There seems to be at least three different algos and/or storage/cache spaces for reputation:

  1. The user profile itself.
  2. The reputation graph.
  3. The reputation list (only yours is visible).

In my case, all three shows a different value. As of now, I see the following values:

  1. 40,277
  2. 36,177 (the latest value of the array in var d in JS source, evidently also highest point in graph)
  3. 40,253

Noteable is that the graph wasn't updated accordingly during The Big March 2010 Recalc. This inaccuracy by the way also occurs here at Meta, I see respectively 800, 629, 742.

Why is that so? That is counterinituitive to me in developer's perspective. The reputation list seems to be the most reliable source of all. Why isn't all the information derived from the one and the same source? I can imagine of caching reasons, but those differences would mean that there's a bug in the code responsible for updating the cached values.

Problems with regard to inaccuracy of the rep graph were regularly reported, but they were all taken for non serious, seemingly ignored and/or marked as "by design". How that so? It's clearly a bug.

I also note that one would request a manual recalc for this (mods seem to be capable of this). Doing regulary recalcs is imo not a solution, but a workaround.

Note: I am not concerned about the reputation in general, but more about the quality of the sites. To me, this is definitely a bug. Certainly when compared to the relative high-quality remnant of the site.

  • What makes you think that it's showing the old score? Screen shot needed methinks.
    – ChrisF Mod
    Mar 22, 2010 at 22:25
  • @ChrisF: Rightclick, view source, Ctrl+F on var d and check the data. It's old.
    – user138231
    Mar 22, 2010 at 22:28
  • @BalusC - I've just come back from doing just that! I lost a couple of hundred points on SO and SU so it's difficult to tell from the graph itself.
    – ChrisF Mod
    Mar 22, 2010 at 22:32
  • Have you tried clearing your browser cache and checking again /reputation report?
    – YOU
    Apr 9, 2010 at 13:43
  • It's updated realtime and it's already behind since a week or two. First it was 15 points behind, then 14 points, then 24 points. This is also related: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/46026/…
    – user138231
    Apr 9, 2010 at 13:54
  • @BalusC, /reputation could be some of the question you had answered deleted, but I am agree your original question now, rep graph is quite different, I noticed that, mine is around 900 different too.
    – YOU
    Apr 9, 2010 at 14:53

2 Answers 2


Rep graph should be mostly accurate, but is still catching up to the /reputation report.

  • From developer's perspective, I still don't understand it. Do you mean to say that it's cached?
    – user138231
    Mar 22, 2010 at 22:52
  • 5
    // Documentation missing
    – Ether
    Mar 22, 2010 at 23:36
  • 4
    – Jon Seigel
    Apr 9, 2010 at 19:05

The buggy and confusing rep graph has finally been killed and there's a very nice replacement which does it way better. So, that's already one inaccuracy down the drain.

Left behind the discrepancy between the rep as visible in user profile and the actual rep as outlined in deep detail on https://stackoverflow.com/reputation. The trigger recalc button at the bottom of that page, which was introduced about half a year ago, makes however a lot up.

Update: the reputation source inaccuracy has been fixed as per Recent Reputation History Changes.

You must log in to answer this question.