Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you've never made any particular use of StackOverflow, why would you expect them to care what you have to say about anything on the site? It would probably take you as much effort to get 50 rep as it's taken you to post multiple sour grapes comments about how dare they have a threshold which excludes you, don't they know who you are??
> If you've never made any particular use of StackOverflow I would have made use of it... if I didn't have to post questions I have no interest in posting to farm enough reputation to actually do anything to fix the incorrect answers I occasionally stumble across in Google searches. > It would probably take you as much effort to get 50 rep Again, I have zero interest in posting questions just to farm reputation. Less…
One way they distinguish people who care about code from complete robo-junk is with a minimal effort barrier of community upvotes, which you refuse to engage with. They don't know you're special and important enough to skip the entrance requirements - how should they know? What the system sees is that you won't put effort in to get 50 karma. You want to skip their criteria because you say you are good enough - yet everyone including spambots would say they were good enough to skip the criteria.
If the filter was "verified members of the ACM/IEEE/IETF/whatever can bypass the 50 point requirements" would that be better? Or would proving your identity and membership details still be too high effort?
What test wouldn't be too high effort for you to bother, but would still be something that could be automated by stackoverflow and would cut out a huge mass of spam?