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

The new StackExchange 2.0 sites have each a meta site with the reputation being derived directly from the parent site, instead of being calculated separately. Why is that? It seems to me that amount of participation in the parent site and amount of participation in the meta site are two completely different metrics - one can be a lot more active in one than the other, for example.

Why not have a separate reputation score, which will allow us to better assess the more active participants of meta discussions?

share|improve this question

In addition to what studiohack said, pegging meta rep to parent rep means that rep doesn't change for actions on meta. This allows people to vote on proposals without worrying about whether anyone's rep will change.

Convenience link to original per-site meta blog post

share|improve this answer
exactly! +1 I was missing something, but couldn't think of it :) – studiohack Oct 2 '10 at 15:40

Meta sites are used for bug reports, feature requests, discussing site issues, etc... about the PARENT site.

It seems like the more participation you have on the PARENT site, the more abilities and bigger the role you should have in the discussions about that site. Creating a separate reputation score for META activity means that only frequent META USERS would have the leading roles... not necessarily the same people who actually use the site (i.e. the stakeholders). Having one meta score (for using the ACTUAL SITE) seems like a better system.

share|improve this answer
Seems reasonable. But devil's advocate: "caring a lot about bicycles/web apps/system administration" doesn't necessarily correlate highly to "being able to make good choices about how a Q&A site should be run." – Pops Oct 3 '10 at 1:01
@Popular Demand: That's true but being a frequent contributor and practiced at meta discussion certainly gives you more pull and influence. So being active in meta does give you more weight in that sense. Devil's advocate rebuttal: Being a meta user doesn't any more so correlate highly to making good choices. In a more democratic sense, the meta users (i.e. politicians) are the ones talking (posting), but the actual users (i.e. citizens) are the ones with the final oversight (voting, closing). – Robert Cartaino Oct 3 '10 at 1:20

I believe that the biggest reason that the meta reputation is derived from the parent site is because it shows how active that user is on the parent site, thus showing how well the user knows the parent...

As a result, this gives the user more or less "authority" on the meta site...

share|improve this answer
It's interesting, though, to note that doesn't do this (presumably because it originally served as a central-meta for S[OFU], rather than only one of them). But with meta.sf and now existing, I'm interested why the rep from and so isn't simply merged. – David Thomas Oct 2 '10 at 15:23
@ricebowl, this is because MSO is still (despite the name) a little special; it's more than just SO's per-site meta. You know how we have a Cooking SE and a Gaming SE and a Bicycling SE? MSO is sort of the Stack Exchange SE. – Pops Oct 2 '10 at 15:33

You must log in to answer this question.

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