18

No. You can't. Every user with the requisite rep is entitled to vote on the content you post. That's by design: we use a crowd-sourced evaluation. There may exist users that cast more downvotes than up, and that is allowed. It just means that user has very stringent standards of quality; as long as those standards are applied evenly the user is free to ...


18

The offensive comment from Fawad has been deleted, but as a room owner I can see it and I can confirm that Fawad told ACuriousMind to shut the fuck up. I think Fawad should consider himself very lucky not to be banned for an extended period.


17

As a user that frequents SE sites intermittently (and with less reputation than most, including yourself), please interpret my upcoming critique as independent from the high-rep user/users you believe are targeting you. You seem to be intentionally ignoring the community's critique, falsely assuming that you are the victim. I appreciate your curiosity - it ...


15

There is nothing about rep that magically makes some whose first language isn't English suddenly become a master at the language. Nor is there some way rep prevents someone from asking a meaningless question. So, to the titular question, No, there should not be a rep threshold for unclear question. What should be done in cases of unclear questions, ...


14

To me personally it was always clear that astronomy (containing observational and theoretical astrophysics for example) IS physics, such that it would not be necessary to add it to the logo of physics SE. But after rethinking and discussing this a bit with my office mate (he is an astrophysicist), I'm no longer too opposed to adding astronomy to the logo ...


13

To be very frank: you shouldn't even be contemplating this questions; you should always vote the quality of the content and never the user who posted it. Nor will anyone tell you what the limits of the automated vote-misuse detection system are. That would rather defeat their purpose.


12

We are not a forum, but a question and answer site. It is not the aim of the SE model to encourage debate, but to provide (more or less) definite answers to definite questions. Though comments may contain worthwhile information, reputation is granted for contributions towards good questions and answers. Comments are transient by design, and subject to ...


12

A few things: The user you refer to has cast quite a few votes, but only about 81.7% of them are downvotes, not 90%. Call this pedantry, but I think it's important to distinguish between claims and facts. Vote on the posts, not on the person. Targeted serial voting like this is unacceptable and may result in disciplinary action. Stack Exchange does not ...


12

For the record: I asked you to not ping users in chat who hadn't shown any indication of being interested in being pinged by you: Please do not ping random users in an attempt to get a question answered. If someone wants to answer your question, they will do so on their own. -- link to transcript The (currently) four stars on the message suggest that ...


11

It's unfortunate to hear that you are so personally offended. I assure you that the people who implemented this policy were probably not aware of your existence when they made it, so I hope that knowledge helps to lessen the amount you feel personally insulted. The sad reality is that this policy works extremely well. 50 reputation points is not difficult ...


10

Not gonna happen. The site is built to use tags for categorization rather than a hierarchy, and this is a good thing because tagging is more flexible than hierarchies which always suffer from problems relating to difficult to categorize questions questions that span disciplines There are several things that you can do to control the presentation. Use ...


10

This will be the official "poll" answer: vote this up if you agree that the logo should be changed, down if you disagree. In the latter case it would be great if you can express your reasons for disagreeing in a comment. A rough conception of what the modified logo could look like is provided in the question. This is not a finalized design, so please do not ...


8

No. That would be a meta tag - it has nothing to do with the actual topic of the question, it doesn't help to define its scope, all it tells you is either "this question is based on a misconception" or "this user thinks they are confused". The former is entirely useless information, the latter is pretty much par for the course if you're asking a question. ...


8

I've asked some recent questions where some of the answers have got very high up votes for good technical content, even though they don't answer my questions at all. At least from July until now, the only question you have made in which there is any unaccepted answer with some votes (although I wouldn't say "very high up votes") is this one: How can ...


8

As David says, we are in some sense stuck with this concept in a context where it doesn't make much sense. The whole Stack Exchange system started with Stack Overflow which is for programming questions, and the interpretation put on acceptance there was the asker stating 'I used this solution to my problem'. As such it is clear that acceptance is entirely ...


8

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 ...


7

Nope. This or something like it has been brought up many times on MSO (example) and repeatedly declined, so you can be pretty confident it's not going to happen. I can see it being useful in some cases, but (perhaps unfortunately), we're stuck with the way the system works here. If the accepted answer is actually outright wrong or completely useless, then ...


7

Voting by moderators works exactly the same way it works for other users, and moderators are subject to the same voting restrictions as other users. The serial voting detection and reversal mechanism is an automatic system process (no human intervention) and it works the same on moderators as it does on unprivileged users. Finally, the system provides some ...


6

I'm quite confident that the SE team would not support this, because it adds complexity to the system without really doing anything useful. To show that it would be useful, you'd have to demonstrate that the "unclear what you're asking" close reason, when it is applied to posts by high-reputation users, is so often wrongly applied that evidently people ...


6

The reasons you're not required to leave a comment when downvoting, and why that is not going to change, are explained in detail in many questions on Meta Stack Overflow (example). When you downvote a post, you're encouraged (but never required) to explain what can be improved about it. Of course, this is also encouraged even if you don't downvote the post. ...


6

No. Part of the appeal of Stack Exchange sites is their reputation for quality. When you come to an SE site you know you're going to see (mostly) good content, for a certain definition of "good" that is fairly well associated with the mainstream of whatever the subject of the site is. And this is not arbitrarily chosen; we select for this particular kind of ...


6

I'm the anomaly that rob pointed out in the comments, so I'll weigh in. As far as I'm concerned, any rep above 25k is fairly gratuitous, given that there are no more privileges to be earned (despite some excellent proposals for the 30k tier), and it might as well be spent constructively by awarding bounties: To incentivize the right types of questions, i.e....


5

Doing this would open up a huge can of worms: suddenly, there's an arbitrary threshold for "activity" that divides posts being worked on. Yes, it's easy to come up with individual changes that most folks probably agree don't warrant much oversight, but applying such simple rules broadly can have disastrous results. Let's examine retagging, since that seems ...


5

I definitely agree that some minor edits shouldn't make questions active. The one in particular, as you mentioned, is retagging. Why does this even make a question active in the first place? When you retag, the question itself is not changed, so in what sense is it "active"? I have not seen one situation when a retagged question deserved to be made active ...


5

Yes, this has been brought up many times on MSO and you can read there all about why it won't be implemented. Basically, Stack Exchange is a Q&A site, not a social network. (For the details you may have to read through the comments in the linked question.)


5

Adding the word Astronomy might discourage people posting stuff from other branches, but perhaps the Feynman diagram and the hut potential could be substituted by a drawing of Saturn with the rings, or any other explicitly astronomical thing. That would be enough to confirm people who are insecure about posting astronomy questions, that here is the right ...


5

The ethos in the MSE answer linked in the comments, Comments are third-class citizens in our system by design; they are little more than post-it notes on the units of real work, questions and answers. As such they are afforded little protection and the burden of proof is on the comment to be useful and constructive. remains the core component of Stack ...


3

Thanks for bringing this up. Per our official supported browsers wiki, we do not support IE8. Therefore, I recommend that you upgrade your browser (it's likely that you have by now, 2+ years later) to ensure an optimal experience on our sites.


3

I don't think it's necessary to change the logo: We shouldn't single out astronomy. I personally would say that it's a regular sub-discipline of physics. Some universities do have separate astronomy departments, but by the same logic we should also add "geology" or"geophysics" to the logo, because it's an organisationally separate department at my ...


3

Popular, "every day" questions get a lot of exposure because many more people can explain every day things. Incredibly esoteric or nuanced or specific questions get less attention because fewer people are qualified or interested in answering them. But I don't think that's a problem that bounties will fix. If I ask a question on a topic that maybe 10 people ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible