On Stack Overflow, There are users with rank change +20,000

How is that possible? As you can see on image, my "opponent" has got almost same week rank but has change 10x bigger. So, how is that achievable?


EDIT: I got it. however I have no idea why does everyone rock me down with downvotes. I was just curious ...

  • 3
    Are you reading rep or rank?
    – random
    Jun 18, 2011 at 21:12
  • whoops, sorry. My question has been edited.
    – genesis
    Jun 18, 2011 at 21:14
  • This is just rank. Scorpi0 was on a much lower rank than you last week.
    – Pekka
    Jun 18, 2011 at 21:28
  • but his last answer is stackoverflow.com/questions/3138742/… Jun 29 '10, so how's that possible!?
    – genesis
    Jun 18, 2011 at 21:34
  • @genesis you are mistaken. See his activity tab.
    – Pekka
    Jun 18, 2011 at 21:35
  • and now look mine stackoverflow.com/users/764846/genesis?tab=reputation I have 418+ rep in last 2 days
    – genesis
    Jun 18, 2011 at 21:38
  • 4
    @genesis you are misunderstanding the concept of rank. You were on a higher rank last week already, while the other user did not earn any reputation. Therefore, your growth in rank is relatively small. The other user started at 0 (or some other very low number), which is why their relative rank grew much more than yours.
    – Pekka
    Jun 18, 2011 at 21:46
  • so if I would have rep0 at start of week, and reached 1000 to end of the week, I would get MORE ranks than if I would start with 2000 and end up with 3000?
    – genesis
    Jun 18, 2011 at 21:48
  • 1
    @genesis exactly. It's just the relative growth of your position. If I earn 10000 dollars in month 1, and 10010 dollars in month 2, my growth is just 10 dollars, but I would still be stinking rich. (Well, kind of.) If somebody earns 0 dollars in month 1, but 300 dollars in month 2, their growth is 300 dollars - but they're still poor.
    – Pekka
    Jun 18, 2011 at 21:51
  • great. I'll rather delete this thread. Thank you all
    – genesis
    Jun 18, 2011 at 21:54
  • one more question - If I earn 10 000 $ in month 1, and in 2 i'll earn 300$ - and If I earn 0$ in month 1, and in 2 I'll earn 300$ - second case does got a lot more rank change, right?
    – genesis
    Jun 18, 2011 at 21:59
  • @genesis yup, because there are more users between 0$ and 300$ than there are between 300$ and 10000$.
    – Pekka
    Jun 18, 2011 at 22:02
  • you wanted to tell "between 0$ and 300$ than there are between 10300$ and 10000$" right?
    – genesis
    Jun 18, 2011 at 22:03
  • @genesis yeah! That's what I meant.
    – Pekka
    Jun 18, 2011 at 22:05
  • once more: "There are more users which has ALLTIME money between 0$ and 300$ ......" or "There are more users which has growth this week (relatively from last week) money between 0$ and 300$ ......" ?
    – genesis
    Jun 18, 2011 at 22:10

2 Answers 2


To understand how weekly rankings work, use the "prev week" link to compare results.

This week for scorpi0:

Rank: #516, Weekly rep: 317

Last week for scorpi0:

Rank: #23910, Weekly rep: -4

So last week, scorpi0 earned rock-bottom reputation earnings. That put him/her almost at the very bottom of all users. This week, scorpi0 was active and earned (so far) a respectable amount of reputation. Only about 500 users on all of Stack Overflow earned 300 or more repuation points so far this week.

So scorpi0 went from all the way at the bottom to within 500 from the top since last week. That is why his/her weekly rank changed so dramatically from one week to the next: a dramatic increase in weekly reputation earnings.

All-time reputation and all-time ranking will be much less susceptible to large changes like this. Weekly reputation rank changes aren't affected by total reputation so there can be wild swings from week to week. If you tend to earn the same amount of reputation from week to week, your weekly rank will not change very much over time.

  • I still do not know why everyone striked me down with downvotes. I was just misunderstanding how does that work. You are here to help people, so why you rock everyone who don't get something?
    – genesis
    Jun 18, 2011 at 23:21
  • 1
    because (a) you said that there is a "bad counting" bug (b) in meta downvotes indicate disagreement ( faq ) ergo, downvotes indicate your understanding that it was a bug is incorrect @genesis Jun 19, 2011 at 3:46
  • You can see the breakdown in your own reputation tab here on meta but at the moment you got 5 upvotes and 7 downvotes so you still get a net reputation increase. You tested the waters and came out unscathed! Jun 19, 2011 at 4:00
  • what about accept percentage? It's in negative right now
    – genesis
    Jun 19, 2011 at 10:58

Evidently there were 23394 people with between 1175-1492 rep, and only 2469 with between 252-561 rep. There were just more people for him to pass in the rep range he was moving through.

  • My all-time rank with rep 757 is #25779. Do you really think there are 20 000 people between 1175 - 1492 rep and 5770 people have the rest?
    – genesis
    Jun 18, 2011 at 21:30
  • @random: rep10 has about 11 000 members? So where is that magic number 23394 ?
    – genesis
    Jun 18, 2011 at 21:36
  • Run the numbers on the reputation and the count of users on each band. It keeps changing with each dump. @gen
    – random
    Jun 18, 2011 at 21:38
  • 1
    @gen - look at the Total Reputation breakdown on the right side: stackexchange.com/leagues/1/alltime/stackoverflow/2008-07-31/… . And then go kick back and relax, it's not that important.
    – Brad Mace
    Jun 18, 2011 at 21:39
  • I did not say it'S important, I'm just curious how is that possible. He received about 210 rep today, yesterday, day before yesterday and I received 410 in same period of time.
    – genesis
    Jun 18, 2011 at 21:42

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