This question already has an answer here:
I've noticed that when two or more answers are provided to a question, people's votes tend to gravitate toward the answer posted by the person with higher reputation. I've observed this "rich get richer" phenomenon in nearly every community I am a part of. This even happens in cases where the lower reputation user posts their answer long before the higher reputation user comes along.
I feel like this unnaturally causes people to flock toward one idea/answer, discounting the opinions/views of people with lower reputation.
I understand how reputation is meant to signal one's knowledge of the subject area and the site in general; however, I think these reputation effects prevent people from judging the correctness of the answers themselves.
I would like to hear other's opinions on this. One suggestion I have is to hide the answerer's identity and reputation score for the first 24 hours after a question is asked. I think this would go a long way to resolving this issue.
- Supporting evidence:
- The fact that this is evidently a polarizing topic deserves discussion in itself.
- The post linked by rene is certainly relevant: Should reputation be hidden until an answer is accepted? however, it was posted nearly 9 years ago (is there no statute of limitations on posts marked as duplicate?). I'm sure it is no longer in anyone's mind, perhaps it deserves to be revisited? It seems I have caused a sufficient amount of controversy to prevent that objective from being met here, though.