Why do we lose our privileges?
I don't particularly like the top answer on the most famous question:
What's the point of putting your reputation on the line for a bounty if there is no consequence of losing it?
This does not apply to privileges, so I have cut out reputation altogether. Much better!
What's the point of a bounty?
Bounties are for ...
90% of traffic is from web searches
the way we calculate views is very strict by IP
it takes a minimum of 15 rep to cast any votes at all
So of those 30 views, 27 (90%) of them are statistically going to be from users who cannot vote even if they wanted to.
Lemme play devil's advocate here... Is it so terrible if it does discourage activity? If someone wakes up in the morning, posts some great answers, hits the rep cap, and takes the rest of the day off (perhaps to do their job or spend time with family or cook waffles), is that necessarily a bad thing?
I mean... what's the worst-case? A question gets asked ...
Thanks for your interest in participating! The reputation system can be a little bit confusing at first, but rest assured - it's not that we think you aren't cool.
Start out by taking the tour. It explains all the basic concepts of how the site works. If you check out the privileges page you can see how much reputation each new privilege requires and how ...
The two main reaons why people who read a question or answer and don't vote are:
They shoot in from an external search like Google or Yahoo! and often do not have the reputation to upvote questions or answers that helped them solve their problem.
They are already capable of voting, but not sure on the topic matter and do not want to cast a vote in an area ...
Privileges are not permanent.
If your rep falls below the required threshold of a privilege for any reason (you place a bounty, downvotes, rep recalc, beta→gold site transition, etc) you do lose the privilege, but only until your rep increases above the required threshold again.
This is 100% status-bydesign. In fact, it's a core part of how Stack Exchange works.
The sort of questions you're seeing are what we call "canonical answers." It's an effort to build a knowledge base of information that's likely to be useful for many different people.
Self-answering is encouraged. If you figure out something cool that other people might ...
You can see and approve pending edits from others when you come across a post that has one suggested.
If you want to see the queue of pending suggested edits, you'll need to break through the 5000 reputation ceiling.
What Hyppy said is true but just to elaborate further... Just because you are a programming wiz does not mean you are also a Database/cooking/English/Gaming Expert. You have to prove your worth on each of the sites and show that you deserve to have additional privileges. On a related note- if are member of a Stack Exchange site with over 200 rep and you link ...
I have now reviewed around 7000 posts. Since I review mostly first / late answers (because I see the questions at the front page), you can more or less take this as a statistical sample of what really happens.
1032 edited (and they really needed to be edited)
387 were flagged (that's around 5.5%)
I don't think this is a lot. Of this 5.5%, ...
I would say post better answers, but I honestly can't find any answers that I'd take offense with. I just guess you answered questions which are low visibility, and where the user hasn't bothered to test the answers.
Why aren't posts getting votes?
While the views are from different IPs, most of them aren't even by registered users or users with the privilege to vote. If—quoting Jeff Atwood—90% of all visitors can't vote on the stuff they see, then this would explain the lack of votes quite easily. And I agree: It's sad to see good questions stick around with 0 votes.
Reputation is accumulated on a per-site basis. However, once you earn 200 rep on any site, you automatically get a +100 bonus on all other sites. This is because once you earn 200 rep the system trusts you enough to use basic features like voting and commenting on all of the Stack Exchange sites.
I can imagine a few reasons:
High reputation users have acquired a lot of knowledge—not only in a technical sense, but knowledge that helps them find an answer to their own problems more quickly. Writing good answers requires thorough research, and after contributing hundreds of answers you might be more efficient at solving your own problems, hence no need ...
He doesn't have enough reputation to downvote either questions or answers, so any downvotes are coming from another user.
Please see here in the Help Center which explains that a user requires 125 reputation on the site to cast downvotes on either questions or answers.
His comments will almost certainly result in him being banned (if that hasn't already ...
Comments serve an auxiliary function; they exist to support the all-important questions and answers. The goal is not to generate more comments, but better Q&A.
As such, you should assume that comments will be temporary; if you're putting information into a comment that would be nice to have around long-term, consider trying to work it into the question ...
If you link your accounts with a common ID like OpenID you get a bonus 100 rep, however you need to have 200 rep one site first though. This will back date as well, so if you link accounts, for example between Stack Overflow and Super user before getting 200 on either site then link with another site after getting 200 rep all your accounts will get the bonus ...
Why did I receive my SU rep (apparently) on meta.SU
Why is the situation different for SO?
Per-site meta is different from Meta.SO - Per-site meta have their rep sync'd with the parent site every hour or so.
Why is it different for SO? Initially, there was no concept of per-site metas - Meta.SO was used as the common, global bug-tracker & ...
"User was removed" indicates that a user voted for one of your posts had their account deleted - the account deletion is because either it was requested by them, or removed for other reasons(spam account destroyed etc).
As a result, all of their votes were undone, and the rep you gained/lost was reversed.
Since the upvote was removed, you lost the 10 rep
The reputation point system is really designed to ease people into learning to use the site effectively and eventually metamoderation tasks. While it shouldn't be punitive in theory, sometimes it is - especially when something is clearly out of scope. On main sites, question downvotes often indicate a lack of research, information, or something that simply ...
ooh. This is a strange one.
IANAL but I suppose the terms of service would be the thing to look at here. I don't see anything explicitly talking about transferring an account but
Subscriber is solely responsible for any use of or action taken under
Subscriber’s password and accepts full responsibility for all activity
conducted through Subscriber’s ...
You login into Super User (and by extension the wider Stack Exchange network) via 3rd party authorisation tools
Your Super User account is linked to other accounts you may have on the network.
This sounds like a really bad idea.
You have no way of disassociating your Super User account from the rest of your accounts. So if you handed over this ...
Super User is somewhat special in this regard, because its not that easy to get to 5 or 10k rep without posting a several hundred answers. That's why you have users like random and studiohack for a long time that are very helpful, but don't get any rep in return.
However, the argument of lack of overlap between rep and edits already shows why your ...
This is by design because the child metas don't really have the traffic for the reviewers to go through the queue.
Why can't I suggest edits on SE meta sites?
Mostly because the per-site metas are generally low traffic -- some of them count daily visits in the dozens.
That means the moderators will have to do the work, since the 10k site users ...
Your answer does not explain anything; it's just two sentences. There's more valuable information in the comments to your answer than in the post itself.
By all means, I see no reason it should not be downvoted – if only to encourage you to improve it. Just because you didn't receive any feedback doesn't mean your answer is without problems.
Note: The ...