get lots and lots of complaints from people about the new restriction you've just applied.

In the latter case you have a site that is completely different to every other site in the network.

Most people don't break the rep cap every day - or even most days - so removing the cap won't actually benefit them at all.

Everyone on every other site in the network got their reputation with the rep cap in place, so it's not really a barrier to people using the site and contributing to the site.

If this were implemented it would cause far more problems that it would solve.

You must log in to answer this question.

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