So I was thinking (dangerous, I know) - would it be worthwhile to add a slight "reputation slip" mechanism if a user isn't seen for a decent length of time?
For example if you're not seen for, say, 6 months your rep sinks a little bit to reflect the fact that you're not very current.
Good idea? Bad idea? Thoughts?
I do not see why one's reputation should be lowered over the course of time. That reputation was earned and it is unlikely that a period of inactivity should cause the system to begin losing faith in the user who put forth the time and effort to achieve that score.
I do not mind seeing a timeframe scale in terms of user rankings, but I believe that the user's all time score should remain so regardless of their activity levels.
And how would we define "active?" Posting questions? Answers?
I hate to say it, but the reason I went through a fairly prolonged period of inactivity was because I couldn't beat the fastest guns in the west. This is not a criticism, but I visited the site, browsed the questions, found ones I felt like answering, and saw that three or four others beat me to the punch with well-thought-out, well-organized answers. I had nothing to add, and therefore (following the intent of the site) didn't.
So under this scenario, would a user's rep dip because of that? Or is lurking considered "activity?"
What about posting questions but not answers?
What about commenting?
Voting?
Not to mention TheTXI's excellent reasoning. :)
Inactivity isn't always the fault of the user. If you're primarily active in a niche tag that undergoes a dip in posting activity, you may have no questions to answer.
When you are inactive you do not get much rep, mean while other users are active and keep getting rep. Thus your rep becomes smaller in relation to other users, so in a way you are already "punished" for inactivity.
This idea has come up 3-4 times in the course of development and has been universally and soundly panned every time.
Let's take away their Woot badge! How dare they not visit SO obsessively? :)
