Skip to main content
Meta Stack Exchange

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

21
  • 115
    I find it extremely sad that I keep hitting my rep cap on Meta, but can barely get a vote on any of the other sites. I should seriously get a hobby. Commented Sep 17, 2009 at 17:51
  • 8
    A better example of gaming is posting dozens of (generally poor quality) questions in rapid succession and rapidly gaining rep through they typical drive-by voting and/or sympathy voting. (I'm all about voting questions up when they're good, but some questions just seem to get votes for no apparent reason...) Since rep is a measure of trust, this type of rep-farming could garner enough rep for someone who is most likely not trustworthy to do things that they probably ought not to be able to do. (IIRC that was listed in a blog post/meta topic related to the caps) Commented Sep 17, 2009 at 17:52
  • 12
    Why can't Meta be your hobby? ;) Commented Sep 17, 2009 at 17:52
  • 7
    Welcome to the club of Meta sadness Diago. But at least you're on the first page on SU. Commented Sep 18, 2009 at 1:11
  • 21
    If you've legitimately earned enough votes to get 1000 rep, I wouldn't say you've gamed the site. Commented Oct 2, 2009 at 15:01
  • 88
    It doesn't level the playing field, it maintains the status quo. It is not possible for a new user to catch-up to Jon Skeet unless Jon stops contributing. He gets his 200 points per day and, as nobody else can exceed that (other than the few holes in the cap), he will always stay ahead. Commented Oct 3, 2009 at 15:38
  • 2
    +2 or more, if possible for that insightful comment, Dan D., but I don't want to push you over your cap. But suppose there was no cap. On average, the legacy of left answers and questions, will someday average on or over the 200 and will only increase. First-timers that are continuously active always have a large advantage. Weighing a vote based on the question's age is the only (?) way to balance that out and keep the system fair. Commented Nov 4, 2009 at 23:28
  • I've been wondering what the intention of the reputation cap was for a couple weeks now, and finally found this. Thank you for a clear explanation; I now appreciate the reputation cap. Commented Feb 11, 2010 at 1:15
  • 20
    Mentioning "stopping the site from being gamed " and "levelling the playing field " right next to each other seams a bit funny to me :) Commented Dec 4, 2010 at 15:59
  • 5
    @Diago So do you have a hobby yet? ;-P Commented Mar 10, 2011 at 21:45
  • 4
    How has Jon Skeet gamed the site? He's a legitimate contributor. Commented May 12, 2011 at 0:04
  • 13
    If somebody know where Jon Skeet objects to the cap, could the link be edited into this answer? Commented Aug 18, 2011 at 20:19
  • 2
    @ThorbjørnRavnAndersen This about covers it I think. Commented Feb 22, 2013 at 17:34
  • 9
    @DanDyer OK, Jon gets 200 rep/day and no one can exceed it, but without cap he would simply get a LOT more. Now Jon and some other people are at constant distance, progressing by 200 / day. Without cap Jon would leave them behind even more. So yes, cap maintains the status quo in a way, but removing it would not help new users to catch up. It would "help" them to be further behind each day. Commented Oct 9, 2013 at 8:14
  • 5
    "leveling the playing field" - this is the weakest (to put very diplomatically) argument that could have been behind this. Who cares if people fall behind. They either don't have as much time as others or don't have enough knowledge and that's fine. They're providing answers for free on their own time and the cap is removing any significant incentive to do so once the cap comes into play. Commented Jan 10, 2015 at 12:51