Relevance would be calculated as the ratio of one's reputation over the number of one's questions and answers, times the number of views —EDIT— per unit of time. (I would not include comments because it would refrain people from commenting.)

It would be equivalent to finding out who are the most efficient users? Who generates most reputation or impact or bang out of the fewest amount of questions and answers (and in a sense time)?

User relevance leagues would promote more pertinent questions and answers. It would also set an achievable goal to people who cannot or want not spend all day on a specific SE site. Moreover, it would serve as a motivator to both generalists (those who spend also time on other SE sites) and newcomers alike.

2 Answers 2


I think I see what you're driving at with this, but the reputation cap will skew the results and probably not give you the outcome you desire.

I also don't see how this differs from the tag top users page:


Lots of tweaks and changes to the reputation system have been suggested over the years and a couple of them have even been implemented, but I don't think this is one of them.

  • It is different from the tag top users in that it is not related to any tag. The proposal truly is something for generalists. Jul 6, 2014 at 18:48

I don't think this is a fair comparison.

Just an example. There are many users that are here for a long time, and their answer gained impressive reputation with only a few questions. To me, some of those answers aren't that impressive they justify such high number of votes. (This is an example question on SO, and I know it is a CW. It's just to do about the number of votes)

These are probably the most efficient users, but are they the best contributing users? Not in my opinion. I had rather see someone giving quality answers that take a huge amount of effort on tags that aren't that much represented.

  • That is a fair remark. Nonetheless, we share the same preoccupation. I edited my proposal to include a measure of time in the denominator. Jul 6, 2014 at 20:54
  • But time isn't a fair measurement in this. A answer that is very good but volatile (maybe a beta version or a product that is often updated) will not gain much on the scale as one that will stand for years. Jul 6, 2014 at 21:14
  • Time sure is fair because it is offset with number of views in the nominator. Volatile good answers would indeed score low because of being viewed less. This still remains fair for a relevance or impact score. Jul 6, 2014 at 22:42

You must log in to answer this question.

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