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

With the reputation cap, it is often the case that you "score" over the cap. Now, with reputation inconsistencies, it is often the case that it stops you from reaching actual reputation, especially in regards to the cap, from what I've seen (and please correct me if I'm wrong).

As a very simplistic solution to this problem with inconsistencies, why not add a catch of reputation after you have been capped, that can be weighed against the inconsistency in your reputation, but capped at a certain daily amount.


10 Reputation Catch per day, up to a maximum of 100 per month which is weighted 50% against the reputation inconsistency.

So, let's say I go over the reputation cap 20 days in the month, and have a reputation inconsistency of 200 reputation that month.

  • 10 * 10 = 100 * 0.50 = 50 Reputation
  • 200 Reputation - 50 Reputation, gives an inconsistency reduction of 25%.

Flame on! :)

share|improve this question
This sounds confusing. – James McNellis Sep 7 '10 at 17:43
@James - In what sense? – Kyle Rozendo Sep 7 '10 at 17:52
In the sense that I do not fully understand the problem you refer to, and I do not at all understand the solution. What is a "reputation catch".... do you mean "cache" and even if you mean "cache" it doesn't seem clearer... or do you mean "catch up"... still not clear..... What is this "reputation inconsistency"? – Peter Ajtai Sep 7 '10 at 18:16
up vote 4 down vote accepted

Have you got an example of "reputation inconsistency"? Are you sure it's not just down the fact that someone gave you an up vote and then a week or so later took it away?

There are many many posts regarding reputation but I personally feel that it shouldn't be changed. It works very well as it stands - why change it?

Is it really worth messing about just for a few extra rep?

Plus I don't understand how what you are proposing is supposed to work. Maybe thats just me.

share|improve this answer
For an example, go to - You'll probably find an inconsistency in your rep. I figured as much though in regards to the benefit of implementation. The entire thing basically emulates a water catch, with some other details. It takes any reputation that you have earned after the cap, and stores the value for a month to balance against any inconsistency. It is however a pain to implement for the benefit it will return. – Kyle Rozendo Sep 8 '10 at 5:16
@Kyle Rozendo - The difference may be due to a rep re-calc See this question here… – codingbadger Sep 8 '10 at 6:45
The inconsistency is due to needing a rep re-calc, hehe. – Kyle Rozendo Sep 9 '10 at 5:07

You must log in to answer this question.

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