Over a long enough time, everybody who has asked a half-decent question, or posted a half-decent answer, will gain access to the moderation tools. There is a natural "inflation" to the rep system in regards to the features that unlock.  The rep system was supposed to only unlock features for users who have proven themselves "trusted" through high-ranking activity on the site... but over time, that will eventually include just about everyone, whether they've been good members or not.  Is this a problem? If not, why not?
60876
Overall reputation scores are headed nowhere but up.  Pretty soon there will be thousands of mods.  What to do?  Thoughts on possibilities:   Thousands of mods is fine.  Carry on. Adjust the threshold values for high-level SO privileges. Do a straight-up inflation adjustment.  You had x rep, then at the turn of the year we applied the Consumer Rep Index to all scores, now you have (x / inflation) rep. Implement a rep decay mechanism, so that inactivity sheds some of the overall rep that's built up.
104166
It seems that the moderators are too loose with the "protected" designation.  I've seen this with questions asked by others and I've had it done to my own questions.  I've seen a number of questions without any down-voted answers become "protected".  I do realize that some answers may have been removed, but it wasn't the case for at least some of the questions I asked. Which makes it impossible to answer for new users who just joined the communities where the questions were asked.    This is particularly impactful when it happen to questions in lightly-visited communities.  In such situations, a particular question may be interesting, but its author would never see many of potentially good answers which would be given by people joining these lightly-visited communities for the 1st time (often with the specific purpose of answering these questions).  Why not give the authors of questions ability to remove the "protected" designation?  Sort of as a "I can handle bad answers better than no answers" veto?  Edit  After considering the following point made in Catija's answer:      Preventing the bad answers reduces the amount of work that the high-rep users and moderators have to do in order to clean up bad content. You don't get to make others to do this work because you want lots of answers or points of view.   I have to agree with not allowing authors absolute right to "unprotect" questions.  However, in the interest of making the community more helpful, as much as possible, rather than coming off censorial, I will propose a feature request as following:  How about giving authors ability to privately unprotect questions?  A privately unprotected question would mean that "new" users can post answers and they will not be seen by community until the authors gain enough reputation (similar to how this works with upvotes on certain questions right now)?  Question authors should, however, see all answers -- even the ones hidden from the community due to low reputation of those who answer them.  Answers which are not eligible to be seen by the community should not be eligible for moderation, either.  This should reduce the flow of low-quality answers in the direction of moderators.
74237
Takeaway: Are 4 inexperienced users more reliable than 3 experienced users? A high rep doesn't ensure you are smarter, but it makes you the safer option.    I went to SuperUser to see what suggestions can be found for different Malware-removal Applications.  was right on target, and sported five answers, with a total of 9 up-votes.  All of the answers were provided by low-rep users, and that leads me to recognize that the up-votes may be a similar case. Just as answers aren't always equal, neither should up-votes be. The top answer currently has 4 up-votes, and the second most popular answer currently has 3 up-votes. The people who voted in the 3, may be more reputable than those who voted in the 4. Am I communicating this clearly?  I'm not asking that we be told who voted for a particular question, but I am asking that we be told what type of reputation they had. If the 4 votes come from 4 users with less than 300 rep, and the 3 votes came from two users with 300 rep and 1 with 10k rep, the 3 votes should appear stronger by the standards of the system.  Right now I'm worried about accepting the top-voted solution simply because I fear the up-votes may be from people with similar rep to those providing the answers - that doesn't make them wrong, only less-reliable by the standards of the stackexchange engine.  Can we see the sum of rep for  the votes? (Data in parenthesis would not be visible)   4 Votes (Ted • 72 | Bill • 183 | Carl • 423 | J • 100) = Power of 778 3 Votes (Bob • 19,123 | TJ • 283 | Mike • 8,923)       = Power of 28,329  So in this case, you wouldn't see who voted, only that their rep-sum was 778 and 28k.   4 Votes : 778 3 Votes : 28k  I'm not tied to this way of indicating the vote-power, but some method is better than no method.  Another concern is that higher-rep users (having been around longer) participate in voting less-frequently than new-comers do. After all, we're not trying to gain badges, build rep, etc. As a result, it's more likely that a low-rep users will cast a vote than it is a high-rep user. Does that follow logically?    Rebuttal     Reputation (From the SO-FAQ)      Reputation is a (very) rough measurement of  how much the Stack Overflow community trusts you. Reputation is never given, it is earned by convincing other Stack Overflow users that you know what you're talking about. (emphasis added)    "Rep has nothing to do with credibility, competence or knowledge!" - John Smithers     I agree. But it does have to do with "how much the SO community trusts you." Granting that, some votes are more trustworthy than others. Because they come from users who have convinced "other SO users that they know what they're talking about."  "The purpose of anonymous voting is that all votes are valued equally, whether they come from Jon Skeet or from some new person." - devinb     That is clearly not the case though. If SO operates by labeling some users more "trusted" than others (which it does), then that would mean some votes are trusted more than others. I would trust Jon Skeet to suggest a good programming book than I would two freshmen. It's irrational to suggest Jon Skeet will offer the best recommendation but that isn't what is being argued here. Only that Jon Skeet is the safer choice given his reputation.  "Just because a person has reputation does not mean they have more technical knowledge." - yshuditelu     I agree, but it does mean they are the safer source than somebody with no rep. That is, according to the SO-system.
50224
I tried to post an answer in the   I got this:    ...but I am able to  in the formatting sandbox    ...and I have more than 10 rep on MSE:    One needs 10 reputation to post an answer in a protected post, but I have more than 10, and I am allowed to post comments, which is a 50 rep privilege.  Then why am I not allowed to post an answer in the formatting sandbox?
36634
Is there a way to view the site without having to look at reputation information? I do not want to track my rep information or see anyone else's.  I think that'll let me focus more on the questions themselves.  Is anyone else interested in this feature? I don't see anything on Stack Overflow itself, but are there any add-ins or  scripts that do this?
96693
I don't have enough rep to view deleted posts yet. So should I be able to see the first few lines of a post via the tooltip?: (ie. rolling over the titile of a post gives you a tooltip with the first few lines of the post, just like hovering over a question on the main question page)    Yes, it's spam, I know, but there are more legit reasons for flagging - should a low-rep user be able to see a bit of this content??
64109
First this question is not a dupe of:    Though the upvotes show it's an issue: I'm not seeing things.  My question concerns specifically someone with 20K+ rep being eligible for the "moderator" status (you could vote for him on SO as a moderator, which I didn't).  I've seen post where that person changed the entire question so that it fits an answer "because then it adds value". The logic behind the edit being "so it gets referenced in Google (and is searchable directly in SO) and if someone search for the question that fits the answer, then we have an answer".  I don't disagree that from that standpoint it seems to make some sense.  But the problem is that it makes the original poster very uncomfortable: why would such a poster come back to SO if it's to see his question completely distorted?  Also, why would people answering then getting zero votes or downvoted be motivated to answer more questions when they know the question may get completely modified?  In another case, and this has been the subject of a post here on meta that generated some heat, same 20K+ rep person simply didn't understand the question. So he modified it to a question where he portrayed the user as making something illegal or questionable and the user got downvoted to oblivion. The user left SO and went ballistic on Usenet and on blogs about SO.  This is not good in my opinion because, sure, you completely rewrite questions to make it fit your own view of the world but it's detrimental to existing SO users.  Both to the original poster who asked the question and to people answering the correct question (with the correct meaning, before the crazy edit took place completely changing the question) and to commenters, which often go crazy in comments because they dislike the edit.  That user never edited one of my question, but I was reading a weird series of 20 comments and understood that obviously there was an issue at work and when I saw the name of the editor I thought "oh no, it's him once again".  So my question is simple: what do I do when I think that a user with 20K+ rep is acting in an unacceptable manner, frequently entering into arguments in comments with various SO users and often re-inventing questions?  In other words: what has been put in place in the SO platform to prevent people at the very top (being eligible for meta-moderator status, I don't know how you call this) from subverting the platform?  We could push the logic a bit further: why not write random question, random answers, random upvotes and then after a few days rewrite the question so that it matches the answer with the most vote?  Isn't there really a very serious issue here?  Once again, it's obviously not the first time the subject comes up, the problem is so obvious that it has prompted question here like "mark a user as not being able to edit your question" that I linked to above and it also prompted several blog entries criticizing SO.  I don't dare to flag his comments defending his own crazy edits because I'm thinking "maybe he's meta-moderator now, so he'll see my flag and start editing my own questions to make me look a stupid poster".  It's even worse than that: right now I'm thinking "but why ask question as to how to deal with this and make stackexchange a better platform, because my post may be edited anyway to completely distort my question?".  That is how bad it is. I found it (and it's just an opinion) a bit disgusting.  To make a bad analogy, it's a bit like when you give to much power to someone who turns out to be a bad cop. This is an issue. It has to be dealt with. But it is very difficult to deal with a bad cop once he's near the top of its sphere of influence.
11011
Coming from Stack Overflow here.  I understand that a point system is a must when you have experienced and inexperienced users all mixed together in the same boat. However, I don't understand the point of being able to see each other reputation. In fact, on Stack Overflow, the only thing that users gain with reputation are privileges, which is okay. However, these privileges are only meta tools that has nothing to do with their actual knowledge (to some extent). That being said, if these personal privileges were private (unknown to other users), it would change absolutely nothing for the other users, and the user itself.  Now, some of you will say that being able to see a user's reputation is a good overall measure of its actual capacity to answer. So when you see two answers which seem valid, but one from a 200 reputation user and one from a 20000 reputation user, our subconscious makes the biased assumption that the latter must be the best one. Even if it's usually the case, there is already a point system that takes care of that. In fact, if the latter is really a better answer, we vote the question up. If one's bad, we vote it down. As simple as that; no need for reputation.  Also, like stated in this , this makes users worry about reputation, just like if it was a form of RPG where some are better than others. However, the reality is that old users benefit from that, and new users will never be able to come as close in terms of reputation. It's not like boxing where you can prove you can knock your opponent. It's a system where only time can push you up, even if you are extremely knowledgeable but unfortunately new to the platform. Most importantly, I think that a platform like Stack Overflow, which is suppose to promote community assistance and development, is bringing down the majority by exposing the minority, when the main reason why we are all here is to learn.  I do think that a system where everyone is equally exposed on the website would be better. The reputation system would remain, but it would be private, just like the money in your bank account. There would be no bias, and the point system would still work as intended (good = +1, neutral = 0, bad = -1). In fact, it would be similar to the Reddit approach (to some extent), which is in my opinion a way more friendly one.  Any toughts?
43105
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?
110526
I have low rep on Physics &amp; Woodworking, but not so on Stack Overflow.  I just tried to ask &lt; 40 minute interval on those two and got hit with the :    I posted once on Woodworking, then ~5 minutes later tried to post on Physics, and was denied because of the 40 min rule. So apparently the system looks cross-network to assess this rule.  It seems the system is looking at my lowest cross-network rep when applying this rule rather than highest rep? What is the point of this very conservative approach? It would seem there is very little chance that a user with high rep on ANY site is likely to spam or abuse the lower-rep sites. And obviously this discourages participation across the network.  Furthermore, an improvement at least would be to warn the user ASAP so they aren't stuck with a nicely worded question in their browser window only which could be forgotten, lost, etc. As it is you only get the warning when you click [Post Your Question].
55054
Seems like a stupid question, but I'm after a nice solid answer if possible.  I joined SO a while ago to ask the odd question, but recently I'm starting to use it more often.  I've been reviewing the 40 max items (20 first posts/20 late answers) per day, and editing anything I see wrong with them (lots of +2's)... flagging them... etc.  I've also been  per day.  But other than commenting where I can and answering the odd question, I'm only  (1k at the moment).  I might just be overeager, but I was hoping some high-rep users might be able to write a little something on how they earned their stripes?  I've , and to be honest I was hoping I'd get a hit, because it sounds like a stupid question... anyways, here you go!  Also, I'm not referring to how to gain rep on Meta, since it's a bit of a fluke I've earned the rep I have on here. I'm asking about main SO.
66201
I know once you get a certain amount of reputation, you can see the total up and down votes for questions. Well, my proposal is to always be able to see this on your own questions and answers. You can see it by going to your user page anyway, so why not make it possible to do by simply clicking on the number of votes (like you can when you have the rep)?
59353
I have been on Stack Overflow for some time.  It is an AMAZING resource and don't know if I would've got through the past 18 months without it.  I love it!  Problem is that I have "1" reputation.  All of my questions have already been asked and answered.  My "new user restrictions" mean: - I can't vote up answers that were helpful. - I can't comment on answers.  I sometimes have a question to ask one of the users that answered someone else's question but I can't.  This is hard!  How do I get a break?  Do I have to troll for a couple of days/weeks/months to answer enough questions in the hope someone votes some of them up just so I can do some basic functions?  Perhaps the number of site visits and length of membership could count for something?
119228
I spent some time trying to help the OP on  this morning.  He evidently didn't like my answer,  and gave me a downvote.  How do I know?  Well, when I deleted my answer, his rep immediately went back up by 1.    Now, I don't much care about the particulars of this question/answer (or my rep), but it seems to me that this is a potentially significant hole in maintaining the anonymity of voting.  Obviously, this hole has only been possible recently -- ever since rep changes have become reflected instantly.  Also,  is very similar, but doesn't take into account the ramifications of the insta-changes to rep that led to this scenario.  Should this be considered a bug?
122946
I have noticed a couple of kinds of behavior that seem to crop up in the SO community, and it really seems to artificially boost reputation. There may not be a solution (or it may not be a problem!) but here are some thoughts.  The first is the fact that "celebrity" users, or users with lots of reputation, are treated significantly better than others. Take Joel Spolsky's most recent question:    It was closed, opened, closed, and re-opened. And the question has earned Joel - what - 1030 reputation 103 votes, and lots of reputation! Wow! I'm not saying that Joel's question is a bad one. But lets compare to other questions that one might consider to be in the same equivalence class - easily answerable, specific questions, short questions:   (5 votes)   (5 votes)  If you look at the , I can hardly find any which are specific technical questions. So that Joel's question was so upvoted could only mean that:   It was upvoted based on his celebrity People have been interpreting the questions as a sort of zen-like wakeup call, designed to get people talking and thinking about they way they vote.   I do not mean any disrespect toward Joel, and again, I think his question was a good one. This post isn't about Joel! But the boost in reputation did not (imho) mean "Joel is really good at programming, and he has earned my trust as someone knowledgeable about computers." It may be true that Joel is a proficient computer expert, but not based on the merit of that one question.  Which leads me to an example about myself. I recently gave  (130 reputation) to a question about PHP's image-creating libraries. I am very appreciative of the community's support for my answer - an answer which I believe was well-thought and that I put effort into.  At the same time I can't look someone and tell them, with a straight face, that my reputation is a great reflection of my computer-related knowledge. Billions of people on the net have created tutorials for PHP's GD image library - I just happened to be the person to post a few of them. Heck if I know why it got 13 votes! (oh, but please don't downvote it!!)  SO is built by the community - so the community absolutely gets to decide what questions are important, and how they choose to dispense reputation. But in practice, I feel like peoples' reputation would be much lower if the community were more discriminating about the way they voted.  So: am I totally off base here? Is this even something that can be corrected with a different reputation algorithm? Or am I the only one who sees this as a detriment to the SO community?  (And, to be completely clear, I do not intend for this to be an ad hominem, and I am not jealous about not having a higher reputation. But I do take reputation with a grain of salt, in part for these reasons, and I thought I'd bring it up! It is meta, after all!)
110299
Weird thing, I'm not sure if it's intentional design, so I'm asking here. On one site, yesterday I reached rep cap but then some votes were cancelled saying "User was removed". Now, the weird thing is that those votes still seem to count towards the cap, effectively “limiting” me to a lower cap:    Is that correct?
81808
I've just read that . However, there are many, many members who will never dare downvote anything because of that little 1 rep. (Besides, I think downvoting is not taken into account in the 200 daily reputation limit, but I'm not sure.) This has, as a side effect, that only really, really bad questions get downvoted.  I understand that downvotes remove rep from the people who receive it, so it must not be abused. But maybe users could have, like, (reputation / 1000) free downvotes every day?  Currently, the incentive for downvoting is a strong sense of duty. The incentive for not downvoting is OHEMGEE LOOK AT MY REP. And often, the latter is stronger.