I had a situation earlier where I was trying to help someone with an issue. If I upvote all their questions so we can move it to chat, is that ok? They did not have enough rep to chat.
1121
I just noticed that I lost a bunch of points from my reputation score, and I used the "reputation" tab on my user profile page to try and track down the cause.  During my investigation, I noticed there was an unusual event of type "reversal". In the normal place of a question title, it says "voting corrected".     What does this mean, and what caused it?  Did I do something wrong? Why did I lose all of that reputation? Is the system punishing me for leaving too many good answers?  Is there any way to earn it back?
30832
After thinking about    which I declined for the reasons , and    I have a proposal.  How about if question upvotes were only worth +5 rep instead of +10? And this was applied retroactively? (answer upvotes would be unchanged from the current behavior, so this would be question specific.)  This seems to be a better solution to the particular  problem  without all the rather serious negative repercussions of increasing the punitive value and/or cost of downvotes across the board.
124152
I've seen a few questions I'd like to comment on or give a different answer, but seeing how I don't have 50 reputation (I've been a lurker for years, finally decided to participate) do I really need to ask a few questions before I can comment/answer other people's stuff? Or am I missing something here?  Sorry if this has been answered before, but with a few search tries I couldn't find any similar stuff, even tried google just for "50 reputation stackoverflow" but that didn't give me anything either.
61021
I'm a member of the community (StackOverflow).  This community is here to discuss that community.  Why, even though I'm a 10k+ user on the real community, am I treated like a second-class citizen here?  It seems kind of cliquey.  I want to volunteer my time to StackOverflow, but not usually through meta discussions.  But when something hinders my ability to work on SO, I want to be able to discuss it here without being stifled.  I also understand that this community has unique considerations from a moderation standpoint.  An SO moderator might not make a good meta.SO moderator.  I suggest we draw a line between permissions that facilitate participation and those that facilitate moderation.  Here are the ones I think primarily facilitate participation:   Leave comments Vote up Flag offensive Edit community wiki posts Vote down Show total up and down vote counts (because it allows you to guage the actual popularity of an opinion).   Allowing anybody to leave comments was a great first step.  My proposal is that the above permissions would either be granted to all people who have the equivalent permission on SO (or even another sister site?) or to all people (i.e. no rep requirement).  Incidentally, since votes in SO often are used to guage the popularity of a suggestion, I don't think there should be penalties for downvoting but that's another, related topic.  It just makes no sense to me that you can have people that have full participation rights on meta.SO even though they have never really participated on SO, meanwhile I'm a very active member on SO and am hindered from talking about it here.  It's like having a town hall meeting but only inviting the people who hang around town hall.    To sum up some of the comments, in reality much of what I'm talking about you already get from account association so I'd be totally satisfied if we lowered the vote down and vote split rep requirements to 100.
89010
On Software Engineering I've been adding a message along these lines to old(ish) questions that have enough answers to be CW if they start getting new answers.     Please read all of the existing answers before posting yours. The question is relatively old and has a reasonable number of answers already. There is a good chance that your answer has already been posted.   I know most people don't read dialogs and just click "OK" to get through them, but if we can stop a few people adding to such questions then it's got to be good right?  The age of the question and the number of existing answers required that trigger this message can be configurable.
53604
I'm aware of the preference for 'general answers to general questions' attitude on SO, and wholeheartedly agree that questions that are focused on specific, one-time issues are not as valuable to the site.  However, where an issue is potentially useful but getting to the heart of it is taking some doing, the obvious option is to migrate the discussion to chat.  Once the user has a better understanding of their issue, the question can be edited to a useful form and answered succinctly for future readers.  The issue, as noted in other questions here, is that these situations most often occur with a sub 20 rep user, and so with the chat feature denied a long discussion in the comments becomes likely.  I totally understand the sentiments expressed here: , and I don't feel that a chat session should be used to completely solve a users problem, but it would be nice if the chat could be made available while a user's issue is being made clear.  And so...  The Actual Proposal  Would it be possible to enable the invite to chat feature for sub 20 rep users, based on an invite from a higher rep user who can be trusted to use the chat conversation in the correct manner and take the results back to the originating question?    The sub 20 rep user could be locked to that single chat instance, and still unable to participate in the main boards.  The inviting user should have a much higher rep, somewhere in the thousands, and so would hopefully use the feature responsibly in a way that was aimed at providing a worthwhile question and answer as the result.
21681
It was nice to discover the option for a room owner to add any user to a room, even if their rep is too low.     ...so I notified the user in question, and as instructed on the next screen, I had them got to chat.stackoverflow.com so that I'd be able to add them.    ...but when they did their part, and I did my part, I got the message:    Obviously both frustrated, the user's next logical question was:  "So I just have ask a couple questions and get someone to upvote them, right?"    Needless to say, we don't want to encourage new users to post questions for the sole purpose of bypassing a frustrating, misdocumented rule.  I realize this will likely quickly get closed since it has at least one  - which hasn't been touched in 5½ years.  However it would be nice if the issue was revisited:  Ideally, it would be cool if RO's did have the option of deciding who had access to the room they "own", but short of that, is it possible to remove the 6 "misleading" words from that page?
42607
I don't know about you, but to me happens a lot: if I'm reading a question with a LOT of answers, (specially in a really specific question) I just read the most voted up: that's the way the system was made to be, and it's really good. The most relevant voted by the community are the first ones.  Since we have TOO many users, and a lot of them are reading the same questions and answering them almost at the same time, do you think the "urge" to be the first to answer a question and so gain reputation points makes people sometimes write things too fast and not try to really elaborate a really helpful answer? We may think: "people aren't going to read all answers, so I need to be really concerned about how fast I'm to answer". Are we incentivating "objective answers", or "not so good but objective and good to be voted up"?  I'm not trying to be unfair with all answers people here provide, we have really good ones here. But supose what I wrote above is a reality: what you think it would happen if it was a "time delay" between an "up-vote or down-vote" and it's sum in the answer? Summarizing: what if the sum wasn't almost "real time"?
50887
I am new to Stack  Exchange and I think it's very impressive.  One thing bothers me is that because it is so far down the line, I don't think beginners stand a chance of growing.  As time goes on, more and more questions are being answered and therefore if someone asks something with a really basic answer you can just comment. However, beginners can't comment until they have a reputation of 50. The only way they can build up is by answering questions. But if they answer a basic question long winded, they will be voted down because not so much effort was needed or because its already a duplicate and will lose the bit of reputation they have earned.  Can you tell me the future for beginners?
11956
Quite often a number of users will give similar answers to one of my questions. Sometimes someone will give an answer that is interesting, but does not really help with my question.  In all cases, I feel a need to thank the people who answered my question. It isn't always appropriate for me to upvote every answer, and I can only accept one answer. Giving a "thanks" comment on every answer appears to be frowned upon.  So, what's the etiquette?
84526
(or at least those of use who have asked positive questions), is there going to be any change to the rep required for, as an example, ? I can see myself suddenly getting a significant chunk of rep, and that may push me past the 25k boundary required for "Access to site analytics". I'm not any more knowledgeable than I was prior to the calculation though, so does this make sense?  Are rep boundaries like those for the association bonus, privileges, commenting etc. going to be adjusted? Or is this adjustment meant to more accurately reflect the site knowledge associated with asking a good question, so no change will happen?
23727
How do users on the new Stack Exchange sites get started? Each user starts with 1 rep, and can't upvote until they have 15 rep.  It struck me that this creates a bit of a deadlock. If a new user asks a question and a new user answers, neither can upvote the other.  Are we relying solely on existing SE users to join these exchange sites (with their bonus 100 rep) so that they can get started?
94757
I  sometimes wonder where to ask a particular question (on Ubuntu? Unix and Linux? Superuser?) because all of the sites will have great people to help. This is not a common case for me but I already had it happening.   It may be, though, that a question goes unanswered for a while and would be ,  all in all, a better fit for another site.   Is it acceptable, then, to migrate it ? Or move (delete and repost)? Or copy?
8903
I've posted a question or an answer, and I have received one or more downvotes. I am not really sure why I was down voted, or I think I know why, but I disagree.  Why did this happen, and what should I do about it?
34283
There have been a number of cases where I would like to thank someone for providing me with a thorough response and give them feedback beyond the vote up. Often I wish people would tell me why they voted me up. Not that the thank you part is necessary but it sets it apart from the other comments related to answering the question itself.  In this type of situation is a "Thank you" acceptable in a comment?     For more information, see  in the .
93787
I've recently had one member in particular who wastes hours of my time asking/commenting about my posts without contributing anything productive towards answering them. I don't want to appear rude to other members (who obviously wouldn't be aware of the history), so I feel obligated to respond to each comment.   In addition, I've noticed that once this member starts participating I am significantly less likely to get input from other members (probably because they either assume that he's solving the problem, or because they get as big a headache as I do trying to read through the comments), and I'm therefore not getting questions answered if this member responds to them.  I don't believe that it would be appropriate and/or helpful to flag the comments  because there's nothing grossly wrong with a comment when viewed individually, and as far as I understand flags don't affect an individuals privileges.  Is there anything that I can currently do to limit and/or block this member from commenting/answering my posts, and if not, is this something that would be worthwhile considering in the future?
15115
I just ran into this while writing .  [I originally wrote:     you need a minimum of X reputation to comment on questions that are not your own, and on answers that are not to your own questions   But had to shorten it to:     you need a minimum of X reputation to comment]   First, it didn't tell me that I'd gone over the character limit for the title until after I had already tabbed out of the title field.  Second, it didn't tell me how much I'd gone over or anything. I had to copy-paste the text I'd written into my text editor in order to get some real-time feedback on the exact character count, to help figure out how to best shorten it.