7

Just an example:

When we talk about SO, I agree with the reasons stated here to explain why question upvotes grant only +5 rep instead of +10, but Meta is different:

1.- Answers have more intrinsic value than questions, and the reputation balance should reflect that.

On Meta, in cases like posting a bug, suggesting improvements or proposing new features, the question itself is IMHO much more important than the answers, especially if it's upvoted, as Meta's voting logic is different to SO, and almost every upvote to a question means a user agrees with the OP.

2.- The question asker already enjoys a substantial benefit beyond reputation gain from upvotes on their question — namely, they get great answers to their question!

On Meta, especially in the cases stated before, answers don't solve an asker's problem, but a site problem or a possible improvement, so this point is not true, or not as true as it is in SO.

3.- We want to discourage question asking a little bit, and make sure that people who ask questions are doing it for the right reasons and not to generate reputation.

I think this point fits to SO but not completely to Meta. Asking something in Meta, especially proposing an improvement or requesting a feature can be a risky business (for your rep). IMO, these type of questions (and bug detection) should be encouraged (similar to creating a non-stop brainstorming).

Conclusion:

I'm not sure if this is possible or if it would be a headache for SE developers but IMHO, just in Meta, upvotes to questions should gain the same rep than answers. And more generally, reputation should work differently on Meta.

|improve this question|||||
  • 8
    I'll point out that meta.SO is the only meta to have a separate rep table from the primary site. – Amelia Jun 26 '13 at 23:13
  • 2
    I frankly wouldn't care either way. All it would do is give people more worthless Meta rep. – animuson♦ Jun 26 '13 at 23:15
  • 4
    I'll upvote this because I want the 1250 additional meaningless points! – user206222 Jun 26 '13 at 23:23
  • @animuson Implying that SO rep is more valuable in some way. – user200500 Jun 26 '13 at 23:26
  • 2
    @animuson, why do you keep holding such a worthless treasure (48.5k)? – Alejandro Colorado Jun 26 '13 at 23:29
  • IMO, meta SO posts should all be Community Wiki. – hjpotter92 Jun 26 '13 at 23:43
  • 13
    Please please no...making rep more complicated on the central network meta is adding madness to the nightmare, trust me on this. – Nick Craver♦ Jun 26 '13 at 23:43
  • I’d rather just have privilege changes. That was really annoying at 10 rep. – Ry- Jun 27 '13 at 1:15
  • Shouldn't we need a meta**2.stackoverflow to discuss this? – user225770 Jun 27 '13 at 1:17
  • So, how should "reputation should work differently on Meta"? You didn't really elaborate on your proposal, despite the question title. – Old Checkmark Jun 27 '13 at 1:45
  • Well you get 10 rep for all upvotes on Stack Apps... – ɥʇǝS Jun 27 '13 at 2:08
4

Meh.

Rep isn't that important. It's a rough measure of trust; of how much experience you have with the community. A rough measure. Tweaking the specifics is not really worth it; what will you do with the extra meta rep? The "extrinsic motivation" feature of rep doesn't really matter on meta. And, finally, the privileges bit is well covered, we have no particular need for an increase in the rate of accumulation of privileges (Of course, we need a steady increase in high rep users as the activity increases, but it's at a good balance now)

This feature request isn't bad, per se, but there's nothing great to it either. The feature is neither harmful nor useful (to me), why waste the dev time on it?

|improve this answer|||||
1

I have a suggestion concerting downvotes on Meta: Since, on Meta, a downvote simply means that you're disagreeing with the question or answer, I don't see any reason for discouraging downvotes by making them cost rep to the voter. I suggest that downvotes on Meta should not cost anything, whether on answers or questions.

|improve this answer|||||
0

This is an interesting proposition, mainly because Meta.StackOverflow is the catch-all meta.

The Meta sites for the rest on the SE network don't count reputation at all, and the reputation they do show is what has been accumulated from the main site.

Yeah but reputation on a Meta site is worthless!!

Not always. IMVHO it becomes important for anyone who is a candidate for site moderator elections. In this case it gives a representation of the candidate's input to the site, i.e. how many useful feature requests, discussions or bugs they have raised, and how many useful answers they have given to other users of the site. At the moment this contribution can only be measured on the Meta.SO site.

But wait.... there's an alternative...

We change Meta.SO to work the same way as every other Meta site (i.e. not accumulate reputation). Then at particular moments in time (i.e elections) the site devs can surface reports that show a user's level of contribution and assign arbitrary values to the up/down votes in order to show a general positive or negative influence.

This has the advantages of:

  • bringing the main Meta into line with all the others, even though it's still the catch-all
  • eliminates confusion about why Meta.SO is "different"
  • still allows us to gauge someone's contribution to any meta site
  • nobody ever needs to post the obligatory "Meta.SO works differently..." comment when a new user posts a question/suggestion that is heavily down voted
  • [this space left for others to post advantages when they think of them]
|improve this answer|||||
  • 1
    The "moderator" point is irrelevant in this context. For elections, we compare meta rep, so giving everyone more rep doesn't change anything. – Manishearth Jun 27 '13 at 0:00
  • 1
    "Not accumulate reputation" -- then what about privileges? Non-SO people who are active on meta should be able to moderate it, not arbitrary users from SO who don't know how meta works. – Manishearth Jun 27 '13 at 0:01
  • @Manishearth meta privileges is a good point, but it works fine on other meta sites, and there wouldn't be too many users (other than employees?) who had a high Meta.SO rep but low or no SO rep (in which case maybe aggregated sitewide rep could be used to govern privileges for this meta)? – slugster Jun 27 '13 at 0:29

You must log in to answer this question.

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