7 edited tags
| link
6 added 95 characters in body; edited title
source | link

Prevent "guest users"101 rep users from voting and commenting until 105 rep

The problem

As a site, we slightly diverge from the SE standards:

  • We have unique rules regarding voting, for example unreferenced questions should be downvoted to zero no matter how much we agree with their conclusions.
  • Our format allows us to tackle controversial topics in a civilized manner, but we must exercise restraint in the use of comments, especially with regards to "pseudo-answers".

On the other hands, our topics are interesting, we appear on the hot network questions list almost every day, and this brings in a lot of network users. Their voting strategies follow the network standards, e.g. "this was useful to me, +1". Also, they can't vote down at all!

This makes it impossible to have fair voting on posts on the hot questions list.

It is finally also evident that many want to offer their opinions on controversial topics, but that requires continual moderation -- we have hundreds of deleted comments.

This is not only a moderation problem, this is a problem for the whole community.

My proposal

  • Change the "comment everywhere" privilege to require 105 rep instead of 50
  • Change the "vote up" privilege to require 125 rep instead of 15 (similarly to the "vote down" privilege)

This would prevent network users from casting votes and commenting until they have done some useful action on the site, such as asking questions, edit them, or answer them. This, of course, will only apply on this site.

Another consequence is that it would be much harder to get +100 or +200 score questions and answers. This is unfortunate, but unavoidable.


Some numbers on posts with score 10 or more (or answers to questions with score 10 or more) since June 1st, with users grouped by rep (101 rep are "external" and not 101 are "internal"):

Comments

Internal comments deleted: 90 (19.4% of internal comments)
External comments deleted: 75 (30.5% of external comments)

Questions

Questions are considered "bad" if they are closed or deleted, good otherwise (remember these are posts with at least score 10). We only consider upvotes because there are basically no downvotes on questions.

Internal upvotes on bad questions: 52 (5.8% of internal upvotes)
External upvotes on bad questions: 41 (8.5% of external upvotes)

Answers

Answers are considered "bad" if they are deleted or appear on a closed or deleted question. We consider "inconsistent" an upvote on a bad answer or a downvote on a good answer:

Internal upvotes on bad answers: 133 (9.1% of internal votes)
External upvotes on bad answers: 113 (13.3% of external votes)

data here

Prevent "guest users" from voting and commenting

The problem

As a site, we slightly diverge from the SE standards:

  • We have unique rules regarding voting, for example unreferenced questions should be downvoted to zero no matter how much we agree with their conclusions.
  • Our format allows us to tackle controversial topics in a civilized manner, but we must exercise restraint in the use of comments, especially with regards to "pseudo-answers".

On the other hands, our topics are interesting, we appear on the hot questions list almost every day, and this brings in a lot of network users. Their voting strategies follow the network standards, e.g. "this was useful to me, +1". Also, they can't vote down at all!

This makes it impossible to have fair voting on posts on the hot questions list.

It is finally also evident that many want to offer their opinions on controversial topics, but that requires continual moderation -- we have hundreds of deleted comments.

My proposal

  • Change the "comment everywhere" privilege to require 105 rep instead of 50
  • Change the "vote up" privilege to require 125 rep instead of 15 (similarly to the "vote down" privilege)

This would prevent network users from casting votes and commenting until they have done some useful action on the site, such as asking questions, edit them, or answer them. This, of course, will only apply on this site.

Another consequence is that it would be much harder to get +100 or +200 score questions and answers. This is unfortunate, but unavoidable.


Some numbers on posts with score 10 or more (or answers to questions with score 10 or more) since June 1st, with users grouped by rep (101 rep are "external" and not 101 are "internal"):

Comments

Internal comments deleted: 90 (19.4% of internal comments)
External comments deleted: 75 (30.5% of external comments)

Questions

Questions are considered "bad" if they are closed or deleted, good otherwise (remember these are posts with at least score 10). We only consider upvotes because there are basically no downvotes on questions.

Internal upvotes on bad questions: 52 (5.8% of internal upvotes)
External upvotes on bad questions: 41 (8.5% of external upvotes)

Answers

Answers are considered "bad" if they are deleted or appear on a closed or deleted question. We consider "inconsistent" an upvote on a bad answer or a downvote on a good answer:

Internal upvotes on bad answers: 133 (9.1% of internal votes)
External upvotes on bad answers: 113 (13.3% of external votes)

data here

Prevent 101 rep users from voting and commenting until 105 rep

The problem

As a site, we slightly diverge from the SE standards:

  • We have unique rules regarding voting, for example unreferenced questions should be downvoted to zero no matter how much we agree with their conclusions.
  • Our format allows us to tackle controversial topics in a civilized manner, but we must exercise restraint in the use of comments, especially with regards to "pseudo-answers".

On the other hands, our topics are interesting, we appear on the hot network questions list almost every day, and this brings in a lot of network users. Their voting strategies follow the network standards, e.g. "this was useful to me, +1". Also, they can't vote down at all!

This makes it impossible to have fair voting on posts on the hot questions list.

It is finally also evident that many want to offer their opinions on controversial topics, but that requires continual moderation -- we have hundreds of deleted comments.

This is not only a moderation problem, this is a problem for the whole community.

My proposal

  • Change the "comment everywhere" privilege to require 105 rep instead of 50
  • Change the "vote up" privilege to require 125 rep instead of 15 (similarly to the "vote down" privilege)

This would prevent network users from casting votes and commenting until they have done some useful action on the site, such as asking questions, edit them, or answer them. This, of course, will only apply on this site.

Another consequence is that it would be much harder to get +100 or +200 score questions and answers. This is unfortunate, but unavoidable.


Some numbers on posts with score 10 or more (or answers to questions with score 10 or more) since June 1st, with users grouped by rep (101 rep are "external" and not 101 are "internal"):

Comments

Internal comments deleted: 90 (19.4% of internal comments)
External comments deleted: 75 (30.5% of external comments)

Questions

Questions are considered "bad" if they are closed or deleted, good otherwise (remember these are posts with at least score 10). We only consider upvotes because there are basically no downvotes on questions.

Internal upvotes on bad questions: 52 (5.8% of internal upvotes)
External upvotes on bad questions: 41 (8.5% of external upvotes)

Answers

Answers are considered "bad" if they are deleted or appear on a closed or deleted question. We consider "inconsistent" an upvote on a bad answer or a downvote on a good answer:

Internal upvotes on bad answers: 133 (9.1% of internal votes)
External upvotes on bad answers: 113 (13.3% of external votes)

data here

5 added 1048 characters in body
source | link

The problem

As a site, we slightly diverge from the SE standards:

  • We have unique rules regarding voting, for example unreferenced questions should be downvoted to zero no matter how much we agree with their conclusions.
  • Our format allows us to tackle controversial topics in a civilized manner, but we must exercise restraint in the use of comments, especially with regards to "pseudo-answers".

On the other hands, our topics are interesting, we appear on the hot questions list almost every day, and this brings in a lot of network users. Their voting strategies follow the network standards, e.g. "this was useful to me, +1". Also, they can't vote down at all!

This makes it impossible to have fair voting on posts on the hot questions list.

It is finally also evident that many want to offer their opinions on controversial topics, but that requires continual moderation -- we have hundreds of deleted comments.

My proposal

  • Change the "comment everywhere" privilege to require 105 rep instead of 50
  • Change the "vote up" privilege to require 125 rep instead of 15 (similarly to the "vote down" privilege)

This would prevent network users from casting votes and commenting until they have done some useful action on the site, such as asking questions, edit them, or answer them. This, of course, will only apply on this site.

Another consequence is that it would be much harder to get +100 or +200 score questions and answers. This is unfortunate, but unavoidable.


Some numbers on posts with score 10 or more (or answers to questions with score 10 or more) since June 1st, with users grouped by rep (101 rep are "external" and not 101 are "internal"):

Comments

Internal comments deleted: 90 (19.4% of internal comments)
External comments deleted: 75 (30.5% of external comments)

Questions

Questions are considered "bad" if they are closed or deleted, good otherwise (remember these are posts with at least score 10). We only consider upvotes because there are basically no downvotes on questions.

Internal upvotes on bad questions: 52 (5.8% of internal upvotes)
External upvotes on bad questions: 41 (8.5% of external upvotes)

Answers

Answers are considered "bad" if they are deleted or appear on a closed or deleted question. We consider "inconsistent" an upvote on a bad answer or a downvote on a good answer:

Internal upvotes on bad answers: 133 (9.1% of internal votes)
External upvotes on bad answers: 113 (13.3% of external votes)

data here

The problem

As a site, we slightly diverge from the SE standards:

  • We have unique rules regarding voting, for example unreferenced questions should be downvoted to zero no matter how much we agree with their conclusions.
  • Our format allows us to tackle controversial topics in a civilized manner, but we must exercise restraint in the use of comments, especially with regards to "pseudo-answers".

On the other hands, our topics are interesting, we appear on the hot questions list almost every day, and this brings in a lot of network users. Their voting strategies follow the network standards, e.g. "this was useful to me, +1". Also, they can't vote down at all!

This makes it impossible to have fair voting on posts on the hot questions list.

It is finally also evident that many want to offer their opinions on controversial topics, but that requires continual moderation -- we have hundreds of deleted comments.

My proposal

  • Change the "comment everywhere" privilege to require 105 rep instead of 50
  • Change the "vote up" privilege to require 125 rep instead of 15 (similarly to the "vote down" privilege)

This would prevent network users from casting votes and commenting until they have done some useful action on the site, such as asking questions, edit them, or answer them. This, of course, will only apply on this site.

Another consequence is that it would be much harder to get +100 or +200 score questions and answers. This is unfortunate, but unavoidable.

The problem

As a site, we slightly diverge from the SE standards:

  • We have unique rules regarding voting, for example unreferenced questions should be downvoted to zero no matter how much we agree with their conclusions.
  • Our format allows us to tackle controversial topics in a civilized manner, but we must exercise restraint in the use of comments, especially with regards to "pseudo-answers".

On the other hands, our topics are interesting, we appear on the hot questions list almost every day, and this brings in a lot of network users. Their voting strategies follow the network standards, e.g. "this was useful to me, +1". Also, they can't vote down at all!

This makes it impossible to have fair voting on posts on the hot questions list.

It is finally also evident that many want to offer their opinions on controversial topics, but that requires continual moderation -- we have hundreds of deleted comments.

My proposal

  • Change the "comment everywhere" privilege to require 105 rep instead of 50
  • Change the "vote up" privilege to require 125 rep instead of 15 (similarly to the "vote down" privilege)

This would prevent network users from casting votes and commenting until they have done some useful action on the site, such as asking questions, edit them, or answer them. This, of course, will only apply on this site.

Another consequence is that it would be much harder to get +100 or +200 score questions and answers. This is unfortunate, but unavoidable.


Some numbers on posts with score 10 or more (or answers to questions with score 10 or more) since June 1st, with users grouped by rep (101 rep are "external" and not 101 are "internal"):

Comments

Internal comments deleted: 90 (19.4% of internal comments)
External comments deleted: 75 (30.5% of external comments)

Questions

Questions are considered "bad" if they are closed or deleted, good otherwise (remember these are posts with at least score 10). We only consider upvotes because there are basically no downvotes on questions.

Internal upvotes on bad questions: 52 (5.8% of internal upvotes)
External upvotes on bad questions: 41 (8.5% of external upvotes)

Answers

Answers are considered "bad" if they are deleted or appear on a closed or deleted question. We consider "inconsistent" an upvote on a bad answer or a downvote on a good answer:

Internal upvotes on bad answers: 133 (9.1% of internal votes)
External upvotes on bad answers: 113 (13.3% of external votes)

data here

4 Rollback to Revision 2
source | link
3 added 337 characters in body
source | link
    Tweeted twitter.com/#!/StackSkeptic/status/616865958439845888
2 added 144 characters in body
source | link
1
source | link