At 19 hrs-02 mins yesterday a user was removed with points 2-10=-8 net on it.

If clicked on the link it does not link to the question/answer.

How to obtain the reference? Thanks.

  • $\begingroup$ It's unlikely anyone with a similar question will think it is this one. Perhaps change the Title to something like "How to find out which of my postings' points were affected by the deletion of a user?". $\endgroup$ Aug 14, 2021 at 0:40
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks. Adopted your suggestion. $\endgroup$
    – Narasimham
    Aug 14, 2021 at 23:43

1 Answer 1


When a user gets removed you only get the information regarding the changes of the points.

You do not get the information on which posts the events occurred or which users was removed.

Using standard functionality of the site, it is not possible to do what you want to do.

Let me add that in comments by Martin Sleziak, and the duplicates, it is explained how one can still find this information.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It seems that this can be found out using the API. Downloading a user's post scores from SEDE now and after the next update could also be a viable option. See: Is it possible to know which posts were affected by user removal? and Can I know where I lost my reputation? $\endgroup$ Aug 14, 2021 at 4:57
  • $\begingroup$ I had not know that even though it came up here. It seems almost like a bug that this is exposed. $\endgroup$
    – quid Mod
    Aug 14, 2021 at 10:08
  • $\begingroup$ I am not sure why it should be considered a bug. If somebody regularly saves their scores (or their reputation breakdown), they would be able to get this information. So it is possible to obtain this from publicly available information - assuming the additional effort to save the current status regularly. $\endgroup$ Aug 14, 2021 at 10:38
  • $\begingroup$ My thinking is that varied arguments were made why it should not be available. I understand that it could be obtained by considering the "difference" between snapshots and that's somewhat unavoidable but that it is explicitly there is surprising. I mean then why not provide it via the link? It's a question that comes up often. $\endgroup$
    – quid Mod
    Aug 14, 2021 at 11:35
  • $\begingroup$ My bad - I probably missed discussions where there were some arguments why this should be hidden. (Or maybe I saw them and forgot.) $\endgroup$ Aug 14, 2021 at 11:42
  • $\begingroup$ I'm a bit confused now. Maybe we are talking at crossed purposes. In both threads you link to there is an answer saying what I mean to say. $\endgroup$
    – quid Mod
    Aug 14, 2021 at 13:04
  • $\begingroup$ You're right - I was so focused on searching for older posts showing how to do it (which I remembered), that I somehow ignored the other answers in those threads. (I probably read those answers when those questions were posted - but I managed to forget about them.) Sorry for many comments which could have been avoided if I thouroughly read the links which I posted myself. $\endgroup$ Aug 14, 2021 at 14:39
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Oh, no! quid has answered a question that turned out to be a duplicate! Doesn't quid know about the EoQS? $\endgroup$ Aug 15, 2021 at 3:12

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