1

I just offered my first bounty on SuperUser, and got the reputation points deducted as expected. However I still have not received the Promoter badge. Bizarrely, when I then visited this meta site to ask about it, I noticed that my reputation points here have not been deducted.

So I guess this is a two-fold question:

  • normally badges are awarded immediately; what went wrong here?
  • are site and meta site reputation points supposed to be in sync? (the badges are understandably not - I have more bronze badges on the site than here)

Edit - just realized that the only SE site on which my site and meta reputations were initially in sync is this one (378 points each, the site reputation is now deducted 50 points). On other sites my meta reputation starts at the normal 1 + 100 bonus. Very bizarre coincidence, or what? But the badge is still missing.

Edit 2 - going to my badges tab, I can see that the Promoter badge is actually already awarded. But somehow the summary is incorrect; see attached image

1
  • Most badges are awarded on a schedule, they are not usually immediate. Some are on 5 minute schedules, some hourly and some daily. Meta rep sync is also on a schedule. So a short time discrepancy is expected in all these cases. In addition, the profile page does get cached for a while, so changes may not get reflected on it immediately either.
    – Oded StaffMod
    Commented Feb 24, 2014 at 14:02

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
3

Some badge calculations are performed daily; wait a day before worrying.

Meta-rep sometimes has a slight delay in synchronising - again, wait a bit longer before worrying.

3
  • ah, good. the caching doesn't seem to be consistent though, even on the same page? (see screenshot)
    – michel-slm
    Commented Feb 24, 2014 at 13:16
  • @michel-slm Nothing too unusual about that. Likely two different data sources. Anyone who viewed any of your questions would see the badge count (which would also have a longer cache expiry, since it's served more often). When you view the badge list explicitly, that could be uncached (not viewed often enough to matter) or not have been accessed recently, leading to the first load of the cache with fresh data.
    – Bob
    Commented Feb 24, 2014 at 13:23
  • Ah, with that use case the different caching does make sense. Thanks!
    – michel-slm
    Commented Feb 24, 2014 at 14:05

You must log in to answer this question.

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