This is not about questioning or critiquing how StackOverflow works or wanting to change anything.
This is simply about trying to learn how one would approach setting those numbers if one were to start from scratch building such a rep system, disregarding the existance of "correct" answers (thus accepting answers and bounties play no role).

The daily rep cap: 200 rep.

Maximum number of votes per day per user: 30.
Rep worth of upvote: 10 rep.

Thus follows: max. 300 rep to give away via votes.

What I'm interested in:

Were these number like that from day one of StackOverflow?

How was it established that the daily rep cap should/must be two-thirds of how much rep I can deal out in a day voting-wise?
Do you think this was even a consideration?

Why can't I vote only 20 times? Or, why is the rep cap not at 250, or 300, or even 100?
Do the current numbers satisfy some practical statistical law?

I can't believe these were just gut choices. Or were they?

What scientific / statistical rationale is behind those number relationships/ratios?

Maybe it was an iterative process finding these numbers, with actual users or test users.
It would be awesome to get to know which other numbers / number ratios / combos were tried out and why they failed.

SOrry if this is a dupe somewher, but honestly, I spent hours on meta reading up on opinions regarding rep cap and downvoting etc., but I found nothing pertaining to the actual relationships between the numbers.

  • 1
    I'm pretty sure someone just eye-balled it at implementation, and it was good enough that nobody ever felt the need to change it. – Gloweye Oct 29 '19 at 8:05

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .