I like the reputation model, humans are easy creatures and getting upvoted feels awesome.
However I have noticed people on both Stackoverflow and Serverfault doing the following for points:
- Answer a lot of questions (mostly copy/paste from Wikipedia or Google)
- Rarely up-vote anyone else
- Gain a high reputation (without deserving it, imho)
In a model of giving reputation and receiving reputation these people are "bad citizens" in my opinion.
I think that people should never have less number of up-votes than a number of questions answered/asked. If nobody is up-voting the answers/questions, then the sites are kind of losing the point of peer-review.
Provide a badge (if you don't already)
Provide a badge that values people that provide up-votes (can be abused)
- Change the reputation awards so that each reputation point you receive is multiplied by your "votes / questions & answers" ratio.
- Example: If I have 3 up-votes and 4 answers and 3 questions, then my ratio is 0.4 and if I get an up-vote for one of my question or answers, then instead of awarding me 10 points; I get 4.
This will encourage users to read through other answers and provide some peer-review without encouraging people to just up-vote. To avoid abuse, only use this for ratios below 1.
I am not trying to "punish people for posting answers" in any way. The may-be "non-existent" problem I'm trying to solve is:
The number of well thought-out answers that people spend time working on get no up-votes at all while carbon copied Wikipedia answers or your answer simply repeated with someone with more time to do mark-up magic. I think that problem would get solved if more people would be actively reading and up-voting threads.
But hey, maybe I am jumping to a solution of a problem that doesn't exist. I at least feel less inclined to write detailed answers if nobody reads them.
A year has passed and people still keep answering to this post like I am trying to punish those hard working people providing answers on Stackexchange.
I just noticed a user pattern and thought to myself, "this could be better" and also noticed that I felt less interested in writing detailed answers on Stackoverflow as a result.
John Skeet's response is good - and it's not always we have to "control" user patterns, sometimes we just have to adapt instead.
Thanks for all your replies. I consider this case, closed.