I've encountered multiple questions that are marked as being highly active and requiring a higher reputation to answer. The only problem is that some(or maybe most, I did not keep track) of them last had activity years ago.
As an example this question was asked and last active over 6.5 years ago, Highly Active does not describe it in my book.

Now I do vaguely recall seeing questions that were protected/locked to prevent the same activity that this header claims to prevent.

Maybe it's been brought up before, but I tried 2 or 3 different subjects and did not see it pop up.

Just wanted to voice my concern.


1 Answer 1


The "highly active" term has now replaced the "protected" term, but the principle is the same: these are questions that have been specifically marked by moderators to prevent new users with very low reputation to answer.

It is typically used for questions that get viral (due to the Hot Network Question list, or some tweet - hence "highly active"), so that people that aren't quite aware of the site rules don't pile in just to answer things like "great question", or "I experience this too", or some other kind of noise or spam.

Recently, the post notices for closed/protected/locked/deleted posts have been refactored by the SE team. So now, the "protected" term has been deprecated in favor of "highly active". It is possible that these questions aren't actually highly active anymore, but at some point, they have been. And they are still in that state where low rep users can't answer.

There is more details about the significance of this statuts on the main meta: What is a “protected” or "highly active" question?

Also, see this post about the refactoring of post notices: New Post Notices are live network-wide. And have a look at pkamb's answer there, which summarizes pretty well how this new "highly active" notice is, indeed, very misleading.

  • \$\begingroup\$ Oh, I understand the reason behind it. I just find it strange that a question last active SIX YEARS ago is called Highly Active is all. In my mind the protected header was "generic" enough that it told you the question was subject to abuse and how it was protected. To me it looks like trying to shoehorn everything that was protected in to being highly active, which might confuse people. Such as me. \$\endgroup\$
    – GB - AE7OO
    Commented Dec 18, 2019 at 12:48
  • \$\begingroup\$ @GB-AE7OO Yes, this is confusing indeed. Consider upvoting pkamb's answer, then. Maybe SE will do something about it at some point. It is currently "status-review", which is a good sign, but more upvotes may convince them faster. \$\endgroup\$
    – dim
    Commented Dec 18, 2019 at 12:55
  • \$\begingroup\$ thank you for the pointers. at least now I understand why, even if I don't agree.. \$\endgroup\$
    – GB - AE7OO
    Commented Dec 18, 2019 at 13:09
  • \$\begingroup\$ By the way, that question was marked as "protected" around the time when it was originally posted. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Dec 18, 2019 at 17:29

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .