I understand the site has gone live and so the reputation needed for privleges is in line with the other SE sites.

My concern is that the vast majority of the users on the site do not have anywhere near a high enough reputation to contribute.

At the moment a user needs 2000 reputation to edit questions and 3000 reputation to cast close and reopen votes.

At the moment there are only 41 users who can edit questions without approval and 27 users who can cast close/reopen votes, or about 6%. We have 464 avid users according to the Area 51 stats, so it isn't a great ratio.

Despite the site going live, we are still attracting new users and shaping the community. I think it would be better for both the site and community if a greater amount of users could contribute and help to define the questions and answers that we consider acceptable.

Is this possible? If so, is it a good idea?

  • 1
    I'm surprised at the childish behaviour of downvoting the question. It's just unnecessary. – Sonny Ordell Mar 28 '12 at 2:02
  • 3
    Despite the hover text on the voting arrows here, downvoting on meta means, simply, "I disagree." It doesn't mean the question is a bad one. – neilfein Mar 28 '12 at 19:59
  • @neilfein I get that, but I don't really get how you can disagree with asking a question in a neutral tone. Different answers, sure, but the question itself? – Sonny Ordell Mar 29 '12 at 0:31
  • You do know that there's no rep loss or gain in meta, right? – neilfein Mar 29 '12 at 13:55
  • @neilfein I do, that isn't the point. – Sonny Ordell Mar 31 '12 at 8:55
  • 1
    When the question contains a proposal or an implied yes/no question, then IMO this behavior is appropriate. – neilfein Mar 31 '12 at 15:21
  • @neilfein I wasn't trying to push for yes or no in my question, I simply wanted to raise the issue. Oh well. – Sonny Ordell Apr 1 '12 at 0:47
  • Yes, it was a proposal, and the downvoters disagreed with it. Obviously it's best if they say why. If it helps, think of it as a group of people in a meeting voting "yea" or "nay", or raising their hands in response to a question. ("Who here agrees that..." "...okay, who agrees?") You get the general pulse of the group like this, but the discussion is really where the work gets done. Helpful? – neilfein Apr 1 '12 at 2:13
  • @votes should be for answers, which would be for or against. Or questions that are pushing something. If it is a neutral proposal, then voting doesn't make sense except for how strong it is as a question/proposal. – Sonny Ordell Apr 1 '12 at 2:54
  • 1
    You're essentially saying that the Q&A model doesn't translate perfectly to Meta discussion sites. Put that way, you'll get no argument from me, but this isn't the place to discuss it. And telling people "stop voting that way" won't help your cause. If you want to work towards changing this, I suggest you put a well-reasoned proposal together, armed with research on how this has been approached in the past, and post it in a question on Meta Stack Overflow. The SE employees do listen to well-reasoned suggestions. – neilfein Apr 1 '12 at 4:34
  • @neilfin I don't want to submit anything and don't want to tell people to vote a certain way. I simply think downvoting a neutral proposal without even leaving a comment is petty and childish, which is behavior all too common across the SE network. I will leave it at that. – Sonny Ordell Apr 1 '12 at 4:37

I'm taking this from freiheit's excellent answer to this same question on Bicycles:

My suggestions for handling the upcoming rep changes:

  1. For editing other people's posts, this should be easy enough: anybody can propose an edit and some other higher-rep users can approve it. If you're one of those 11 non-moderator people over 2000 rep points do please pay attention to proposed edits.
  2. For tag wiki edits it's the same thing, just fewer users that can approve.
  3. For everything else, leave a comment on the post and flag it for moderator attention. We will be happy to close, reopen, migrate, protect or delete questions or answers that need it, especially if there are comments from multiple users saying that's what needs to happen.
  4. Vote. Vote. Vote. (so that we get more high reputation users and don't have to worry about this)

This has been asked many times when sites graduated and the request was always denied by SE. Having enough users with the necessary reputation to moderate the site is one of the graduation requirement.

We actually have comparatively many high-reputation users for a freshly graduated site, so I see no big problem there.


Personally, I think privileges acquired in public beta should be grandfathered upon graduation.

The users who were active during public beta have all contributed to your site's success so that could be a way to thank them, to recognize their contribution and to keep the critical mass without lowering the thresholds for everyone. If you think that's exploitable, you could set a lower bound (like, say, 200 reputation) so that only active users have grandfathered privileges.

You must log in to answer this question.

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