Not high priority, just a curiosity...but shouldn't this OP be a "new contributor"?

According to What makes a contributor new? and the linked post, I think the OP should be.

The account is 30 days old and has no (at least no visible) posts. Even if badges made a difference, the currently only badge was awarded on this post for editing the question, and the new contributor mark will still stay for a week, right? The post is currently $<3$ hours old.

  • $\begingroup$ They have five posts on StackOverflow as far as I can see -- would they have used up their "new contributor" status there? $\endgroup$
    – postmortes
    Oct 28, 2019 at 5:27
  • $\begingroup$ @postmortes I posted recently on main Meta SE meta.stackexchange.com/questions/336294/… (please do not talk about the contents of that post here) and was marked a New Contributor, still visible at this time. At that time I had already posted on math.SE and meta.math.SE for many moons. Therefore I don't think StackOverflow new con. status affects Math.SE? Also the first comment on the linked main meta post's accepted answer in my question seems to suggest that they don't(didn't?) check across platforms. $\endgroup$ Oct 28, 2019 at 5:32

1 Answer 1


The author of the question you linked has previously posted a question here, on the $18^{\text{th}}$ October. That question was roomba'd today, approximately an hour and a half after the question you linked was posted. Thus at the time they posted the linked question, the "new contributor" criteria were not satisfied. They are now, but if I understand the specs correctly, the indicator will not be shown on that post because the criteria were not met when the question was posted. But it should appear on any other posts they make during the week after posting this one.

  • $\begingroup$ Ah, I didn't consider going back and deleting :) thanks $\endgroup$ Oct 28, 2019 at 10:49

You must log in to answer this question.

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