3

Activity on per-site-meta is important for the healthy running of stackexchange sites so why doesn't this (possibly with some kind of upper limit) count towards the overall rating of a user?

I'm sure I am not the first person to think of this so presumably there is a good reason this is the case. I am just curious what that reason is.

  • 1
    Reputation is already a quite vague metric, why dilute it even more? – yannis Dec 10 '14 at 17:22
6

Because Meta Is Murder

enter image description here

It's unhealthy for a site to spend too much time focusing on or discussing meta topics instead of the topic the site is actually about. It's important for there to be a place for meta topics to be discussed, both because some do in fact need to be discussed, but also to just keep them out of the way of the people looking for the Real content.

Giving rep for meta contributions would be to encourage people to spend more time contributing them. We don't want to do that.

  • 6
    "Giving rep for meta contributions would be to encourage people to spend more time contributing them. We don't want to do that." Posted on a Meta site that has its own reputation ;P – yannis Dec 10 '14 at 17:31
  • 3
    @Yannis The irony was certainly not lost on me. I debated mentioning it in the post, but decided against it. – Servy Dec 10 '14 at 17:32
  • You would not believe that I read that as meat is murder - 3 times! – Reluctant_Linux_User Dec 10 '14 at 18:06
  • 3
    @Reluctant_Linux_User How do you read something negative three times? ;) – Servy Dec 10 '14 at 18:07
  • 2
    By being a vegetarian dyslexic. ;) – Reluctant_Linux_User Dec 10 '14 at 18:09

You must log in to answer this question.

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