What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 122 Stack Exchange communities.

I know there was another question about removing the reputation limit (also tagged as declined)... It seemed like there was some backing of the idea of actually increasing it here on the meta site.

I propose making the reputation limit 500 points per day for the meta site.


Edit:

I'm not proposing this because I've simply run out of rep for the day. After reading through this post here, it seemed like many people thought it would be a useful feature here on meta. I could care less about rights to edit, not a big deal to me.

Human nature tells you that people want the rep, why discourage interaction unnecessarily... And more importantly, the questions here on meta tend to be more about things just like this and not how to write Hello World in perl on an apache webserver...

Overall I think the rep on this site is not as big a deal as on SO or SF, so why treat it the same way? Why discourage participation in a highly participative section of the SO sites?


Edit:

Since I've stated that rep is different and I am not the community, please take a look at this question here about what reputation means on the meta sites...

share|improve this question
    
That came across as snitchy, but when I hit the rep cap, my first inclination was to ask that it be removed. –  devinb Jul 8 '09 at 21:31
    
@RSolberg, I did, it just took me a little while. Sorry I type slow =( –  devinb Jul 8 '09 at 21:37
    
@RSolberg, I deleted the comment as well, because, well, I'm not proud of it. (And now, this comment will drive everyone else insane with curiosity) –  devinb Jul 8 '09 at 21:38
    
@devinb: and so they shall wonder :) –  RSolberg Jul 8 '09 at 21:39
    
"Why discourage..." - you could equally argue "Why discourage people from answering SO/SF questions". –  Marc Gravell Jul 8 '09 at 21:47
    
@Marc: wasn't the argument for rep limitations on SO/SF to prevent runaway users? Not sure that that is necessary here... –  RSolberg Jul 8 '09 at 21:51
add comment

4 Answers

up vote 10 down vote accepted

To what purpose? I can't see any reasoning that is much different to SO etc - or am I missing something? In fact, in many ways rep is even less important here... so why change anything? Is it just because you're missing edit rights etc?

In some ways because of the more discussion-based flavor, things like edit are even less important (just add a reply disagreeing, rather than fixing some subtle technical point).

So: what is the driver to change?

share|improve this answer
    
Overall I think that the rep on this site is slightly different... I don't think anyone would brag about their meta rep on a resume where as they have used their SO reps to toot their horns a bit... Just don't want to discourage folks from participating when the rep really doesn't mean the same thing... –  RSolberg Jul 8 '09 at 21:49
1  
I see no difference in the meaning of rep on SO/SF/MSO –  Marc Gravell Jul 8 '09 at 21:51
add comment

I disagree. (and so I downvoted, btw).

The rep cap serves a few purposes, and at least one of them relates to the amount of time and effort you put into the site. A user with 1000 reputation did not earn that on one day. They had to return on multiple days and contribute significantly on each of them. There are ways around the rep cap, but at least on metaSO, I think it is a significant indicator of how long and how often someone is contributing.

If you continue to hit the rep-cap every day, you'll still climb the ranks and become respected. It just takes a little longer.

Although, people should be able to respect you based on your responses alone, the number of digits beside your name shouldn't matter.

share|improve this answer
    
Its not a question of respect... Its a question of whether or not to discourage participation... This site requires participation from fairly active folks to drive the content and discussion on the community, direction, etc. So why have a rep limit that will persuade folks to not participate? –  RSolberg Jul 8 '09 at 21:44
1  
Because especially on a meta site, people should be discussing because they are trying to contribute, not because they are trying to receive rewards. I wouldn't trust your answers if you are only making them to gain rep. On SO, your answers will be judged on their correctness, on meta SO your answers are judged according to their agreement. If you are trying to game on meta-SO, that's basically pandering. –  devinb Jul 8 '09 at 21:59
    
What do you mean by "there are ways around the rep cap"? It seems pretty straightforward and unassailable to me. –  WendiKidd Mar 6 '13 at 21:09
add comment

I'm not sold on that idea that a new user could be able to edit posts in 4 days. 200 seems to work fine for all sites.

share|improve this answer
    
If they were to keep coming back after 4 days, maybe... I think the sites are different and the editing is not some golden ticket feature that is a must have... The meta site should try to bring folks in and encourage high participation and "reward" that behavior as human nature tells us we ever so want... –  RSolberg Jul 8 '09 at 21:46
add comment

I don't see why there's a need for meta to have a different rep limit than the rest of the systems. There's nothing inherently different about meta that means users should be able to or need to be able to gain more than 200 rep a day.

I think what you mean by "rep means something completely different on this site than the others" is that rep has less empirical meaning. It does not really show any knowledge of programming or system administration, its simply a number by your name. But it still is a measure of something, it's a measure of your investment in the site. A measure of how well you state your thoughts and opinions about the design choices surrounding SO. Therefore, though I agree there is less empirical meaning to rep on meta, there is still meaning to the site for the reputation. It is still a measurement of how much the site (in this case meta) trusts you. And therefore, I believe it should be treated the same as it is on the other sites. Which Jeff and company seems to clearly decided they want to maintain the daily rep cap.

Additionally, each person can make their own choices about their involvement in the site. If you want to check out after hitting the daily cap, that's fine, I know there are many people who do so. However, I know there are those, who are invested in the site beyond gaining rep, so they continue on. To each his or her. I suspect, if the data the team sees suggested that there was a statistical problem with the daily rep limit (ie, questions stopped getting answered because the "best users" stopped participating when the hit the cap) then perhaps there would be a change. But to this point, it seems it is working well enough and the SO team is committed to keeping it this way for now.

share|improve this answer
    
That would be because the rep means something completely different on this site than the others... –  RSolberg Jul 8 '09 at 21:43
2  
No it doesn't; it is a measure of your site involvement. No less, no more. Identical to everywhere else. –  Marc Gravell Jul 8 '09 at 21:44
    
The questions are different and the rep really does mean something different... on SO your rep is how well have your Q&A's been received by programmers... –  RSolberg Jul 8 '09 at 21:50
1  
So please tell us all what you think it means? Genuine question - you keep saying it is different. Tell us how... –  Marc Gravell Jul 8 '09 at 21:52
1  
Maybe that would have been a good first question... What does reputation mean on meta and why.... I'll ask it... –  RSolberg Jul 8 '09 at 21:56
    
add comment

You must log in to answer this question.

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