10

This question is now protected due to supposed "low-quality answers", and the banner says that I cannot answer it until I have "10 rep on this site".

I have 101 rep, 1 of which came from joining and 100 of which is association bonus. Surely this bonus ought to count? The entire point of it is that it was granted because I am "trusted elsewhere in the network".

6
  • 6
    Note the exact wording: you must have earned at least 10 reputation on this site. That is supposed to suggest that the association bonus does not count for this, since it was not earned on this site. Nov 8, 2014 at 16:43
  • @Nate: Yes, I read that. I even quoted it in the question. Nov 8, 2014 at 16:58
  • Right, but I wasn't sure if the on this site part was clear. Nov 8, 2014 at 17:05
  • @Nate: Yeah it was I was basically proposing that it should be removed and thus the policy changed. But Cape Code's links convinced me otherwise. Nov 8, 2014 at 17:42
  • 1
    @NateEldredge, well then with that logic, the 100 reputation points that you get when you join a new SE site are worthless. The 100 reputation points that you get because you're a trusted member should entitle you to answer protected questions.
    – user23292
    Nov 11, 2014 at 10:24
  • 3
    @naughtyjojo: They are not worthless, they do count towards the required reputation to do other things. The reputation bonus lets you upvote and post comments immediately, for instance. Protected questions are an exception. Nov 11, 2014 at 14:23

2 Answers 2

14

This a network-wide policy. It has been discussed (although not extensively) in some posts on the SE meta:

Can the protect feature be made to block "101" users as well?

Some explanations are available here:

Undocumented change to reputation threshold for answering protected questions?

The argument seems to be that at least one vote on the current site is required to be able to answer protected questions, presumably to prevent newcomers to pollute questions before having understood a bit about the specific community they just joined.

0
12

This is intentional, the association bonus is ignored for the check.

Users with 10 or more reputation can answer a protected question. However, the +100 account association bonus is ignored for this check, so you must have earned 10 or more reputation on that specific site to answer a protected question.

1
  • Yes, that's why I'm posting here (though bug may not have been appropriate): why is this the case? I don't think it should be. Nov 4, 2014 at 18:03

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .
https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1346/protected-status-wont-let-me-answer-question-even-though-i-have-enough-rep-thr/1347
academia.meta.stackexchange.com
CC-MAIN-2023-50
120778
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:72P55Z33MQ7DU2JCLGBQ5AMCPTTQPJTA
<urn:uuid:da7d210f-6f5d-4588-b678-227a71644ee8>
2023-12-02T15:26:39Z
172.64.144.30
text/html
sha1:4KW3MHJBXSHHO3XZ7UPH5Q5HPDXHPUHY
<urn:uuid:a88d51c4-908d-43ad-8754-742b8b358dad>
https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1346/protected-status-wont-let-me-answer-question-even-though-i-have-enough-rep-thr/1347
response
<urn:uuid:2b1c3b5c-9aac-4bd5-a7f5-3ccc3f0b2581>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2023-50
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for November/December 2023
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-66
software: Apache Nutch 1.19 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.5-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/