0

I am not a great answerer or asker on StackExchange forums so I don't have much reputation ( And my goal here is not to complain about that).
I wanted to comment a question for clarification but of course I could not due to my weak reputation.

I understand that forbidding new user to comment is good to prevent spam but it also prevent us to ask questions that can lead to an answer.

My proposition is to make Commenting possible for people with less than 50 Reputation BUT first these comments must be confirmed by people with [Choose a High Value Here] Reputation.

  • 3
    I understand your frustration, but I don't think we'll be able to find enough people willing to volunteer their time to review comments for your proposal to work. It's already hard enough to get people to review & moderate questions and answers, which are far more valuable and interesting than comments. – yannis Jul 11 '17 at 11:21
  • 1
    this has been covered thoroughly at MSE: How does a lurker gain reputation to receive privilege for commenting? (see also 28 discussions linked to it) – gnat Jul 11 '17 at 15:04
  • Gave you some upvotes for some of the questions of yours on Stackoverflow, at least you can now comment there. – Doc Brown Jul 12 '17 at 10:48
  • @DocBrown Thank you Doc, it's not the first time you help me. You've got my appreciation ! :) – Freddykong Jul 12 '17 at 12:23
2

While it is now possible to adjust the reputation required for various activities, there is no comment review queue and my personal opinion is it is highly unlikely that Stack Exchange would implement one.

Comments are meant to be ephemeral: they are for asking clarification, not discussion, and not answering. Expending the effort required to review comments that are essentially throw-away text is not something most users would want to do, and the return on investment for implementing such a feature is extremely low.

The reason for limiting comments with a (very small) reputation barrier is to prevent spam and abuse. Only diamond moderators can delete someone else's comment. If a spammer posts a garbage answer, the users can downvote it. Once an answer has negative reputation, 20k users can vote to delete it with three votes deleting it. Users below 20k can flag the answer for VLQ (very low quality) which puts it in a review queue where regular users will see it and can downvote or delete vote. Another option is flagging as spam, which puts it in a special moderator-only review queue.

Your meta question is about comments, not answers. However, my point in bringing this up is to point out that there is infrastructure in place for regular users to deal with abusive answers (and questions), but not comments. There are far more regular users than diamond moderators, making it easier to clean up bad answers than comments. Hence the reason why that barrier to posting comments will continue to exist.

Gnat posted a Meta.SE link with some basic, good advice: make positive contributions. Suggest some edits. Post some answers. There are many unanswered questions that could use some attention. Even better, if you answer an old question and are below a certain reputation level (500? I am not sure) your answer will go into a queue for reviewing new answers to old questions. If you post a high-quality answer, that may give you reputation between the review queue as well as the bump the question gets to the front page which will attract attention.

You must log in to answer this question.

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