Per the list of reasons for completing or invalidating reviews on the global meta, users' answers are not eligible to be reviewed in the First answers review queue if the author's reputation is 125 or higher.

This is because it is assumed that users who've earned the association bonus and a further 25 reputation on the site don't need supervision with their answers. This assumption does hold true on most sites, since the main goal of answer review on most sites is simply to assess if the answer attempts to answer the question and isn't a non-answer reply, and a user with the bonus likely knows that. However, this assumption may not be true here on this site, given this site's citation requirements and the fact that answers that would be considered "high-quality" on most sites on the network may not be considered good answers here because of that.

I've often seen cases where users with the association bonus who've gained reputation from posting questions later go on to post answers that don't meet this site's requirements. These users aren't treated by the system as "new answerers" due to the 125-reputation restriction, but they essentially are. I've also seen cases where users with the bonus start off by answering, but due to their deletion-worthy answer getting three upvotes before getting reviewed, that answer gets invalidated from the First answers queue because they now have 125 reputation (even with three downvotes to counter the upvotes).

While such answers (that are ineligible for or were invalidated from First answers review but are eligible for deletion) can also get caught by those bumping the questions to the home page, in my view, having an additional review for those answers is worthwhile to ensure they're not missed.

Should the 125+-reputation restriction from First answers review be removed for this site?


You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .