According to How was this answer posted after this question was closed? (found by Joseph Wright in the comments) the server accepts answers to closed questions for a grace period of up to four hours after they were closed. If one starts writing an answer before the question is closed or just has the question opened in a tab in un-closed state one can just ...


I'm not so sure that's that messed up. The rationale behind it is to avoid trolling and falsifying votes. Imagine someone answers a question and decides to boost his rep. All he would have to do is frantically create new accounts and hit the upvote icon. Now that would be messed up... At first these things are less obvious and probably seem absurd, but IMHO ...


This is the limit on edits: Users with 2K+ reputation: These users have the edit privilege, implying they can make edits without it requiring approval by peers; Users with < 2K reputation: These users are subject to peer-reviewed edits (by those above) that should be substantive. Substantive here means at "at least 6 characters". First of all, the ...


I disagree with the "forces them". You shouldn't post a non-answer (that what we call, beside others, a comment posted as an answer) if you don't have enough reputation yet. This is meant as a protection mechanism to avoid spam or other unwanted comments. However, I see how this can be frustrating. Having a rep limit on posting answers would not make sense, ...


For what it's worth: the system does have a concept of "we trust your account, go ahead and skip the initial low-permissions phase". This privileges-conferring mechanism is called the association bonus, and the threshold is set at 200 points: once you have earned that much reputation on one Stack Exchange site, you automatically get a bonus of 100 points ...


You need a reputation of 50 for unconfined commenting. See the privileges page for other thresholds.


The problem is that no laws can be "fair". As Count Zero explains, the SE laws are quite fine-tuned to make the sites run fluently. But each law puts someone in "wrong position". Your situation is so occasional that the law cannot cover it. I believe you'll soon bump into a problem that you can ask about and get the necessary reputation points.


I admittedly have no idea why this actually is the case, but my guess would be that the reasoning might have gone something like the following: commenting is perhaps more conducive to spam than is answering, and so we might want a user to demonstrate that they really intend to be part of the community before allowing them to comment wherever they please. Of ...


It seems to me that this has something to do with the inverted (?) color scheme you're using. Generally, the revamped system works like this: There are two types of messages, inbox and notifications. We’re fiercely protective of the inbox, making sure only actionable things directed at you go into it. Comments, answers, a handful of post notices, ...


The maintainers question is a CW question, you only need 100 rep to edit these. The DANTE question is a regular question, you need 2000 rep to edit these, but only 500 rep to edit their tags, so you're in between with ~1.8k. Usually, however, you should be able to suggest edits while you're below 2000 rep, on the main site as well as on meta afaik. For more ...


Internationalization seems to be the Vietnam of Stack Exchange Network. A fix has been pushed out and we've even improved the tools a bit, so hopefully this won't happen again*. * I'm not betting on that, though :)


No. In the same way that mod votes are binding as we are expected to have experience in using them, once you have shown knowledge in a particular tag it's expected that you do know about it. So you are in a position to judge if a question should be closed.


Believe me, the Great Big Orange Banner was infinitely[1] more annoying. [1] As a mathematician, I'm officially sanctioned one hyperbole[2] per day. This was not it. [2] And I'm prohibited Bad Puns. Tough.


I've just tried to repro and couldn't. Given the age of the question and the number of refactorings we've gone through, my best guess is that we fixed this sometime in 2013. :-)

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