Right now I have one (1) reputation and I need 20 to be in a chat. How do I test the chat API? Do I need to get more upvotes to chat or is there a "sandbox" chat that does not need rep?  I know that the chat API is not formal and official and that is why I need to test it.  If there isn't a chat sandbox that doesn't require 20 rep, I will accept an answer saying so.
104936
I recently found this  with the chatbot and wanted to know what all of the chatbot commands do (including learned ones and the ones with no definition.) What exactly was the Chat Sandbox designed for, and what are the commands/what do they do?
99734
There is (apparently) a 100 reputation requirement to upload and post images through chat.  There isn't any easily located documentation on this, however. 100 global reputation is listed as the privilege for , while the chat FAQ and help both do not mention any restrictions on uploading images.  As such, could somewhere other than  be used to indicate that there is a reputation requirement in chat for uploading images?
74893
Chat has many problems.   (Wut? I'm not suspended here!)  I think chat should be redone. The URL is weird, sometimes its chat.stackexchange.com sometimes its chat.SITE.stackexchange.com. Then here its chat.meta.stackexchange.com and the chat profile on other sites is not linked here.  I think we should use one site, and its chat.stackexchange.com. That way, there's no funny suspension issues.  Instead, it should be like chat.stackexchange.com/?site=SITE. Sites like stackoverflow will be just as the name is for SITE, not chat.stackoverflow.com.  Then for the suspension detection thing, it should not check the referrer, otherwise that ^ happens. Instead, it should look at the site for the room and check if the user is trying to chat.  and say "Hey! You're not suspended here! Chat!" or "Sorry, you're suspended. No chatting for you :(". Also, the caching issue with SE 1.0 sites needs to be fixed.  Also, this makes all chat profiles one, not have multiple. Also, based on the site part of the URL, the CSS changes according the the site.  Here's how to get it.   Get a test account suspended. Go to a room like chat.SE.com/rooms/35/the-bridge Click "all rooms" Go to a random room on a different site. You're still suspended and can't chat.   This needs to be so that its not suspended on "chat.SE.com" but it checks on the site for the room. Example: I can't chat in Arqade rooms but I can chat in the charcoal chatbot sandbox room. Otherwise I can only chat on chat.SO.com and chat.meta.SE.com.    Ok if you don't like "redo" then lets go with "change some stuff"
96812
I was reviewing First Posts just now, and I received the following message after my 20th vote:     Thank you for reviewing 20 First Posts today; come back in 8 hours to continue reviewing.   I see other users, with far lower reputation than me, .  Why is it I only have 20 votes?  I saw the  question, but the accepted answer there mentions flag weight, and I was under the impression that Flag Weight is gone (since it is no longer visibile on my profile).  What is the formula that determines the number of First Post votes a person can get per day?
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?
21736
While I was perusing  today, I noticed that it stated my all-time rep was 412 when it actually is 453 (as of now). Does this reputation take time to update itself? (I had gotten a few upvotes just before I checked). I'm just curious.
102904
I joined 20 other sites (out of the many) and even with 1 rep was able to post in any of the chatrooms. For example: In ELL, I have just 1 rep and have posted messages in its chat.  ell.stackexchange.com/users/18923/lamart This seems like a bug because I should have needed 20 rep to post. . EDIT: From , I got the idea to make this edit. To reproduce this bug/error:  Create a new SE account. Use it to make an account here. You will get 1 default rep. Choose a random SE site and use this account to get 1 rep on that random site. Repeat the above step 20 times. Now you have 1 rep on 20 network sites but the net SE rep is 20. Go to the ELL chat and ping me. (important step)  From my comment: I have now got 40 rep since people voted this question up. Initially I had net 20 rep gained by creating 20 accounts on 20 different SE sites. Those default 1rep added up to get me to 20rep and I was able to chat. The link says one needs 20 rep in any of the SE site to chat in &quot;all the other&quot; category chatrooms..... but I did not have 20 rep on ELL at that moment.
104977
NB: I'm not sure if this is actually a bug, or if I just don't know enough about what constitutes a new user. It just seems off to me.  The first post in question:   :   In the context of reviews, is a new user just someone who has never posted an answer no matter their age or rep?  Also: How is it possible for a user to have -1 other answers? Could this be related?
82
Users with less than 50 reputation points cannot write comments on questions and answers that they don't own.  Why does this limit exist? But I want to contribute now. What should I do instead? But I can't write a good answer without more information! Shouldn't I be allowed to post comments if I have reputation on a different site? But I saw a new user posting a comment! How did they do it? Why do I need 50 reputation to comment on my own post?   See also:    in the Help Center
77351
On Physics Stack Exchange I have 96 reputation points. I'm able to upvote something, but when I tried downvoting a question it said that my vote would be recorded, but not displayed.  Is there a different amount of reputation points needed to downvote than to upvote?
34661
Upvoting requires 15 reputation, but the association bonus is taken into account, so if you have at least 200 reputation on any site, you can upvote on all sites in the network.  This is a bit problematic when it comes to per-site metas. The votes there are used to gauge the opinion of the community, and they are often taken into account when implementing new policies.  What can happen is that a post from a per-site meta is linked in an unrelated high-traffic chat room, usually because there is some entertaining drama going on or because someone posted a particularly bad idea. This can lead to an influx of votes from external users that usually wouldn't visit or use the site, but currently still can vote on their meta due to the association bonus.  I think a very low minimum participation on the site should be required to vote on meta issues. This would make the votes on the per-site meta more robust and less easily skewed by being linked from outside.  Not counting the association bonus for the upvote privilege would be enough, then all users would have to earn 14 reputation on the site itself.
54487
I have enough reputation to open a meta question in one community, but I don't have enough reputation to open a meta question in a different community.   I thought the point of requiring some reputation was to filter out spammers, wouldn't some reputation in any community show that a user isn't a spammer?
41172
Is there any way of getting to the first 15 reputation (at which point you can actually do something) on Stack Overflow other than by asking questions?  My problem is this: if I see a good answer that works, I can't vote for it (not enough reputation).  I have been programming for many years and often see a question I could contribute, but I can't (not enough reputation).  I so far have never needed to ask a question (I know how to use a search facility, and so can find an already existing answer).    Therefore asking questions can't possibly be the only mechanism to get enough reputation to get started, can it?  Because if it is then as more and more questions get asked on Stack Overflow, the need to ask new ones will diminish, so if this is the only mechanism of gaining those first few reputation, soon all new joiners will never be able to contribute, or will need to re-ask already answered questions (not good for anyone).  Advice on how to get those first few reputation gratefully received.
567
Yesterday I wanted to comment on a question on Stack&nbsp;Overflow, but I don't have 50 reputation points. The question is that I referred in my answer to another Stack&nbsp;Overflow question, and my response had showed as a comment.  It is correct?? I don't know if this is a bug.  This is the question:   And now my rep is 47.
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.
59645
This is something I have faced quite recently. Someone very new to Stack Overflow asked a question, but is not able to communicate properly or exactly understand the answers that has been given for his question. He normally clarifies that in comments. But sometimes, it is necessary to have a one-to-one conversation with the one who has given the answer, so that the comments section is not populated with some trivial comments. So, I just felt that it'd be great if the reputation limit for talking in chat is removed.
49031
I was reviewing the star on chat.SE list this morning and I noticed that quite a few of the items on the list were mine.  I was curious as to how often people enjoy the things I post there enough to star them, but I can't seem to find statistics about this anywhere.  Mana told me that no such feature exists.  (the best we could come up with is ) So here's my request - can I filter/search the chat history for things I've said that other people have starred?