Post History
Although my reputation would shrink substantially if that change were implemented ;) , I think it is the right choice to prevent votes on meta from affecting the reputation. The reason is that the...
Answer
#3: Post edited
by
AdminBee
·
2023-07-21T14:07:14Z (over 1 year ago)
Correct grammar
- Although my reputation would shrink substantially if that change were implemented ;) , I think it is the right choice to prevent votes on meta from affecting the reputation.
- The reason is that the very existence of this summary indicator can only be justified (cf. [discussions](https://meta.codidact.com/posts/280043) on whether reputation was a good idea to begin with) if it reflects the quality of the posts on the _subject of the site_ - and therefore the community assessment whether a contributor is knowledgeable or not.
The activity on Meta on the other hand indicates how much a user is involved in the community, e.g. how we deal with special situations, or supporting the maintenance of the codebase on which the site rests. These are certainly excellent qualities, but they reflect a different aspect of the user's activity which is not the primary concern for someone who comes here in seeking answers for a specific problem with a Linux(oid) system. Also, votes on Meta questions are prone to being an expression of agreement/disagreement with the statement put up for discussion rather the quality of the question, which defeats the purpose of "reputation" gained that way to indicate the quality of the contribution to the site.It might be reasonable to have two sets of reputation, one for a site and another one for its meta, for situations in which it is desirable to assess the amount of "involvement" of a user in the site's community - but again, votes on Meta Q&A are often an expression on agreement/disagreement, so this might not work to begin with.
- Although my reputation would shrink substantially if that change were implemented ;) , I think it is the right choice to prevent votes on meta from affecting the reputation.
- The reason is that the very existence of this summary indicator can only be justified (cf. [discussions](https://meta.codidact.com/posts/280043) on whether reputation was a good idea to begin with) if it reflects the quality of the posts on the _subject of the site_ - and therefore the community assessment whether a contributor is knowledgeable or not.
- The activity on Meta on the other hand indicates how much a user is involved in the community, e.g. how we deal with special situations, or supporting the maintenance of the codebase on which the site rests. These are certainly excellent qualities, but they reflect a different aspect of the user's activity which is not the primary concern for someone who comes here in seeking answers for a specific problem with a Linux(oid) system. Also, votes on Meta questions are prone to being an expression of agreement/disagreement with the statement put up for discussion rather than the quality of the question, which defeats the purpose of "reputation" gained that way to indicate the quality of the contribution to the site.
- It might be reasonable to have two sets of reputation, one for a site and another one for its meta, for situations in which it is desirable to assess the amount of "involvement" of a user in the site's community - but again, votes on Meta Q&A are often an expression on agreement/disagreement[](), so this may not work in the first place.
#2: Post edited
by
AdminBee
·
2023-06-29T09:03:45Z (over 1 year ago)
Add link to the mentioned discussion(s)
- Although my reputation would shrink substantially if that change were implemented ;) , I think it is the right choice to prevent votes on meta from affecting the reputation.
The reason is that the very existence of this summary indicator can only be justified (cf. discussions on whether reputation was a good idea to begin with) if it reflects the quality of the posts on the _subject of the site_ - and therefore the community assessment whether a contributor is knowledgeable or not.- The activity on Meta on the other hand indicates how much a user is involved in the community, e.g. how we deal with special situations, or supporting the maintenance of the codebase on which the site rests. These are certainly excellent qualities, but they reflect a different aspect of the user's activity which is not the primary concern for someone who comes here in seeking answers for a specific problem with a Linux(oid) system. Also, votes on Meta questions are prone to being an expression of agreement/disagreement with the statement put up for discussion rather the quality of the question, which defeats the purpose of "reputation" gained that way to indicate the quality of the contribution to the site.
- It might be reasonable to have two sets of reputation, one for a site and another one for its meta, for situations in which it is desirable to assess the amount of "involvement" of a user in the site's community - but again, votes on Meta Q&A are often an expression on agreement/disagreement, so this might not work to begin with.
- Although my reputation would shrink substantially if that change were implemented ;) , I think it is the right choice to prevent votes on meta from affecting the reputation.
- The reason is that the very existence of this summary indicator can only be justified (cf. [discussions](https://meta.codidact.com/posts/280043) on whether reputation was a good idea to begin with) if it reflects the quality of the posts on the _subject of the site_ - and therefore the community assessment whether a contributor is knowledgeable or not.
- The activity on Meta on the other hand indicates how much a user is involved in the community, e.g. how we deal with special situations, or supporting the maintenance of the codebase on which the site rests. These are certainly excellent qualities, but they reflect a different aspect of the user's activity which is not the primary concern for someone who comes here in seeking answers for a specific problem with a Linux(oid) system. Also, votes on Meta questions are prone to being an expression of agreement/disagreement with the statement put up for discussion rather the quality of the question, which defeats the purpose of "reputation" gained that way to indicate the quality of the contribution to the site.
- It might be reasonable to have two sets of reputation, one for a site and another one for its meta, for situations in which it is desirable to assess the amount of "involvement" of a user in the site's community - but again, votes on Meta Q&A are often an expression on agreement/disagreement, so this might not work to begin with.
#1: Initial revision
by
AdminBee
·
2023-06-28T11:20:38Z (over 1 year ago)
Although my reputation would shrink substantially if that change were implemented ;) , I think it is the right choice to prevent votes on meta from affecting the reputation. The reason is that the very existence of this summary indicator can only be justified (cf. discussions on whether reputation was a good idea to begin with) if it reflects the quality of the posts on the _subject of the site_ - and therefore the community assessment whether a contributor is knowledgeable or not. The activity on Meta on the other hand indicates how much a user is involved in the community, e.g. how we deal with special situations, or supporting the maintenance of the codebase on which the site rests. These are certainly excellent qualities, but they reflect a different aspect of the user's activity which is not the primary concern for someone who comes here in seeking answers for a specific problem with a Linux(oid) system. Also, votes on Meta questions are prone to being an expression of agreement/disagreement with the statement put up for discussion rather the quality of the question, which defeats the purpose of "reputation" gained that way to indicate the quality of the contribution to the site. It might be reasonable to have two sets of reputation, one for a site and another one for its meta, for situations in which it is desirable to assess the amount of "involvement" of a user in the site's community - but again, votes on Meta Q&A are often an expression on agreement/disagreement, so this might not work to begin with.