6

The question Reduce the reputation threshold to be allowed to cast a reopen vote on a closed question led to close and reopen voting being reduced to 500 rep here. I additionally suggested that we lower all the privileges, which was favorably received according to votes, but a CM suggested that I start a new question with more detail.

Overall, I think that it makes sense to lower the privilege level to "beta" levels since this site seems to have the activity levels of other sites using the "beta" privileges. There are only a few active users who have enough reputation from the old days to access many of the higher levels (and who aren't moderators). It also could help to stimulate some activity from people who would otherwise have no chance of getting privileges—imagine being 5 upvotes away from something instead of 100+.

There will be no need to visibly brand the site with the word "Beta". Just look at this fantastic site which has "beta" privileges, but no label.

Using What are the reputation requirements for privileges on sites, and how do they differ per site? as a reference, I made this table:

Privilege "Beta" "Full"
1. Access review queues 350 500
2. See vote counts 750 1000
3. Edit freely, SE and LQP/A queue 1000 2000
4. Suggest tag synonyms 1250 2500
5. Vote to close and reopen (done) 500 3000
6. Review tag wiki edits 1500 5000
7. Moderator tools 2000 10000
8. Protect questions 3500 15000
9. Trusted user 4000 20000
10. Access to site analytics 5000 25000

See the Privileges help page for more details on each.

  1. I like having "Access review queues" set to a bit lower than "Vote to close and reopen" because it gives new users a chance to do some low-stakes reviews before they get access to something a little more important. They're low stakes because anyone who's looking at the active homepage (pretty much everyone) can see the exact same posts and review them too, outside the queues.
  2. There is many a Meta SE discussion about setting "See vote counts" to numbers as low as 0 on every SE site, and the only downside seems to be that it would have a performance cost. There are some userscripts that can even reveal the vote breakdown, and the information is also in SEDE for the patient. Seems like a non-issue to set it to 750—it's still very high considering what privileges come before this (review queues, close votes).
  3. Having "Edit freely, SE and LQP/A queue" would help with the suggested edit backlog that we noticed a few months ago. I think Blindspots took care of most of the pending edits from that batch, but this would allow him a break to go do other things. Though there are a number of other non-mods who could review edits already, I don't usually see them completing reviews for whatever reason (except maybe on their own posts). I think that having a larger pool of reviewers is likely to help more than it hurts (goodbye, my future suggested edit rep).
  4. I think the tag synonym process is broken for everyone who's not a moderator, so I guess my only argument for "Suggest tag synonyms" is that it would be weird to leave it at the old levels if we change everything else (earned after the ability to vote to delete questions!).
  5. "Vote to close and reopen" was already changed.
  6. The same argument from #3 applies to "Review tag wiki edits".
  7. Lowering the rep for "Moderator tools" means that we likely would have enough active users for community question deletions (or undeletion of non-mod-deleted posts). However, viewing deleted posts is likely to be the most useful part of this privilege.
  8. It makes little sense for only maybe one non-mod to have access to "Protect questions".
  9. I'm not aware of any active non-mods who have access to "Trusted user", and I'm not even sure if lowering the rep would create enough to actually allow community answer deletions (or undeletion of non-mod-deleted posts) to happen. There are at least a few users who are in the 3k+ rep range that might have their eyes set on it though...
  10. I never understood why "Access to site analytics" was set at such a high level, other than perhaps as a late-level reward for grinding rep. Only 4 people have access to this with the old levels, and the only active one is a moderator. It's hard to do any real damage with this privilege since it's only informational.
11
  • #10 and #2 are basically quite server-intensive. The analytics thing especially so.
    – Valorum
    Feb 2 at 20:29
  • @Valorum But #10, even if provided would rarely be used by users. Not many would be interested in site analytics. So, server intensive factor rarely come into play
    – TheMaster
    Feb 4 at 2:03
  • 1
    I fully support this proposal, particularly the part about reducing the reputation requirement for editing posts. Web Apps SE has been struggling with the recurring issue of pending suggested edits piling up for months, as pointed out in the meta post “Suggested edits limit reached — Requesting help from moderators and 2K+ rep users to review suggested edits” and several other posts. By making the rep requirement more accessible, we can enable more people to review suggested edits, improving the quality of posts and clearing the suggested edits review queue. Feb 4 at 5:06
  • @TheMaster - yes, it's a much bigger issue on sites like SO. On small sites it's not a hassle at all.
    – Valorum
    Feb 4 at 9:42
  • 1
    +1 but can you please clarify if that's only for the main site or also meta? Thanks Feb 4 at 12:56
  • 1
    @FranckDernoncourt I got close vote privileges on meta from the last change. I don't think it's actually possible for it to not include meta privileges.
    – Laurel
    Feb 4 at 15:32
  • 2
    @Laurel got it, thanks, I forgot that the number of people required to reopen a question doesn't depends on whether the beta requirements are activated. I'll post a question about that soon asking to reduce to 3 on meta, as it is on main. Feb 4 at 16:19
  • From my perspective the issue with the pending edits is that the system doesn't actually list them in a coherent way. Until Laurel shared Martin's script there wasn't an easy way to actually see them. This is a gap in the system.
    – Blindspots Mod
    Feb 6 at 4:02
  • @Blindspots - Were you planning to respond to this meta question? At present (and I hope you don't feel that I'm 'poking') there seems to be a lot of posts about the site that could do with a moderator taking a leadership role, rather than just kicking back and seeing what people think. This, proposal, in particular, would be a huge step for the site. It's astounding that you and the other site mods don't have an opinion.
    – Valorum
    Feb 14 at 17:36
  • I have trouble using the site on mobile. It sent prematurely. I edited the misfire and left that as a placeholder but other things took over.
    – Blindspots Mod
    Feb 14 at 23:30
  • 1
    @Blindspots - "I have trouble using the site on mobile" - You and everyone. The mobile interface is garbage.
    – Valorum
    Feb 15 at 13:47

0

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .