Post History

Should we change the score required for the Curate trust level, and if so, to what? 

We have some really interesting comments [on this answer](https://meta.codidact.com/posts/281449#answer-281449) about the current functionality of the Curate privilege that we wanted to break out into a separate discussion. 

Currently, all of our [user abilities](https://meta.codidact.com/help/abilities) are calculated using a modified wilson scoring system. The [Curate](https://meta.codidact.com/abilities/flag_curate) is a way for highly active and dedicated users to perform some basic moderation actions. We felt like it should be reserved for users with a high level of positive interactions, so it has a high default barrier for entry as described below: 

>To earn this ability, you need to have at least a 90% positive reception rate for your posts, with a hard minimum of 16 positively-received posts. You also need at least a 99% helpful rate for flags you have raised, with a hard minimum of 196 helpful flags. (These numbers may vary from site to site.)

196 helpful flags with a 99% helpful ratio! That's tough to achieve, especially with many communities' low activity rates. Additionally, many new communities are still defining what is on-topic, and we don't want to discourage flags for _potentially_ off-topic posts. Some of the other abilities suffer from the same issue of being difficult to earn, e.g. edit tags requires 76 approved edits. 

We'd like to make it easier for community members to gain these abilities (they're useless if no one has them) while preserving a high confidence in the quality of inputs. We can reduce the % positive and thus the number of flags or other positive interactions required, or we could implement an entirely different way to earn abilities if we think something else would work better than the modified wilson score. 

Please discuss - we'd really appreciate the community's suggestions to tackle this problem.