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

One idea that came to my mind is to allow one additional vote for each 10k of rep, so a 34K rep could vote 3 times on the same question / answer.

Some insights:

  • At present, when a 50K rep user votes, it counts the same as a 200 rep vote.
  • I agree that an expert in Perl can be completely wrong about a Java question, and therefore his vote doesn't matter. What's more, a very smart person can be a newcomer with a low rep.
  • However, most of the time, the answer a hi-rep votes for is likely to be more interesting than what a newcomer votes for.

My main concerns are:

  • would it unbalance SO?
  • would it affect newbies questions / answers, since these are a very useful resource to begin programming?

Please, consider that hi-rep profiles are not that numerous, and so giving them this possibility (a small amount of extra voting power) does not seem that unbalancing. They don't have to use the vote, they can, and the purpose is to use it only for quality, which a hi-rep will likely tend to do.

share|improve this question
There is no shortage of votes - rather the reverse. – nb69307 Feb 19 '10 at 14:13
Yes, but the question is : is this repartition of vote is balanced? – e-satis Feb 19 '10 at 14:17
You fail to make the case. Please finish this sentence: "This change will substantially improve SO because..." – Adam Davis Feb 19 '10 at 17:19
Well, the original idea was "this change will substantially improve SO because the most trusted users will be able to highlight the best answers against the first-good-enough ones". But too answers below definitely got points. – e-satis Feb 19 '10 at 20:41
You are conflating "most trusted" with "most able to answer the question in front of them". That does not compute, you don't want to weigh my vote up on a c# question. You really don't. – dmckee Feb 19 '10 at 21:27

Definitely not.

I suspect that high rep users already have somewhat undue influence on votes: if I vote on an answer and explain my vote, that's likely to attract more similar votes than if someone else does it. If I really want the votes to roll in, I can tweet about a particular answer being great or awful... and I suspect most high rep users have enough social networking to do something similar. I try to avoid doing this, mind you...

Voting on SO should be "equal" as far as possible, IMO.

share|improve this answer
Hmmm...interesting. When you did the experiment of changing you screen name, did you pay attention to this as well as your own rep gain? Not an easy thing to collect data on, but some anecdote would be nice. – dmckee Feb 19 '10 at 20:25
+1 Definitly right, I did not think that I rep already have influence on votes. – e-satis Feb 19 '10 at 20:38
Ouch, just realized that you already have 26K rep on META. How do... Never mind... – e-satis Feb 19 '10 at 20:42
@dmckee: No, I didn't pay attention - but it was a fairly well known change anyway (particularly as the rep was still visible). – Jon Skeet Feb 19 '10 at 21:39
The "ethos" influence is not undue. That's what rep is about. And that can easily be offset by other high reps adding dissenting comments. – webbiedave Dec 30 '10 at 19:29

Why do we need ways to make more reputation faster?

People with high reputation earned it with hard work, and great knowledge.
You are assuming that newcomers now deserve to climb the ladder faster than those before?

I don't see a benefit in this, the reputation thresholds are there for a reason, and I believe it's well balanced.

share|improve this answer
I never wrote anything about low-rep getting more rep faster. I don't see were you see that !!! It's not to make more reputation, it's to to make interesting and well put answers go to the top. For now, the top answers are the ones that were the first to give a valid solution. Good and deep answers (but longer to write), can be left down the page because no one will bother scrolling to find them. – e-satis Feb 19 '10 at 14:14
@e-satis - having a higher reputation does not guarantee that one is experienced enough to determine the best answers for questions outside their skill area. – Adam Davis Feb 19 '10 at 17:17
@e-satis, They would get rep faster if we modify how rep is awarded (ie: there weren't any high rep people when current high rep people got their rep) – juan Feb 19 '10 at 17:42

One person, one vote.

I could get into how dangerous it is to further a caste system on SO (and tie reputation to ability to vote!), and how additional voting privileges gained by other people voting for you simply forms a sort of compounding interest rate on reputation (thus increasing the gulf between haves and have-nots), but the reality is that there is NO good reason for this idea, and thus there's no reason to show the detrimental effects it will have.

First, prove that this change will improve SO, and then we can debate. As it is, there is no debate without a good reason to implement it.

share|improve this answer
+1, actual intelligent answer with real arguments from somebody who did read the question. – e-satis Feb 19 '10 at 20:37

You must log in to answer this question.

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