One of the weaknesses of the current reputation points system is that is it heavily biased towards people participating in "hot" topics.
E.g. a super-expert on "Turkey" language that has 10 users who are interested in the language on SO and who answered EVERY one of 10 questions asked about "Turkey" with everyone up-voting it, would only get 1000 reputation, despite being an acknowledged guru for that tag (e.g. 100% view/up-vote rating, and 100% accept his answers rating).
Whereas everyone who spent >5 minutes on SO can point to numerous examples of people who earn much higher rep by virtue of not bothering to Google for a bunch of simple newbie answers and get up-voted for a bunch of truly irrelevant questions (this post is not meant as a whine about the latter pattern, as there are many such whines already on Meta).
What I would propose to combat such bias would be an ability to view - either per-tag or globally - the user's reputation normalized by the amount of views for the question that the rep was gained on.
E.g., if you answer 100 Java questions with so-so answers just good enough to get voted +1 but aren't even close to being the best answers, your normalized Java score would not be the same 1000 of the above-mentioned "Turkey" language guru, but some % value much lower.
I'm uncertain of the exact formula to use, but perhaps dividing the rep for a question by either linear or logarithm of the number of views would do that.
I would like to know whether this is considered a good idea - either from site's usability standpoint, or from difficulty/cost of implementation standpoint, for either per-tag or global numbers.