One of my pet gripes about the Stack Exchange sites is how someone with very few solid questions and answers can get a reputation points score that shoot to the moon based on a handful of activity. These are usually very elementary level questions / answers as well, so of course they get the most traffic from beginner folks.
Not to bash anyone specifically, it's no user's fault the scoring is linear, but here's an example: How to make a background 20% transparent on Android.
I mean come on. The top answers for this are basically half the reputation points for the two users that answered it. Yes, it's helped a bunch of folks, but it will continue to rake in the reputation dough for eternity. Even the Beatles (or whoever owns the rights) don't pull in the same royalties per song played as they did when first released and were top of the charts.
The whole idea of a point system encourages competition, but this almost discourages folks spending time on difficult/challenging questions (outside those which have hefty bonuses).
How about a logarithmic scale that kicks in after say 100 votes on a question or answer?
I'm sure this has been tossed around, just curious why to keep the endless linear scale.