My rep went over 2,000 today which meant I could edit other people's posts. Great! Then I added a bounty to a previous question, which brought me back down to 1,984...and I can no longer edit other posts. Should this changed? Or is this ideal?
Based on Jeff's explanation of the community and hit points and privileges it sounds like SO does not work correctly.
The way it works now a user is to be trusted LESS for giving away bounty points - even though he is participating even more in the community. Jeff has repeatedly stated that hitpoints and privileges are an indicator of how much the site "Trusts" a user.
I'd argue that once you reach a threshold it is more consistent with Jeff's statements that the privileges be left intact even if the hitpoints go below that threshold.
For example - if a user has 12000 hitpoints and then decides to give away 10000 in bounty for a bunch of questions, how does this affect their level of commitment to the site and the community's level of trust? It shouldn't.
I think the functionality is broken.
In reality this is probably not a big deal. No one is spending that much on bounties and most people will continue to gain hitpoints and will not likely lose so much that they can't get back to where they were in short order.
Again, fundamentally, the current policy is inconsistent with Jeff's comments on hitpoints and privileges .
From the description of privileges, it says that reputation is a measure of:
- How much the community trusts you
- Your communication skills
- The quality and relevancy of your questions and answers
Placing a bounty on a question doesn't change any of these above characteristics. Therefore, retracting any privilege in this case doesn't make sense to me.
Most privileges are offered to empower the person to make even larger contributions to the community, and the hope is that (s)he has gained the trust to do so appropriately. Just because (s)he has placed a bounty on a question doesn't make him/her any "less trustworthy".
On the other hand, if your reputation decreases because of poor questions/answers (or similar), then it is true that your trust within the community and the quality of your answers has decreased, and so should your reputation points and privileges.
Perhaps there should be a finer distinction made between the two cases?
I think that it's ideal. That way, if somebody's gotten up to 2,000 rep, and then all of the sudden gets downvoted to oblivion (or Bolivian, depending on your preference), then they should lose that editing privilege.
However, you did do this to yourself, which remains slightly amusing. I'll give you a +1 to get back to that point, though, since distinguishing between voting and bounty rep may be a good idea, as has been brought up by folks who hit the rep cap quickly after garnering a bounty in the morning.
By my opinion, it would be more natural if the privileges are persistent once gained. The user is given privileges once he was "tested" by the community, for being trustworthy. He has to spend some time at the site to gain reputation and see how it works.
Once we consider person trustworthy, what makes him untrustworthy when he spends his reputation on bounties? Does he become a beginner then? Will he suddenly forget everything he learned at SO?
P.S.: I would understand it for negative points from downvotes (or penalties, if there are any). But when placing bounties.... or when your answers are migrated (I don't know if you lose points in this situation) I don't really see any reason to lose privileges.
From my point of view I prefer KISS at it is.
If I lose/give away reputation, it can cost me some privileges. That's why I think twice and bounties are special for hard questions instead if overwhelming.
I gain rep for constructive and well fitting answers.
Something I don't loose while starting a bounty. So just be patient and work to get it again. Every bounty is result of hard work. So privileges are same. I got mine (atm) from editing question's code to look more readable. Different work than given good answers, but work.
Referring to first statement "simple": It needs much more tracking and a more complex database on any different way like now. What for? Some rare moments I had also myself, when I got privilege to comment everywhere, gave a stupid answer, lost some rep and had to write next comment as answer. Well, don't lost anything I care. Later got new rep.
I think there's a key point here that everyone is missing, which is the purpose of a bounty. It is to give one answer otherwise-undue attention – to override the system by which questions are normally sorted, by votes.
Every time you place a bounty on a question, you are giving it an advantage over other questions of the same quality or thoughtfulness, and you are attracting attention that could be spent on other questions instead.
In short, it's a selfish thing to do – a bounty makes the site more useful for the person who placed it and probably no-one else. So I'm quite happy to penalise them for prioritising their own interests over others'.
If everyone placed more bounties, the bounty system would become less useful, so we need some way of limiting its use.
Look at it like this: you get to choose whether for 2000 rep you get the privilege of editing questions, or you get the privilege of making a question of your choice more visible.
It should be like Phase-locked loop.
Say you cross reputation score of 2000 and you got edit privileges. These privileges should remain unless you go below 1800. And those will be granted again at 2000.
Feature-request: make privileges remain after placing bounties. Reputation and total offered reputation should be summarized and then privileges calculated.
For example, it is important for me because I would have as many privileges as 4,440 rep user. The rep I offer is my rep, I don't lose it because of downvotes, for example. I give it.