#Can we make automatically-scaling reputation thresholds work?

Can we make automatically-scaling reputation thresholds work?

The only recourse we have for things like this is by making requests via Meta SE. I'm not a huge participant there but I do glance through and read questions semi-regularly. Before I jump into what I see the issues there being for us...

On the other hand, since the policy around graduation recently changed,¹ and this change is no doubt part of why we did graduate, we could in fact be considered an exemplary case of a site which deserved to be graduated under the new policy but that makes apparent the need for some more policy adaptations.

#Can we make automatically-scaling reputation thresholds work?

The only recourse we have for things like this is by making requests via Meta SE. I'm not a huge participant there but I do glance through and read questions semi-regularly. Before I jump into what I see the issues there being for us...

On the other hand, since the policy around graduation recently changed,¹ and this change is no doubt part of why we did graduate, we could in fact be considered an exemplary case of a site which deserved to be graduated under the new policy but that makes apparent the need for some more policy adaptations.

#Can we make automatically-scaling reputation thresholds work?

The response was pretty underwhelming, which is still better than "overwhelmingly negative", but it does imply there is not enough interest for anyone for anyone in a position to act to take notice.

Anyway, the discussion seems to have stalled at that point and one place to start would be to pick it up there. It could be something that will become more of an issue if a wave of similar long term beta sites are graduated.

Keep in mind again that part of what makes things problematic for us is an unusually low participation rate in terms of voting; the last point would not be such a big deal otherwise. So I think part of what we have to do is justify why that is part of the the nature of our peculiar beast, and something that is unlikely to change, but should be acknowledged and adapted for because there is some reasonable explanation for it.

The response was pretty underwhelming, which is still better than "overwhelmingly negative", but it does imply there is not enough interest for anyone in a position to act to take notice.

Anyway, the discussion seems to have stalled at that point and the best place to start would be to pick it up there. It could be something that will become more of an issue if a wave of similar long term beta sites are graduated.

Keep in mind again that part of what makes things problematic for us is an unusually low participation rate in terms of voting; the last point would not be such a big deal otherwise (meaning, again, the system already works as is most places). Part of what we have to do is justify why this is the the nature of our peculiar beast, and something that is unlikely to change, but should be acknowledged and adapted for because there is some reasonable explanation for it.