I saw many **SIMPLE** Questions (and even Answers) with very large amount of up-votes. Is it good idea to give so many reputation just for a very simple question or answer which is just because it is a common request of people who search the web for it? (and the question/answer author is one who just posted it sooner than other ones)

As an example, consider this simple (one line) question on stackoverflow:

**Q:** [*How do I redirect to another page in jQuery?*][1] => **6041 up-votes!** (net) 

[and its answer:][2] **Ans:** window.location.replace(...), with a little more explanation... => **10008 up-votes!**  

Also consider a **10 points gain for each up-vote!** it could theoretically give authors a 60k and 100k reputations!! (i said just in theory if distributed per different days in 2 years, but, anyway they will produce a very large rep despite the per day limit).

So, to improve the reputation system, i think there must be some limits for total rep one user can get from each question (or answer), or some weight factor for votes higher than some limit. 

Consider this with the fact that many good technical questions and answers provide a very low reputation gain (eg: +15 for accepted answer or 10*10 = 100 for 10 upvotes), or consider those many hard questions suggest a bounty worth about +50 or +200 rep. How could we compare them?! 

As i already mentioned, i know there is a limit of 200 rep for each user per day. but, i think its not enough to control the issue i explained above. As each day, many people may try to search "how to redirect to another page" and see that SO question and upvote it.




  [1]: http://stackoverflow.com/q/503093/2803565
  [2]: http://stackoverflow.com/a/506004/2803565