Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 153 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 found several very-close-to-duplicate questions/answers. However, I want to restate some questions and discuss the answers from these questions.

Here the questions which I found:

I find it quite unfair that super simple questions and their answers upvote give the same amount of reputation points per upvote as complex questions. I think reputation points should be much closer linked to contribution. And I think that contribution in answering/asking a simple question (both in time, value and time saved to other developers) is way less than for some more complex questions.

Why doesn't Stack Overflow change this?

I saw several common answers:

if you change the game, then the only result is that people will game it differently.

I agree only partly with this. Sure, people will always game the system. However, any improvement can be rejected based on this argument. I believe if there is an obvious problem, it makes sense to fix it. And it looks like this question was asked number of times (meaning that it's not only me thinking that it should be changed).

Reputation is NOTHING more than an INCENTIVE to contribute.

Again. I agree only partly. Reputation doesn't have any real value (it can't be converted to anything). However, let's be honest. People are competitive and people like to have some measurement stick and most of software developers want to have a fair game. Based on this, reputation isn't NOTHING, reputation is very important tool which makes Stack Overflow popular. Calculating reputation one way or another way may lure or discourage people from participating.

Esoteric questions are only of interest to people working with that item.

I believe one of the biggest values of Stack Overflow that it contains a lot of information which is hard to find somewhere else.

So, sure, there are some rare questions which aren't valuable to the whole community. But, I would say that a question which saves 25 people a day of work (complex question) is more valuable than a question which saves a 1000 people 3 minutes of googling (simple question).

My summary:

I believe it makes sense to change a system a little bit. The simplest way would be the ability to mark a question as trivial. If some number of people marked the question as trivial (let's say 10), all upvotes for this question/answers become less valuable (for example, 1 or 2 points, instead of 5). This will close this gap.

share|improve this question
...and thus the Great Trivial Wars started. – Yannis Aug 24 '12 at 17:42
What's trivial to one person may not be trivial to another and trivial questions may provoke more thinking than you expect. – Yawus Aug 24 '12 at 17:44
Who is to judge whether a question is simple? Also what about the case when I can construct a comprehensive and complex answer for what seems to some to be a trivial question, or even one that is a trivial question? – Aaron Bertrand Aug 24 '12 at 17:44
Votes and closures handle that. If it is truly useless, it will get downvoted and maybe closed/deleted. If it is useful, it will get upvoted. I see no compelling reason to make this more complicated than it already is. – yoozer8 Aug 24 '12 at 17:45
2 You're not going to change human nature. – Robert Harvey Aug 24 '12 at 17:45
Welcome to Meta, Victor! Please note that downvotes here often just indicate disagreement, not any particular problem(s) with your question. – Pops Aug 24 '12 at 17:46
And another one you missed: Why is it some very simple questions get lots of up votes? – Mysticial Aug 24 '12 at 18:24
Big question. Who determines value? Or do you suggest a higher rep user can vote with more weight? – Lee Louviere Aug 24 '12 at 19:09

Questions which suffer from the bikeshed problem are most likely Not Constructive. Vote accordingly.

Some legitimate answers get more votes than others because:

  1. The question gets more views, and
  2. The answer is more easily verifiable as correct.

For the more obscure questions with well-thought-out answers, there are bounties available to reward folks who put in the hard work.

share|improve this answer
Sure. It's hard to argue with "more views", because it's objective measure. However, I believe reputation should be more related to value (which is more subjective) than to a number of views. – Victor Ronin Aug 24 '12 at 17:56
If a question gets more views (and is not simply the color of the shed), doesn't that make it (and its answers) more valuable by definition? – Robert Harvey Aug 24 '12 at 17:57
There is no need to change the human nature. There is a need to incentivize behavior which brings the value to the communitity. I don't think that SO wants to work the same way as big beuqacratic company. – Victor Ronin Aug 24 '12 at 17:58
Er... What? I think you're just fighting a straw man now. Besides, I like beuqacratic companies. They're much more fun than bureaucratic companies. – Robert Harvey Aug 24 '12 at 17:58
For me the value = number of view * amount of time saves per view. That's why I gave the example with 20 peoples * 8 hours saved = 160 hours is more valuable than 1000 people * 3 minutes saved = 50 hours. – Victor Ronin Aug 24 '12 at 18:02
You can't change the human nature, at least not with the public at large. – Lee Louviere Aug 24 '12 at 19:08
@VictorRonin I'm curious how you propose to measure the amount of time a user would have spent on a problem if he hadn't visited a given SO question, even as an average. – Pops Aug 24 '12 at 19:16

You must log in to answer this question.

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