What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 130 Stack Exchange communities.

What I mean is, is it fair to still give the same amount of points for a given action (like answer accepted or answer upvoted) to a person with 300 points as to a person with 50,000? In other words should the increase in rep for that given action be tied somehow to the user's existing activity, like how many questions he's already answered, how much time he's spent on SO or how much points he already has?

I'm asking this because after a certain point, with the current system, a SO user will have it's reputation grow without doing anything. If you've already answered 800 questions people will periodically stumble over them and upvote them even after a year, so that if in that year you've not done anything you still get a good bunch of rep. On the other hand if you you've answered 5 questions and then don't do anything for a year you will pretty much get nothing (which is normal, it's the first situation that I found somewhat unfair).

I'm sorry for being geeky, but shouldn't this be a la D&D RPG style leveling up, in which a repetitive action will give you less and less experience the more you do it, based on the idea that as you do it you get more experience, and can do it a lot easier, so the reward should be smaller?

Shouldn't in the same way a user who's already achieved something like 1000+ accepted answers receive like 9 (instead of 15) points for the next 1000 accepted answers?

share|improve this question
    
"Reputation" or "rep", please. –  dmckee Nov 22 '11 at 15:57
    
TIL: "ponderate" –  meagar Nov 22 '11 at 17:11
1  
The kind of imbalance you're talking about... we want that to happen. We want people to be encouraged to answer lots of questions. It seems pretty obviously fair to me that the person who answers 800 questions should gain rep more easily than the guy who's only answered 5. We love that 800 answer guy, he's contributing. The 5 answer guy? Not so much. Try to remember that despite Rep feeling something like XP, SO isn't a game. We're not about balance and level-cap, we're about rewarding contribution, nothing else. –  meagar Nov 22 '11 at 17:13
    
Right, I see your point, it was just a question. By the way, do I get anything for having the most downvoted question of the day? –  Shivan Dragon Nov 22 '11 at 17:39
    
@ShivanDragon You get my respect. This is a good suggestion, I think. –  Private Oct 23 '13 at 5:33

1 Answer 1

up vote 8 down vote accepted

but shouldn't this be a la D&D RPG style leveling up, in which a repetitive action will give you less and less experience the more you do it, based on the idea that as you do it you get more experience, and can do it a lot easier, so the reward should be smaller?

This already happens in terms of privilege levels. For example:

  • At 2k you can edit
  • At 3k you can close
  • At 10k you can close and delete and have access to the 10k tools
  • At 20k some of the restrictions on deletion are lifted.

Thereafter, you're doing it for the love of it. There are no site features that are different for a 20k user as compared to a 300k user.

I believe this is how most RPG-style games actually work, in that the amount of "experience points" you gain actually remains constant, but the distance between levels expands. However, using increasingly decreasing reputation gain / constant privilege distances would not make any difference; the outcome would be the same. All you've done is alter the scales.

share|improve this answer
    
Agreed, I see what you mean. –  Shivan Dragon Nov 22 '11 at 12:44

You must log in to answer this question.

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