There's an simplified Chinese article at June 4 this year (not April 1 !) said :


which means

StackOverflow regulates addicted users by restricting their actions specifically.

Is that true?

I know it helps if SO could ban me from the reviewer queue periodically.


Thanks to @euphoria overlord, the original article is from TechCrunch :

StackOverflow, the world’s largest technical question and answer site, deprecates certain features to limit use

And here is the whole paragraph:

In fact, some companies have already started limiting certain features to people who overuse their sites. StackOverflow, the world’s largest technical question and answer site, deprecates certain features to limit use. Jeff Atwood, the company’s co-founder, says the system was designed to not only improve the quality of content on the site but also to protect susceptible users. “Programmers should be out there in the world creating things too,” Atwood writes, making the point that he wants StackOverflow to be a utility, not a mindless distraction.


The TechCrunch article that the Chinese page you linked to links to the following point from Jeff Atwood:

a user who dives straight into the community and contributes left, right and centre will still be forced to wait for privileges (and general recognition via rep)

This is intentional, and by design.

Regardless of how talented one may or may not be, they cannot waltz into a brand new community and hope to absorb its norms, behaviors, and culture in a single day. Or even a week!

The current system is designed to reward continued participation, but not to the point that it creates obsession. Programmers should be out there in the world creating things, too. The rep cap requires that you come back to our community over a fairly significant period of time, and contribute regularly during that time.

I think it's also fair that users who contribute one really brilliant bit of wisdom or insight continue to get rep for that over time. Otherwise we're rewarding quantity over quality.

Most crucially, if users want to exceed the +200 rep cap per day, there is already a way to do so: play the expert game of striving for accepted answers (immune to cap) and earning answer bounties (immune to cap).

"If you love someone, set them free."

So no, you can't get banned unless you start churning out low-quality reviews like crazy, see this. What the limit is is actually the 200 rep/day limit all sites have.

So in short, it's not as exaggerated as the article makes it sound, the only thing inhibiting you is the 200 rep/day limit, and even that, as Jeff points out, doesn't factor in accepted answers or awarded bounties.

  • I am thinking the same way. It seems the author over-interpreted what Jeff said.
    – Tay2510
    Nov 19 '14 at 2:57
  • It's also worth mentioning the vote and flag limits per day, but these are mostly to prevent abuse by bots, rather than addicts.
    – zzzzBov
    Nov 19 '14 at 19:19

You must log in to answer this question.

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