Why is a users rep value visible to all?

Question

This post has nothing to do with altering actual reputation values.

I've been a user of a few Stack sites for a few years now. One site in particular. In fact, I've got the highest reputation at one site.

The thing I dislike most about stack sites is that all users see the total rep value for every user on the site. This often is the catalyst for either off-handed remarks or outright hunt and attack schemes from other users.

It's somewhat like the old west.... how do you make a name for yourself? Find the highest rep users and go around disputing what they've posted, even if technology has changed and old answers may no longer be valid.

In addition, users with lower reputation can often be targeted by higher rep users with the assumption that they have no clue with respect to what they are posting. The truth of the matter is, a users rep has no basis in their knowledge or experience. It only reflects their usefulness on that stack site. It is entirely possible for the most knowledgable person on a site to have a rep below 100 or even 10.

In light of this it started me wondering... why does UserX with 3 days on the site and 5 rep need to know my total rep score? Why does UserY with 10k rep need to know a new user has 1 rep versus 300 rep? Why wouldn't some subjective value be used rather than total points? Names could be assigned to members based upon their reputation:

• New user
• Novice
• Intermediate
• Advanced
• Exceptional
• Experienced
• Guru

Or something similar.
These are just off the top of my head.

Using monikers rather than showing the total score would serve a few purposes that I can think of:

1. Make all users feel more included and not ashamed of any low value.
2. Not make any one user seem more "special" than others.
3. Eliminate any seek and destroy tactics targeted at highest rep users.

Things such as the users page could still be listed as to who gained the most rep for the week, month, quarter, year but the actual number values would be hidden to everyone but moderators and that user.

I'm not proposing that the values be eliminated or even changed, just that they be hidden to all users in favor of a more ambiguous "term" for the public. Reputation values tend to serve to segregate the user base. That, to me, is not a favorable thing.

Thoughts?

Answer 1

From the help:

Reputation is a rough measurement of how much the community trusts you; it is earned by convincing your peers that you know what you’re talking about. ... But the more reputation you earn, the more privileges you gain.

So reputation does two things:

First: It gives you privileges. Not something others should care about too much and no exact number necessary.

Second: It is a measurement of trust. If you have posted a lot of high-quality answers, you are more likely to contribute with high-quality answers. That should give others a feel of 'authority'. You know your subject and you know it well. Since we are building a Q/A site with quality answers, the reputation of the user gives a first glance on the knowledge and expertise of the user.

Third: it is a game. The game element of SE drives some people to keep contributing. (If there is just #1 next to your name, would you do as much as you do now to stay #1?) Also, #2 likes to know what he is up to.

What about all those googlers? And why shouldn't anyone see the relatively new and under-appreciated answer on the bottom is from a highly appreciated user?

Categorizing the reputation in groups doesn't fix any problem at hand, so why would we want to change that? We want to see every positive effect on the users actions (as much as we do want to see the negative effect). This will motivate new users.

Answer 2

Reputation is a rough measurement of how much the community trusts you; it is earned by convincing your peers that you know what you’re talking about. ... But the more reputation you earn, the more privileges you gain.

Yes, thank you Patrick Hofman for posting that quote.

When users have lots of rep, they have the feeling of being a good, dedicated person towards their community. Other fellow users can rely on them to be examples for newbies and draw traffic as other non-users know that they can whip up high-quality posts that can help lots and lots of people, users and non-users.

You mentioned that your request can help eliminate those seek-and-destroy people from ruining high-rep people. We already have a system that controls that. If someone just spams downvotes on someone else, the system will be notified and undo the votes. Mods will also be notified and will warn/suspend the violator.

Yes, rep can be a factor in seeing that someone is more trustworthy than another, to be "special", that's another thing. That would most likely apply to mods, who are special users with privileges awarded by the community or Se by winning elections or by working for SE itself. Anyways, your system would only worsen the situation. For example, one person posts as a novice, another as a guru. Wouldn't you think that the guru would be better than the novice?

You even mentioned low-rep users would be ashamed by having an "in-superior" amount of rep. Everyone starts from the beginning and then rises up the ranks. Hopefully, the high-rep users can be set as bars that must be passes by the new users to set the level of SE higher. To have a lot of rep means that new users have someone to look up too when they post. They try to mimic their "hero" thus making excellent questions and answers.

As you can see, rep is an important factor we users know to respect and use for the good of others like you and me.