At the users page, sort users by

  1. Reputation
  2. Gold badges
  3. Silver badges
  4. Bronze badges
  5. Date created - oldest first, of course :)

As a bonus, this would eliminate any sort of tie (thanks to rule 5), which would provide a stable order. The order wouldn't change when you refresh the site.

It doesn't exactly add much value to the site, I know, but I suggest it because it seems like it shouldn't be hard to do, either.

  • (-1) for the reasons I put into my answer. – devinb Aug 10 '09 at 17:57
  • +1: I was wondering about that, too, because the other person tying with me has much more badges and is still listed lower. @devinb: "The purpose of badges are simply to recognize achievements". And what exactly is an "achievement" if it should not influence the rank ? – Thorsten S. May 13 '13 at 10:02
  • @ThorstenS. My focus was primarily on the order not being stable, i.e. varying each time the list was displayed, for people with equal reputation. Four years later, I've become used to it :) – Daniel Daranas May 13 '13 at 14:42

This has already been declined, sadly.

| improve this answer | |
  • Thanks for the link. I didn't detect that related question. – Daniel Daranas Aug 10 '09 at 18:05

I don't necessarily see the point in this. If you want to get rid of a tie...just get another up vote.

I admit that the user listing can be looked at as a competition, but it doesn't have to be a competition on every single level.

Plus, one could make the argument that all badges are not created equal. Do you really think that the gold badge for question over X amount of views is equal in stature to a getting upvoted 100 times?

| improve this answer | |

Assuming that they are using no metric for ordering beyond the sort by reputation, it therefore would add overhead to that (minimal I know) but it would be additional coding, and for what gain?

The purpose of badges are simply to recognize achievements, they are NOT the same as or relevant to reputation. The current sorting method shows that all people with the same reputation are considered equal (as they should be) and they are therefore sorted arbitrarily.

Besides, if you are unhappy with your place in the ranks, then you should work to improve it!

| improve this answer | |
  • It's not about being unhappy with my place in the ranks. It's more a sense of aesthetics and equilibrium. – Daniel Daranas Aug 10 '09 at 18:04
  • 1
    Programmers, of all people, should be able to wrap their heads around the concept of unsorted return values. – devinb Aug 10 '09 at 18:24
  • They are not unsorted but sorted by rank and even then they are not "arbitrarily sorted", but by (so it seems) user name in UTF-8 encoding. That it may be overhead which is not worth the additional info is an argument. – Thorsten S. May 13 '13 at 10:08

IMHO, this borders on CDO (OCD in alphabetic order). Seems overkill.

| improve this answer | |

You must log in to answer this question.

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