2 added 117 characters in body
source | link

Counterpoint: If a marketplace existed for Reputation, it could render it more meaningful and improve all Stack Exchange sites.

Right now reputation points are used as a measure of experience, contribution, and commitment. But beyond that it hasthey have no value. Once you're a Trusted User what incentive do you have to accumulate rep, other than whatever value your own ego places next to that number? I have seen examples of formerly invaluable users sort of check out once their rep was past the mid-5-figures.

If a financial market existed for rep then the most valuable users (i.e., those who can provide the best questions and answers) would have some incentive beyond the gaming"gaming" aspects to continue participating. So that's the supply side.

On the demand side: Who would pay for rep? Obviously somebody who really wants attention to a question, but can't or won't invest the time to try to build their own rep natively.

Would it be bad if somebody could pay for a 500-point bounty on their question? It would give it more eyes, and it might give it more answers, but it's not like it would pollute the ecosystem with bad questions because: the question is still subject to votes, which are democratic and (we try to ensure) can't be bought with money. Bad questions will still accumulate votes that indicate their merit – and more quickly if they have a bounty.

Would it be bad if somebody bought Trusted User status and then started mucking about in the review queues? Sure, but that's why we have mods and CMs who can take away that status as easily as it was purchased.

Counterpoint: If a marketplace existed for Reputation, it could render it more meaningful and improve all Stack Exchange sites.

Right now reputation points are used as a measure of experience, contribution, and commitment. But beyond that it has no value. Once you're a Trusted User what incentive do you have to accumulate rep, other than whatever value your own ego places next to that number? I have seen examples of formerly invaluable users sort of check out once their rep was past the mid-5-figures.

If a financial market existed for rep then the most valuable users (i.e., those who can provide the best questions and answers) would have some incentive beyond the gaming aspects to continue participating. So that's the supply side.

On the demand side: Who would pay for rep? Obviously somebody who really wants attention to a question, but can't or won't invest the time to try to build their own rep natively.

Would it be bad if somebody could pay for a 500-point bounty on their question? It would give it more eyes, and it might give it more answers, but it's not like it would pollute the ecosystem with bad questions because the question is still subject to votes, which are democratic and (we try to ensure) can't be bought with money.

Would it be bad if somebody bought Trusted User status and then started mucking about in the review queues? Sure, but that's why we have mods and CMs who can take away that status as easily as it was purchased.

Counterpoint: If a marketplace existed for Reputation, it could render it more meaningful and improve all Stack Exchange sites.

Right now reputation points are used as a measure of experience, contribution, and commitment. But beyond that they have no value. Once you're a Trusted User what incentive do you have to accumulate rep, other than whatever value your own ego places next to that number? I have seen examples of formerly invaluable users sort of check out once their rep was past the mid-5-figures.

If a financial market existed for rep then the most valuable users (i.e., those who can provide the best questions and answers) would have some incentive beyond the "gaming" aspects to continue participating. So that's the supply side.

On the demand side: Who would pay for rep? Obviously somebody who really wants attention to a question, but can't or won't invest the time to try to build their own rep natively.

Would it be bad if somebody could pay for a 500-point bounty on their question? It would give it more eyes, and it might give it more answers, but it's not like it would pollute the ecosystem with bad questions: the question is still subject to votes, which are democratic and (we try to ensure) can't be bought with money. Bad questions will still accumulate votes that indicate their merit – and more quickly if they have a bounty.

Would it be bad if somebody bought Trusted User status and then started mucking about in the review queues? Sure, but that's why we have mods and CMs who can take away that status as easily as it was purchased.

1
source | link

Counterpoint: If a marketplace existed for Reputation, it could render it more meaningful and improve all Stack Exchange sites.

Right now reputation points are used as a measure of experience, contribution, and commitment. But beyond that it has no value. Once you're a Trusted User what incentive do you have to accumulate rep, other than whatever value your own ego places next to that number? I have seen examples of formerly invaluable users sort of check out once their rep was past the mid-5-figures.

If a financial market existed for rep then the most valuable users (i.e., those who can provide the best questions and answers) would have some incentive beyond the gaming aspects to continue participating. So that's the supply side.

On the demand side: Who would pay for rep? Obviously somebody who really wants attention to a question, but can't or won't invest the time to try to build their own rep natively.

Would it be bad if somebody could pay for a 500-point bounty on their question? It would give it more eyes, and it might give it more answers, but it's not like it would pollute the ecosystem with bad questions because the question is still subject to votes, which are democratic and (we try to ensure) can't be bought with money.

Would it be bad if somebody bought Trusted User status and then started mucking about in the review queues? Sure, but that's why we have mods and CMs who can take away that status as easily as it was purchased.