What is broken about it, and why? Are there any solutions to it?

It might not be "broken", but reputation (and voting, to a lesser extent) have an ongoing identity crisis where it is not clear what they mean. For example:

A user having a higher reputation than another user could mean any of these:

• Has answered more questions
• Has given more useful answers
• Has answered less, but more popular questions
• Has given more answers, but on tags that are not relevant to the current question.
• Answers questions that are easier to understand (and therefore, more likely to be voted on)
• Was first to help someone fix a common syntax error 15 years ago

The fact that every question and answer puts the user's reputation in your face encourages people to notice and interpret that number in some way. The problem is that within any random Q&A thread, this number has no reliable, coherent interpretation. I think most would agree that if you rely on reputation numbers to make choices about voting, you are using the site wrong, and maybe even harming the community. And yet, the question/answer page is designed as though we want you to notice to them.

There is nothing wrong with having cool internet points for fun, but we have a incoherent blend of a merit system and an engagement system, with magical numbers displayed everywhere. In my opinion, this seems to be dragging against the goal of having high-quality, self moderating information.

What is broken about it, and why? Are there any solutions to it?

It might not be "broken", but reputation (and voting, to a lesser extent) have an ongoing identity crisis where it is not clear what they mean. For example:

A user having a higher reputation than another user could mean any of these:

• Has answered more questions
• Has given more useful answers
• Has answered fewer, but more popular questions
• Has given more answers, but on tags that are not relevant to the current question.
• Answers questions that are easier to understand (and therefore, more likely to be voted on)
• Was first to help someone fix a common syntax error 15 years ago

The fact that every question and answer puts the user's reputation in your face encourages people to notice and interpret that number in some way. The problem is that within any random Q&A thread, this number has no reliable, coherent interpretation. I think most would agree that if you rely on reputation numbers to make choices about voting, you are using the site wrong, and maybe even harming the community. And yet, the question/answer page is designed as though we want you to notice to them.

There is nothing wrong with having cool Internet points for fun, but we have an incoherent blend of a merit system and an engagement system, with magical numbers displayed everywhere. In my opinion, this seems to be dragging against the goal of having high-quality, self-moderating information.

What is broken about it, and why? Are there any solutions to it?

It might not be "broken", but reputation (and voting, to a lesser extent) have an ongoing identity crisis where it is not clear what they mean. For example:

A user having a higher reputation than another user could mean any of these:

• Has answered more questions
• Has given more useful answers
• Has answered less, but more popular questions
• Has given more answers, but on tags that are not relevant to the current question.
• Answers questions that are easier to understand (and therefore, more likely to be voted on)
• Was first to help someone fix a common syntax error 15 years ago

The fact that every question and answer puts the user's reputation in your face encourages people to notice and interpret that number in some way. The problem is that within any random Q&A thread, this number has no reliable, coherent interpretation.

There is nothing wrong with having cool internet points for fun, but we have a incoherent blend of a merit system and an engagement system, with magical numbers displayed everywhere. In my opinion, this seems to be dragging against the goal of having high-quality, self moderating information.

What is broken about it, and why? Are there any solutions to it?

It might not be "broken", but reputation (and voting, to a lesser extent) have an ongoing identity crisis where it is not clear what they mean. For example:

A user having a higher reputation than another user could mean any of these:

• Has answered more questions
• Has given more useful answers
• Has answered less, but more popular questions
• Has given more answers, but on tags that are not relevant to the current question.
• Answers questions that are easier to understand (and therefore, more likely to be voted on)
• Was first to help someone fix a common syntax error 15 years ago

The fact that every question and answer puts the user's reputation in your face encourages people to notice and interpret that number in some way. The problem is that within any random Q&A thread, this number has no reliable, coherent interpretation. I think most would agree that if you rely on reputation numbers to make choices about voting, you are using the site wrong, and maybe even harming the community. And yet, the question/answer page is designed as though we want you to notice to them.

There is nothing wrong with having cool internet points for fun, but we have a incoherent blend of a merit system and an engagement system, with magical numbers displayed everywhere. In my opinion, this seems to be dragging against the goal of having high-quality, self moderating information.