It can happen many a times that a user with even lesser reputation can have a really valuable point/counter question to add, but it may not be complete in itself or simply might not be able to answer the question satisfactorily. In such a condition the valuable addition may be missed out.
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
12
-
3$\begingroup$ This seems like a network-wide issue, not specific to Physics. There are many discussions on the mother meta. $\endgroup$– rob ModSep 24, 2018 at 17:31
-
$\begingroup$ I'm sure that my recent comment under your answer here included a link to Meta Stack Exchange. I don't recall if I mentioned that this issue has been brought up several times and is never well-received. $\endgroup$– user191954Sep 25, 2018 at 1:04
-
1$\begingroup$ You're already more than half from the needed rep, I wonder why you don't post anymore after Oct 2016? $\endgroup$– Andrew T.Sep 25, 2018 at 8:14
-
1$\begingroup$ @AndrewT. OP spent 50 on a bounty and is now below the required rep amount (I think that indicates a loss of commenting privileges). Now it's surely a bad idea to put up a bounty and then use answers as a replacement for comments (which OP did before I directed them to meta). $\endgroup$– user191954Sep 25, 2018 at 11:50
-
$\begingroup$ This is a different problem altogether which I wanted to discuss with you as well. I was following the concerned thread for more than a week but the question did not have any thoughtful answer (which it now has :) ) and since the question was old there was no scope of it getting any attention. So after losing my patience I had to finally use the bounty (unwillingly of course). Was there any better solution? Please tell me. $\endgroup$– aymusbondSep 25, 2018 at 13:34
-
$\begingroup$ @aymusbond It's usually not a bad idea to pop over to the physics chat and explain the situation. There'll probably be someone who's interested in the question too, and people are likely to be a bit chill if you mention that you go below the comment rep level if you place the bounty yourself (although some may suggest that you make a couple of posts to put together the remaining 21 rep). $\endgroup$– user191954Sep 25, 2018 at 16:05
-
$\begingroup$ Oh! good idea Chair. Thank you. Aur ek baar fir se sorry for using the answer section. I will definitely take care next time. $\endgroup$– aymusbondSep 25, 2018 at 17:22
-
1$\begingroup$ If you doesn't click (probably accidentally) the community wiki button below your this answer, already you could have the 50 rep... :-) Don't worry, as I can see on your progress, you will get it soon. For community wiki answers, you don't get reputation (it has deeper reasons, also I am not sure so is it the best). $\endgroup$– peterhSep 27, 2018 at 21:54
-
1$\begingroup$ Building on the comment by @peterh, it may be OK for you to custom-mod-flag that specific answer and say that it shouldn't be community wiki. If a mod undoes the CW status, you'll (probably) get that rep. $\endgroup$– user191954Sep 28, 2018 at 8:41
-
$\begingroup$ @Chair could you please help me with it (undo the cw status). Or even if anyone else could help me please? $\endgroup$– aymusbondSep 28, 2018 at 13:41
-
1$\begingroup$ @aymusbond Oh well, my flag on the post was marked as helpful and it's no longer CW, but it doesn't look like you got the rep. Wait a day and see if a recalculation takes place. Otherwise, I'm afraid you'll need to write more posts/edits to get the rep. Or if there's a different SE site where you feel you'd know a bit, try earning 200 rep there, and then you'll automatically get 100 rep automatically, instantly, on every SE site you join, so you'll be able to comment anywhere on the network, including here on Physics. $\endgroup$– user191954Sep 28, 2018 at 15:26
-
$\begingroup$ @Chair Thank you immensely for helping me so much and cooperating with me. $\endgroup$– aymusbondSep 28, 2018 at 15:52
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
11
It can happen many a times that there will be someone who doesn't do physics or care at all about it, but they have this website www.X.com that they want to promote, and having a bunch of links pointing from physics.se to X.com will help convince Google that their site is trustworthy (because this site is highly ranked by Google), so they will make a bunch of sockpuppet accounts and try to post a bunch of comments linking to their site.
Those comments get very annoying very fast, and they represent a huge source of wear on how this site looks and feels to search engines, casual visitors, new users, and established members. They are not something we want around. The reputation limits are there to keep them out, and they do an excellent job of keeping out the flood of harmful comments that try to get posted here. The fact that some people with worthwhile things to add are prevented from doing so by this system is unfortunate, but it's an uneasy compromise that allows us to have a high-quality site to comment on in the first place.
Generally speaking, the systems in place for protecting against spam are run by Stack Exchange itself, and not by the Physics SE site's community. This meta site is primarily for community issues and for software issues which affect this site only. Questions and proposals about features that are common to the entire Stack Exchange system should be raised on Meta Stack Exchange. (And, if you're going to post there, you should do your due diligence and search for the existing threads, like this one and the links therein, if you don't want them to close your question as an exact duplicate.)
answered Sep 24, 2018 at 18:16
-
$\begingroup$ The chat everywhere rep threshold isn't a terribly high bar for those with vested interest, either, so it's not like it's an insurmountable task. $\endgroup$ Sep 24, 2018 at 23:24
-
$\begingroup$ @KyleKanos Few rep barriers are insurmountable, but I do think it's disingenuous to try and pretend that the 50 rep (resp. 20 rep) requirements for commenting (resp. chat) don't form a participation barrier that turns away some contributions we would quite like to have. (Here is one example of a paper author getting turned away by the system's spam defences, for instance.) $\endgroup$ Sep 24, 2018 at 23:33
-
$\begingroup$ I'm not trying to say it hasn't prevented legitimate comments and/or turned away people, just that if you're interested in participating in the site (beyond that one comment), it should be relatively easy to get it. $\endgroup$ Sep 24, 2018 at 23:36
-
1$\begingroup$ @KyleKanos Well, exposure to the site does have the side-effect that one becomes blind to how the barriers to participation look like to new users (and it becomes increasingly hard to have a clear picture of just how intimidating the site was when one first joined). That makes me (personally) reluctant to wave away e.g. the concerns of a first-year undergraduate who spotted something wrong in an answer and needs clarification with "oh, you can easily earn fifty rep", which likely means ten hard-earned question upvotes. $\endgroup$ Sep 24, 2018 at 23:40
-
1$\begingroup$ @aymusbond Your last comment makes extremely little sense - please rephrase it and clarify what it is you want to say. To be clear, though, the only users with the ability to unilaterally delete content are the elected moderators; for everyone else, no matter how high-rep, it takes a quorum (typically three to six votes) for any content to be deleted. If you want to argue that the system be changed, this is not the venue - take it to Meta Stack Exchange. $\endgroup$ Sep 25, 2018 at 2:20
-
$\begingroup$ Sorry for not being clear. I wanted to know if the "elected moderators" have the power to ban the users which are misusing the site like in the case of the example you gave of promoting www.x.com. This would be a good thing as due to such anti-social elements new users are not able to make valuable contributions (in the form of comments). $\endgroup$ Sep 25, 2018 at 8:38
-
1$\begingroup$ @aymus Absolutely, they do, but being able to ban users who have posted bad content is not sufficient in preventing that bad content being posted in the first place. Spam prevention is an intricate and multi-layered system. It works well, but it needs all those layers to do so. And that includes the rep requirements to comment. $\endgroup$ Sep 25, 2018 at 9:47
-
$\begingroup$ But to be perfectly clear: this is an SE-wide system and we in the physics-site community have no control over it, so trying to discuss it here is completely moot. Take it to Meta Stack Exchange. $\endgroup$ Sep 25, 2018 at 9:49
-
$\begingroup$ Something important to note is that OP was on 70-something rep until they put a bounty on this question. They then tried to use an answer to comment on other people's posts. $\endgroup$– user191954Sep 25, 2018 at 11:52
-
$\begingroup$ Could you please tell me What is op and why are you using "them"? $\endgroup$ Sep 25, 2018 at 13:29
-
3$\begingroup$ @aymus OP is short for Original Poster (so, in this thread, you). Chair is using singular they since we do not know your gender. $\endgroup$ Sep 25, 2018 at 13:41