So, let's take Skeptics.SE for an example. You can become a trusted user when you acquire 4000 rep., not 20000

I was like, wow, so is it like this because of the lack of users on Skeptics.Se, as in, not so much as Stack Overflow or something?

Why do some sites need less reputation to be a trusted user?


The Skeptics site is still in public beta, and therefore has an adjusted privileges scale to compensate for the limited amount of high-rep users.

This is covered in the FAQ, where all the privileges are listed:

(note that reputation requirements have been relaxed slightly for the duration of the public beta)

Sites that have just been launched and are still in private beta have even lower reputation thresholds.

  • So, is English Language & Usage SE in Golden? – Thursagen Jul 23 '11 at 10:43
  • @Ham: Yes. It doesn't say "BETA" at the top of the page like Skeptics does. – Cody Gray Jul 23 '11 at 10:43
  • So, all sites that no longer have BETA at the top are in Golden...what is SO? – Thursagen Jul 23 '11 at 10:44
  • 2
    @Ham: Does it say "BETA" at the top? This seems like a question that you could answer for yourself... Stack Overflow is actually one of the original Stack Exchange sites (part of the trilogy), so it has been around the longest. English.SE is a Stack Exchange 2.0 site, as is Skeptics.SE. But English has been going longer than Skeptics, and has already moved out of public beta into a full site. – Cody Gray Jul 23 '11 at 10:45
  • @Anna: I think he's referring to the chart column in the linked question. It describes sites that are out of public beta as being "Golden", presumably like a "Golden Master" in software releases. – Cody Gray Jul 24 '11 at 6:04
  • @CodyGray Ahh, that makes a lot more sense. Thanks. – Adam Lear Jul 24 '11 at 6:05

The minimum reputation required for each privilege depends from the status of the site, which can be:

  • Private beta: The site is accessible only to who has committed to the proposal. Nobody has still gained reputation, and the maximum reputation the users can have at this point is 101, if they have an account on a site where their reputation is already 200. The required reputation for all the privileges is the lowest the site will ever require, as no user has the reputation necessary to do the most basic operations, such as tagging questions. If the required reputation would be the normal one, the community would require the help of Stack Exchange staff to set tags, and doing other things, such as closing a question. The community needs to be able to make their own decisions about the site, such as the desired tags, the desired questions, etc.
  • Public beta: The site is accessible to everybody. The site has run for a week, and users had the possibility to gain reputation by asking questions or answering them. During the public beta, temporary moderators are appointed; this means that three users are able to for example, create tags, merge tags, edit tag wikis, or approve the edits done by other users, for example. Privileges are still set at a lower value so more members of the community can participate.
  • Official site: After at least 90 days, the site is not a beta site anymore. In this time, users had the chance of increasing the reputation and there could already be several 10k users. The users' reputation increased, and the required reputation to do all the operations is increased; if before it was possible to edit a post with a reputation of 1000, now the same operation is possible for users who have a reputation of 2000.

Smaller sites, particularly those still in beta, have lower thresholds. These sites have few or even no 10k users, so using the same threshold would leave the sites badly under-moderated.

  • Whether sites have lower thresholds or not is purely dependent on their status (private beta, public beta or fully fledged). It has nothing to with the size of the site. – ChrisF Jul 23 '11 at 17:02
  • @ChrisF I thought Jeff had modified the reputation requirements on specific sites a couple of times, but I could be misremembering. – Jeremy Banks Jul 23 '11 at 17:22
  • Beta sites are (by definition) smaller as they've not been around as long. Perhaps that was what Jeff meant. – ChrisF Jul 23 '11 at 17:24

I think that's because it's in BETA. Sklivvz♦, as best user, in week leagues, has only 528 reputation

  • He has 10k+ rep (10727 at this very moment), not 528. The weekly league only shows the rep gained during the week. – Adam Lear Jul 24 '11 at 5:52
  • @AnnaLear: I know. But you didn't get me. on SO, I received 2k during week so far. I was only showing comparsion between SO and smaller site, that's why it has less requirements to be trusted user... Your downvote wasn't necessary – genesis Jul 24 '11 at 10:50
  • Sorry I misread your post, but I didn't downvote. You can't make assumptions about downvotes you receive -- odds are you'll be wrong. – Adam Lear Jul 24 '11 at 15:32

You must log in to answer this question.

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