This is the result of a very recent change to the way answers enter that queue. Previously, the conditions were:
the answer was posted at least 30 days after the question was asked; and
the answer's author has at most 10 rep.
It appears that condition (2) has been altered to
the answer's author has at most 50 rep.
As before, it doesn't matter how old ...
While I agree with you completely, this is not a trivial change in our code.
The 5-second limiter is a particular type of throttle whose order of operation is always first to help prevent denial of service attacks.
Perhaps you have earned 200 points on 150 days, but due to user removals, the number of days that show at least 200 points has been reduced. I believe that the badge counter remembers each day you've gotten at least 200, whereas the reputation page only counts the number of days that you are currently showing at least 200.
This is by design. Votes on deleted posts do not count toward your daily limit. If you hit the limit after voting on $m$ posts, and $n$ of these posts get deleted for any reason before the end of the UTC day, you will be able to cast $m+n$ votes that day. See How does someone get to cast more than 40 votes in a day?
You may be able to observe the difference ...
It is by design. See Cannot vote on question although 40 votes limit not reached
If 1 in 3 of your votes are on questions, you will get 40 votes.
If you vote on fewer questions than that you will get fewer votes (lowest is 30)
See also https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/90256/155238
This is, in fact, correct behavior. Stretchy delimiters are centered on the "math axis" (which is a line at about the height of a minus sign), and extend equally above and below that axis. Fractions are placed so that their fraction line is on the math axis. So when a fraction has a denominator that is larger in height than the numerator (as in your case),...
As Mad Scientist wrote, you didn't get reputation because your large number of edits turned the answer into community wiki.
All I can say about your comment is that caveat emptor: you joined a community and this community has its rules.
That said, we have pretty standard ways of dealing with 'undeserved' automatic conversions on this site. In the future ...
When a user (without the vote-to-close privilege) flags a question using one of the canned close reasons, the question will be placed in the Close Votes review queue (see MSE answer). Since that user cannot vote to close, the question will enter in the queue without any close votes.
(If a user with the vote-to-close privilege flags a question using one of ...
If you look at the reputation tab of the author of the currently accepted answer
you can see that the answer was today first unaccepted (11:04:00), and later re-accepted (11:05:36).
It is very likely that in between your answer was accepted, causing the badge criteria to be met, and the badge awarded to you (11:05:12). Congratulations.
Your answer was ...
Mariano is right. Nobody is ignoring your flags.
However, this is because nobody can see your flags any more unless they look directly at the flag history of a post and even then that's just a record of your flag, not an actionable thing.
You had a large number of flags declined (more than were found helpful). As a result, your flags are no longer shown ...
A fairly recent article on ArsTachnica, regarding how using Gravatars can leak an email address has prompted us to make some changes to how we produce the gravatar hash (under certain circumstances).
Looks like this happened here.
You are not supposed to write a greeting at the start of the question. There is a script in place that removes certain common forms of greetings (or at least what appears to be like one, there are rare false positives).
Of course there are ways to fool the script, but you should not.
The first post queue was bugged and no new questions were put into it for a while. I assume that these posts are the ones that were missed earlier due to the bug.
From Nick Craver on Meta.SO:
There was a bug by which questions were not being added to the
that bug was just
resolved and the queue
got the items it should have had.
It is no longer possible to ask questions with an unregistered account on Mathematics Stack Exchange. The change was made on or about 10 Oct 2016, at least in part in because of the response to the feature request Let's require registration to ask a question (see Grace Note's answer to that question).
(Users can still answer questions without being ...
I believe this is the same issue as described in this meta thread; namely, a string of more than 79 characters containing no whitespace will have some special unicode symbol added automatically, and the formula will usually break (though it can depend on where the added symbol ends up).
This is by design. All comment actions are rate-limited, and actions that fall under the rate-limit are rejected immediately, before the system checks anything else (for example, what action you are trying to perform, or whether the comment has been deleted). This is to prevent any clever Denial of Service attacks, and is discussed in StackExchange podcast #...
The reputation cap affects only reputation you get from upvotes (and edits). The reputation you get from having your answer accepted, or bounties, is exempt. Getting a lot of answers accepted in a single day can take you far above the 200 point mark, ditto bounties.
This is kinda intentional; if you don't change anything, it feels odd to record a change record. Indeed: you can't edit the revision history, but in the general case, that is probably a good thing anyway. I'm not sure this is going to cause a real problem very often - or at least, it seems more likely to be misused by changing revision reasons.
As a rule of ...
You got a recent vote on a CW answer to a very popular question, which brought your answer to a +5 score. This makes all the views on the question eligible for the impact counter.
Which is why you have such impact. If someone downvotes that answer, the number will drop by a few hundred thousands.
See also: Massive change in 'People Reached' ...
This is because it is possible that a question can have five reopen votes from users with above 10k reputation even whilst it remains deleted. An old post on the main meta explains some reasons why this is allowed, so it is not a system bug.
However, it is not possible to vote to close a question when it has already been deleted. As you have probably ...
That is intentional behaviour. If a migrated question gets closed or deleted, the migration is rejected. This removes the link from the source site to the target, and closes the question as off-topic.
This makes it much easier to reverse bad migrations, as you no longer need the moderators of both sites to coordinate it.