Timeline for Help us identify micro-privileges for top users
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 27, 2020 at 7:10 | comment | added | Theraot | I believe the privilege should be the option to decide what links to have with nofollow. | |
| Nov 24, 2019 at 23:12 | comment | added | Laurel | I don't see how this is really a privilege for the user, particularly because you shouldn't be posting links to your own site all the time (if you even have one—most people don't). Plus there are times when you need to link to sites you may not want to give juice to (such as for a notable claim on Skeptics). | |
| Nov 24, 2019 at 22:42 | history | edited | Stormblessed | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
HTTPS security
|
| Dec 17, 2018 at 0:16 | history | edited | This_is_NOT_a_forum | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
(While we are at it.) - yes, I did not bump it (that was by a new answer)!
|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Oct 19, 2015 at 20:42 | comment | added | user56reinstatemonica8 |
I thought this happened already for everyone over something quite low like 1,000. Now I think about it though, I have no idea where I got that idea. Maybe I just made it up. It seems like a good idea, if it was implemented, no-one would start saying "we should start rel=nofollowing our top users' posts"
|
|
| Jun 17, 2015 at 23:49 | comment | added | GiantCowFilms | This would improve SE's internet SEO karma, which I believe will then in turn provide the entire SE staff with free backlink shawarma. | |
| Jun 16, 2015 at 21:54 | history | edited | ChrisW | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 218 characters in body
|
| Jun 16, 2015 at 21:41 | history | answered | ChrisW | CC BY-SA 3.0 |