This topic has already been discussed over at math.stackexchange, and it might be reasonable that we discuss it here, too. The most important changes in the reputation thresholds are, in my opinion: You need

  • 2000 instead of 1000 rep to edit other people's posts;

  • 3000 instead of 500 rep to vote to close, reopen, or migrate any questions (huge change);

  • 10000 instead of 2000 rep to delete closed questions and to access moderation tools (nobody here has 10000 rep so far).

Personally, I'm not really having problems with this, although I've already used the priviledge of editing a post. There are enough users with 3000+ rep, so the first two points might be irrelevant. I'm just a bit concerned about the last one.

  • 1
    The number of people with hands on the diamond tools includes the moderators, so that's not a worry. If we can get twenty people to each vote up fifteen of Will's non-CW answers, then we'll have a non-mod over 10k... Oct 28, 2010 at 10:59
  • And non-moderators can always flag things for moderator attention. There's not been a lot of moderating to do round here - it'd be nice to get some flags. Oct 28, 2010 at 12:02
  • @Andrew Are you bored? I agree that the last point is not a problem at all. The moderation tools are mostly statistics anyway and the site is still small enough that one can easily do without them. And I don’t think we have yet deleted any closed questions. The change to close questions is rather huge though (currently there are only five non-mods over 3000 rep)
    – Caramdir
    Oct 28, 2010 at 16:12
  • @Charles: It seems that I didn't understand the concept of "moderators pro tempore" correctly. I had somehow thought that they stop being moderators once we leave beta. Oct 29, 2010 at 6:09
  • 1
    @Caramdir: Then maybe the "vote to close" business is most important. OK, very soon we have 6 non-mods over 3000, but I think that the "vote to close" system assumes some more people who can cast normal closing votes. Oct 29, 2010 at 6:20
  • @Hendrik: Not automatically. There's supposed to be a new election, and once the new moderators are chosen, then there's a change of guards. I don't know of any SX sites that have actually done this yet. Oct 29, 2010 at 7:45
  • @Charles: OK, thanks. Oct 29, 2010 at 7:50
  • 1
    @Charles: Hmm, interesting idea. Maybe the current moderators should resign en masse and each nominate a user with lower than 3000 rep as our replacement. Oct 29, 2010 at 8:01
  • @Caramdir: Have we not? I know I've voted to delete a closed question. I almost never look at the tools though.
    – TH.
    Oct 30, 2010 at 8:00
  • @TH. in the tools page there are no questions/answers listed under “deleted (not by owner)” and a total of 4 delete votes have been cast in the past 30 days.
    – Caramdir
    Oct 30, 2010 at 15:32
  • @Caramdir: Just because there are none listed in the past 30 days doesn't mean none have been deleted.
    – TH.
    Oct 30, 2010 at 20:20

1 Answer 1


The rules on when we leave beta aren't all that clear, but the impression that I get from reading the blog and meta.SO is that one necessary thing is that we have enough high ranking users.

So we won't leave beta until this problem is less of a problem, and thus to accelerate our progress out of beta we should get voting.

(I don't advocate voting for someone just to get them over a threshold; rather, vote for anything you think a positive contribution to the site and that'll lift everyone, hopefully)

  • 3
    +1 for not voting people just to get them over the rep boundary. Oct 28, 2010 at 18:58
  • enough high ranking users - This is important because the live site will have higher thresholds for privileges, and so the transition will see fewer people able to close/reopen qns, edit posts, and retag qns. If there aren't enough of these people, the site doesn't work. Oct 29, 2010 at 7:54

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .