Role-playing Games Stack Exchange just satisfied the hidden qualifier to award the Generalist badge (a minimum of 200 questions in the top 40 tags), and a few dozen people earned the badge at once. That's all as expected (once you know about the hidden criterium).

What's odd though is that some sleuthing to figure out which question helped RPG.se cross that threshold revealed that the badge script seems to have waited until there were 201 questions in all of the top 40 tags.

Is there an off-by-one error in the script that grants the Generalist badge? (Or, alternatively, is it and there is an off-by-one error in the human-readable description?)

I guess it's unusual enough to track down the exact moment a site qualifies that it could have been overlooked for a long time.

  • 1
    Confirm: the actual criteria for the badge dictate that there be more than 200 questions in each qualifying tag. – Shog9 Mar 31 '17 at 19:38
  • @Shog9 Which made me realise it could be that the error is in the human description of the script's behaviour rather than the script itself. – SevenSidedDie Mar 31 '17 at 19:42
  • 1
    Related/Duplicate: Please explain the “Generalist” badge in simple terms – Kendra Mar 31 '17 at 19:42
  • 1
    So... What description exactly needs to be updated? The "over 200" requirement is in the List of all badges post correctly. I see you linked to another post that quotes the blogs from the introduction of the badge- Is it the blog description you want updated? You really only specify "the human-readable description" if the script is working properly, which it is. – Kendra Mar 31 '17 at 19:47
  • @Kendra The links in this Q point to a meta where it says “at least 200”, quoting the original SO blog post. It's the first hit when I was trying to track down the hidden criterium (which I remembered existed, but didn't remember the details of) when I was answering the RPG.meta.se question. The post linked by you above seems correct based on Shog's comment above, though there's otherwise no obvious way to figure out whether posts that say 201 or say 200 are correct. There's inconsistent information available, as you've helped me discover. :) – SevenSidedDie Mar 31 '17 at 19:50
  • 2
    Either Jeff made a mistake in the blog and mixed up "more than" with "at least", or a developer who implemented it made the same mistake in the opposite direction. Either way, I'd go by meta.stackexchange.com/questions/67397/… as the standard of what is currently correct (the cw's can be updated, the blogs cannot), and if you want it reduced to >= 200 from > 200 that could be a feature request. NicoleC's post accurately interpreted the inaccurate blog, and so that post is caught in the middle of this confusion. – Jason C Mar 31 '17 at 19:57

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .