Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 158 Stack Exchange communities.

What is meta?
Here's how it works:
  1. Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
  2. The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
  3. Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates

I'm wondering. If there is a question with a lot of upvotes, should an accepted answer generate more reputation compared to a question with no upvotes? Somewhat like an implicit bounty.

My reasoning behind this being, if a question seems very desirable to receive an answer (being that it was marked valuable by votes), should someone who is able to answer that question earn more reputation?

I feel like this might have been discussed before, but I was unable to find a question that captures what I am interested in.

share|improve this question
up vote 12 down vote accepted

This already happens; questions that have a lot of upvotes get those upvotes because they generate more traffic. In turn, the answers to those questions tend to be upvoted a lot more than those on other questions that receive less attention.

If anything, the emphasis needs to be on those questions that are more difficult to answer, but get little attention (which is what bounties are for).

share|improve this answer
I really don't see how traffic relates to my question. I've seen interesting question with several upvotes and little views, which indicates to me an interesting question. Just because not many people see the question doesn't mean the problem is easy to solve. I don't see how traffic has any relevance in what I'm asking. – Oliver Salzburg Feb 10 '12 at 0:33
There is a direct correlation between the number of upvotes a question receives, and the number of visits it gets. There is also a correlation between the number of visits a question gets, and the overall number of upvotes the answers get. Consequently, your premise (that answers on a popular question, i.e. one with a lot of upvotes, should get more reputation) is already fulfilled. – Robert Harvey Feb 10 '12 at 0:36
Either I'm not expressing myself well enough or I'm hard at understanding, but I see a difference between a "popular" question and a question that is well put and interesting. Looking at the vote counts on this question I assume I'm in the wrong and will try to reflect my opinions. – Oliver Salzburg Feb 10 '12 at 0:45

Highly upvoted questions are already getting lots of attention. This would just serve to make people focus on them even more, and not answer other questions because they don't get as much rep for their time.

It would also serve to value mediocre answers to good questions over great answers to other questions. That's not a good idea. I also agree with Robert's point.

share|improve this answer

No. While some questions are better than others, I think that all questions should be treated relatively the same. That is, on every question, an upvote generates the same amount of reputation. On every question, an accepted answer gives the same number of rep. Everyone whose question remains open should be able to get some kind of help, and if their question has a low number of votes they may not get that if higher-voted questions give more power to an accepted answer.

Also, consider that highly upvoted questions often get far more upvotes on answers.

share|improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

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