Welcome to Codidact Meta!
Codidact Meta is the meta-discussion site for the Codidact community network and the Codidact software. Whether you have bug reports or feature requests, support questions or rule discussions that touch the whole network – this is the site for you.
Comments on What will become of reputation?
Parent
What will become of reputation?
For a while now, the reputation topic has (re-)surfaced repeatedly with the the Codidact team taking a slight stance to remove reputation in the long run. Everytime this was mentioned, there were at least some commenters who argued against this motion.
@luap42 announced a discussion thread about it three months ago in the news for the abilities update:
We will no longer base your abilities on reputation, but we're not taking it away (yet?). We've heard you loud and clear: some communities and participants want a quick "score" number. Our plan is still to remove it, but we’ll be thinking of reasonable replacements that suit all communities. You can expect a separate discussion thread in a few days.
With the recent header design change, it was mentioned again, this time even in bold:
This is part of our move away from reputation (although we will not remove the option to have reputation for now).
At least for me (and I think for some other users as well), there are now several questions but the biggest one is: What will become of reputation? Will it be removed? What is the plan right now for it? When and how can we discuss on that matter? (I would like to participate in a discussion regarding the future of reputation as I also lean to the side favouring it.)
Back in the real old days, we had a real long discussion about reputation and privileges (exhibit A, B, C and likely man …
3y ago
(Personal opinion, not official anything.) I'm one of the people who, from the beginning, wanted to change how we han …
4y ago
Whatever it is called, we still need a nice simple single number that is a rough measure of how much good content someon …
4y ago
Post
(Personal opinion, not official anything.)
I'm one of the people who, from the beginning, wanted to change how we handle reputation, because while Someplace Else got some things right with it, their setup also produced some degenerate results that I don't want to replicate.
The biggest problem, IMO, was tying privileges to raw reputation without looking deeper. On one of the sites I used to moderate, we fairly often saw poor answers on popular questions shoot up in (net) votes, and one-time posters suddenly had privileges they didn't really know how to use. This created extra work for community curators. We were keen to not repeat that mistake here at Codidact, and we now have an abilities system that ignores reputation and instead looks at the underlying actions -- your posts, suggested edits, and flags. For the purpose of abilities, an answer at net +5 counts the same as one at net +500; we're looking for "positive" and aren't measuring how positive. We think that someone who contributes ten positive answers has shown more fluency than someone with a single very popular answer.
So great, we've done that -- abilities are decoupled from reputation. What, then, of reputation?
I'm not opposed to having a single "bragging rights" number, whether it's called reputation or score or karma or something else. Communities that want to display it can; those that don't can omit it or even turn it off entirely. And I hear the requests for different weightings; not all post types in all categories are created equal. We currently allow communities to set the rep gain/loss for votes on each post type, without regard to category. That's an artifact of the original architecture, before we added categories, and I grant that it is not ideal. I'd like to be able to allow better, but still simple, configuration of this bragging-rights number. I'd like to replace the current rep configuration with a matrix: categories on one axis, post types on the other, rep for upvotes and downvotes within. This would allow a community to say that papers are worth more than blog posts even though they're both articles, remove downvote penalties on meta because working out policies and such inherently involves posting unpopular options for voting, remove rep from a sandbox entirely, and so on.
If we make rep more configurable in this way, I would want us to agree that this is the only way to gain or lose rep. It's about bragging rights from the posts you contribute, as another answer argues. All of the other valuable contributions people make to a community (edits, curation, etc) fall outside the rep system, to avoid diluting its signal and to avoid making the code even more complex.
0 comment threads