Skip to main content
30 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Feb 9, 2021 at 9:22 comment added peterh Jon Skeet would have about 5million rep without the rep cap. He would not get daily 1000, only about 400. The funny thing is, that the second, third and fourth most high rep SO users together would have the same rep as Jon (they would have about 1.5million).
Nov 29, 2019 at 6:20 comment added user630541 Jon isn't gaming the site, and if they were concerned about mod tools they could just put a time limit on it. This answer makes no sense.
S May 3, 2017 at 19:20 history suggested Stevoisiak CC BY-SA 3.0
minor grammar corrections
May 3, 2017 at 18:28 review Suggested edits
S May 3, 2017 at 19:20
Mar 20, 2017 at 9:39 history edited CommunityBot
replaced http://meta.stackoverflow.com/ with https://meta.stackoverflow.com/
Feb 20, 2017 at 17:09 comment added Masked Man and why exactly do users have to "catch up" with Jon Skeet (or anyone else for that matter)?
Oct 31, 2016 at 16:22 comment added Honey John has 900,000 reps now. Assuming he's been around 8 years, that means he has amassed 308 points on an average day. Roughly 7 accepted answers per a day! I get an accepted answer every 2 months. He's doing ~420X better! Sad world :(
Jan 10, 2015 at 12:51 comment added Marcin Kaminski "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.
Oct 9, 2013 at 8:14 comment added Mołot @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.
Mar 15, 2013 at 21:33 comment added user1766760 Very amused that I wanted to ask who Jon Skeet was and found this thread.
Feb 22, 2013 at 17:34 comment added Bernhard Barker @ThorbjørnRavnAndersen This about covers it I think.
Feb 12, 2013 at 20:46 comment added Cole Tobin He can edit your posts. He just has to have it be reviewed first.
Aug 18, 2011 at 20:19 comment added Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen If somebody know where Jon Skeet objects to the cap, could the link be edited into this answer?
May 12, 2011 at 0:04 comment added Andrew Grimm How has Jon Skeet gamed the site? He's a legitimate contributor.
S Apr 14, 2011 at 23:33 history suggested brunnerh CC BY-SA 3.0
spelling fixes
Apr 14, 2011 at 23:30 review Suggested edits
S Apr 14, 2011 at 23:33
Mar 10, 2011 at 21:45 comment added Pollyanna @Diago So do you have a hobby yet? ;-P
Dec 4, 2010 at 15:59 comment added Kos Mentioning "stopping the site from being gamed " and "levelling the playing field " right next to each other seams a bit funny to me :)
Feb 11, 2010 at 6:04 history edited BinaryMisfit CC BY-SA 2.5
deleted 3 characters in body
Feb 11, 2010 at 1:15 comment added antiver 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.
Nov 4, 2009 at 23:28 comment added Abel +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.
Oct 3, 2009 at 15:38 comment added Dan Dyer 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.
Oct 2, 2009 at 15:01 comment added Joel Coehoorn Mod If you've legitimately earned enough votes to get 1000 rep, I wouldn't say you've gamed the site.
Sep 18, 2009 at 1:30 vote accept Graeme Perrow
Sep 18, 2009 at 1:11 comment added random Welcome to the club of Meta sadness Diago. But at least you're on the first page on SU.
Sep 17, 2009 at 17:52 comment added gnostradamus Why can't Meta be your hobby? ;)
Sep 17, 2009 at 17:52 comment added AnonJr 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)
Sep 17, 2009 at 17:51 comment added BinaryMisfit 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.
Sep 17, 2009 at 17:50 history edited BinaryMisfit CC BY-SA 2.5
deleted 1 characters in body; added 649 characters in body; added 3 characters in body
Sep 17, 2009 at 17:45 history answered BinaryMisfit CC BY-SA 2.5