3

Possible Duplicate:
Why not merge reputation across SO, SF, and SU?

It'd be helpful if you could transfer reputation (or at least a percentage of it) from one site to another.

This would allow users who have established themselves on one site to have the same privileges on another site.

Improve this question
3
  • Well we're trying to get our open source project onto meta.stackexchange.com/questions/53346/… , but none of us have enough meta reputation to post images even though we all use stackoverflow a lot. Instead I've resorted to just posting any feature suggestions of which I can think. Reputation transfer or what not would prevent people from having to do this, wasting their time and other's time.
    – stevenheidel
    Commented Jul 20, 2010 at 0:07
  • sorry, I deleted my comment before I saw yours, I asked why this would be necessary
    – juan
    Commented Jul 20, 2010 at 0:21
  • 1
    Just post the information anyway, include the image links as plain text and put a note for someone to edit it to convert the links to images. It won't take long. (If you want to hurry it up a bit, just flag it for mod attention and include a note on what needs doing). Or, like the answer below says, if you are active on SO and associate your accounts you'll get a rep bonus here.
    – Simon P Stevens
    Commented Jul 20, 2010 at 8:27

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
3

If you have one registered account on any site of the network with at least 200 reputation, you will receive a +100 point reputation bonus when you first log in the other sites.

This will grant you basic privileges such as leaving comments, voting up, and adding images in your posts.

Improve this answer
5

Reputation on a site means you have reputation about that area, for example on SO that's typically programming, on SF that's System Engineer/Admin areas, etc. Being able to transfer rep would give an (IMO) undeserved weight to your content on a site, an area in which you've proven no expertise.

Privileges should be earned on that site I think...for example re-tagging, you should be around to know what the tags are, and for that matter what the topics are. Same goes for the ability to downvote, edit posts, close questions...you should have some expertise, as determined by the members of that site (e.g. your reputation earned) to have those rights.

Improve this answer
2
  • 1
    What about just from SO, SF, etc. to Meta then? Meta is different in that it applies to everyone. I'm just thinking of a case where someone's been using stack overflow for a while and comes onto meta to vote/post suggestions but can't for a while.
    – stevenheidel
    Commented Jul 20, 2010 at 0:14
  • @stevenheidel - To a site's own meta, I could see the permissions existing there, but not to any other meta, since the area should be the same. But...it's still not the same, for example rep here isn't around your ability to program or configure a server, it's your suggestions/insight in how to better improve the SO/SE engine and policies which is a different beast than the topics on any of the sites this meta serves.
    – Nick Craver
    Commented Jul 20, 2010 at 0:50
1

Stack Overflow is the common brand that people recognise and so it makes a lot of sense to have the same reputation on all Stack Overflow sites.

If someone has gone to the trouble of contributing a good answer, they should be rewarded globally otherwise it's too segmented and very confusing.

Improve this answer

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