Some people on this question Provide a way to embed videos in answers mentioned that my 0% acceptance rate on meta.stackoverflow was "offensive" and that I was "dismissing the relevance of the site" where people spend "time and energy answering questions".
That certainly wasn't my intention, I just thought reputation didn't matter to anyone on the meta sites and that it only was important on the real sites, where I of course keep my acceptance rates at a natural 80-90%. I thought the meta sites were just a way to throw ideas around and that the same software as the real sites was used simply because it was easy to copy and turned out to be more useful than uservoice.
I thought I remember Jeff Atwood mentioning on a podcast that the meta sites were "a much harsher place" in terms of reputation since people tended to vote questions up and down vigourously simply to indicate if they were a good idea or not, but not to indicate that it the question itself was a bad question.
And questions like these seem to support the view that reputation on meta sites shouldn't matter: Don't calculate accepted answer rate on meta
And as far as I know reputation on meta sites isn't reported anywhere publicly like on flare graphics, right?
So do the majority of people care about reputation on meta sites or not?