What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 134 Stack Exchange communities.

I don't want to beat a dead horse. It's been discussed and I fully understand why the reputation cap exists. It's really not any different than placing a salary cap on sports organizations. But I wondered what people thought about a new algorithm.

You see, I just love watching those who've been here from the beginning. They've answered 10K+ questions and so daily, without doing anything, they reach their reputation cap -thus the reason it was instated in the first place. Further, they should receive fruits for those labors, they've worked their behinds off for years helping others. However, consider the effort they, and people like myself, are putting into the site daily still.

For example, today I've lost out on 100+ rep on answers I put effort into today.

What would be wrong with not capping the rep as long as it was answered today? So, consider this, I answer a question today and it gets 20 upvotes. But, I've also answered 10 other questions today and received up votes for them as well. Is there any reason I should receive the fruits of my labor -for at least today?

Now consider this, I answer a number of questions today and receive 20 upvotes, but then get upvoted on an answer prior to today, alright don't give me the rep. That answer may be years old so any labor I put in then would only be residual if I didn't labor today.

What does everybody think?

share|improve this question
I think this is a great idea. –  Linuxios Jun 7 '13 at 15:25
"I don't want to beat a dead horse." <proceeds to beat a dead horse> –  Servy Jun 7 '13 at 15:25
@Servy As long as it's not a unicorn. –  Undo the Snowman Jun 7 '13 at 15:25
@Servy, fair enough. I wanted to let people know that I'm not here to complain or literally beat down a dead horse. I wanted to offer a possibly new perspective. –  Michael Perrenoud Jun 7 '13 at 15:26
@servy: <dead horse gets up again> "I'm not dead yet!" –  Linuxios Jun 7 '13 at 15:26
@Servy: nice to see you too. –  Linuxios Jun 7 '13 at 15:27
Soo... To clarify: Are you saying we wouldn't get residual rep from old answers? –  Undo the Snowman Jun 7 '13 at 15:28
@Undo, you would get residual rep from old answers, but you wouldn't if you're already over 200+ upvotes overall. In other words the rep cap is exempt on answers you made today, and you'd only receive rep from old answers if you haven't reached that 200 mark today yet. –  Michael Perrenoud Jun 7 '13 at 15:29
@Undo: no, rather, answers from today won't count towards today's reputation cap. Only up votes on old (yesterday or later) posts. –  Linuxios Jun 7 '13 at 15:29
@MichaelPerrenoud So one of the primary reasons for the rep cap is so that a Redditted question that gets 8 billion upvotes right when it's posted doesn't give a brand new user 80 billion rep all at once. How will your solution address this? –  Servy Jun 7 '13 at 15:30
@Servy: You could add a per-post cap, but then this is getting very complicated. Meh. –  hammar Jun 7 '13 at 15:31
@Michael Ahh... My downvote becomes upvote. You might want to clarify that in your post. –  Undo the Snowman Jun 7 '13 at 15:31
@Servy, I don't actually see that my solution will. And in fact, that is a problem I hadn't considered. However, my perspective is there are a number of people (yourself included) who labor daily and miss out on 100's, or in your case 1,000's of points that you should be awarded. Now, I'm happy with the current system, and I answer questions honestly because I love helping people, that's why I miss out on some, but I think it would help solidify that I'm a trustworthy source to continue to increase my rep when I'm laboring. –  Michael Perrenoud Jun 7 '13 at 15:32
@hammar See this existing proposal for that –  Servy Jun 7 '13 at 15:33
In my opinion, the current model favors the long tail. And that's how it should be. My best answers are the ones I'm still getting votes on months after they were posted, not the ones that got a lot of attention on the first day. –  hammar Jun 7 '13 at 15:34

1 Answer 1

up vote 6 down vote accepted

All of the reasons outlined in What is the reasoning behind the reputation cap? still apply to the situation you describe. You're basically advocating that the reputation cap not apply for any events that occur today, which is still a bad thing (for the reasons outlined in the answers to that question).

If you're concerned about not receiving reputation for the effort you've put into the site today, then pretend the upvotes that are coming in on older posts are actually happening on the things you've posted today. You can reorganize the votes however you want in your head, so long as you still add up to the 200 reputation cap for the day.

As for you, specifically - the "residual" effect is completely irrelevant. All of the upvotes you're missing out on today occurred on posts you posted today. So the only reputation you're losing is from legitimately hitting the cap for posting a lot of valuable content in a given day. The system is working absolutely perfectly, and I really don't see how you have anything to complain about. <bluntness> If you really understood why the reputation cap was in place, you wouldn't have posted this question. Honestly, it sounds like "well this system sucks if it affects me" syndrome. </bluntness>

If all you're concerned about is gaining reputation, you are still eligible to receive reputation from accepts. If that's not "enough" for you, then by all means stop posting for the day. That's your decision.

share|improve this answer
A noble answer, and again I do understand the rep cap. Further, one thing to keep in mind is this -I clearly don't contribute just for reputation because I miss out on a lot and continue contributing. So let's get that straight. I contribute to help others -period. That's the only thing that will keep you around, and you know that, so that's not being debated here. –  Michael Perrenoud Jun 7 '13 at 17:52
@MichaelPerrenoud So if contributors are going to continue contributing anyway, even with the rep cap, why are you proposing this change? What will be better with it that wouldn't be the case without it? –  Servy Jun 7 '13 at 17:54
@Servy, reputation in this community, especially on Stack Overflow, determines how respected you are by other greater entities (e.g. yourself, Jon Skeet, Marc Gravell, Eric Lippert, etc.) and so if I have legitimately gained the reputation I would like to have the reputation to let others know that I am somebody they can trust -and count on -so if they need help they may ask me too. It's really not about ego as much as it is letting the other committed folks know, hey there, I'm committed to the cause too. –  Michael Perrenoud Jun 7 '13 at 18:01
@MichaelPerrenoud: I refer you to this answer. As stated there, trust is not just measured by reputation, but also by time. –  animuson Jun 7 '13 at 18:02
@MichaelPerrenoud And as such we don't want someone to be given a huge amount of trust just because they happened to answer one question that trended on social networking sites and got 300 upvotes in 30 minutes. We want people who are answering lots of questions, over a period of time. You also haven't really lost that much rep to the rep cap, just looking at your profile. Do you have examples of people that you think should be trusted a lot more by the system but, due to the rep cap, end up having much less rep than they should have? –  Servy Jun 7 '13 at 18:07

You must log in to answer this question.

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