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

I found the "User Leagues" for the first time and decided to check my score for the year. I was surprised to see that my rank had apparently decreased by 10242 year-over-year.
(I used to be 30th?? - awesome!)

change: -10242

I've only been a member for 16 days, and this looked a little strange, so I thought I'd read about the User Leagues rankings on Meta Stack Overflow. When I linked through to the User Leagues a 2nd time (in another tab), I found that my rank now showed and wihh an increase of 18616.

change: +18616

Has anyone else seen this? Is this a bug or is this common for newer users, and I missed the explanation elsewhere?


share|improve this question
up vote 1 down vote accepted

This should be better now. The green "+18616" number is the correct one: if you don't have previous rank, we rank you dead last, so the first week/month/etc you appear you jump way up.

There was some strange inconsistency between the webservers, which is why the correct number showed up only some of the time.


On further thought, "+18616" is still a bit confusing, so we'll just show "not previously ranked" for those users.

share|improve this answer
Yes, I got all sorts of different results when I checked yearly & quarterly rankings. But as of this morning... it looks to be fixed. – S.Jones Sep 8 '10 at 17:24

Since you’ve been a member for only 16 days, there is no data for you for last year. Therefore it’s probably a bug arising from bad error handling: the programmer failed to take this situation into account, so the number displayed is garbage.

share|improve this answer
Yeah, exactly - thanks. I was seeing the same thing when I checked quarterly rankings as well (no history == funny results). Just wondering if this was a known bug. – S.Jones Sep 8 '10 at 17:21

You must log in to answer this question.

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