Possible Duplicate:
Indicate How Trustworthy the UpVotes Are

What if, instead of having a hard-coded value of how much rep a person gets per upvote, if the amount an upvote is worth is scaled by the rep of the person doing the upvoting?

Example scale of rep to upvote weight:

  • 1-49: 1
  • 50-199: 2
  • 200-249: 3
  • 250-499: 4
  • 500-999: 5
  • 1000-1499: 6
  • 1500-1999: 7
  • 2000-2499: 8
  • 2500-2999: 9
  • 3000-4999: 10
  • 5000-9999: 11
  • 10000-14999: 12
  • 15000-19999: 13
  • 20000+: 15

Please, this is just a thought and meant for discussion and not a request (unless someone high up really likes the idea).

share|improve this question
Since random didn't give a dupe #, I'll just add meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/13237/… –  jcolebrand Sep 10 '11 at 0:07
add comment

marked as duplicate by random Sep 9 '11 at 23:59


3 Answers

I think this is a bad idea.

Imagine that I have a decent amount of reputation gained in a particular area, lets say T-SQL.

Why should my reputation gained as a T-SQL "expert" carry any more weight when voting on C++ questions than the person who has half my overall reputation but yet has forgot more about C++ than I ever will know or want to know?

share|improve this answer
true, but it's also proven that you are good at providing acceptable questions, answers, and comments on the site. –  DForck42 Sep 9 '11 at 21:50
Yes but in a different area. The fact that someone is an expert in one area doesn't mean they're able to offer a useful opinion in another area, and therefore, the idea that their opinions should carry more weight than someone else's in that area is flawed. –  RobM Sep 9 '11 at 21:56
add comment

This would imply reputation is a measure of knowledge and/or skill, when that's not actually how reputation works:

Reputation is a rough measurement of how much the community trusts you

And finally, this makes the system too complicated. For starters, if you receive an upvote from someone who has 1 rep now, should that change when him or her gets more rep?

share|improve this answer
add comment

I've been thinking about that too, but I like it better the way it is - a constant.

I believe this "weight" system might make people more reluctant to vote as they gain more rep, knowing that their vote carries more weight. While the more reputation a person has earned, the more likely that person will be to distribute his/her votes in a way that is beneficial to SO.

It would, however, make it more difficult to gain rep by setting up fake accounts to update one's own questions, or asking non-programmer friends to make accounts to upvote one's postings. It is my impression that these things don't happen very often, so this "defense" is not needed.

Therefore, I think we should not do this.

share|improve this answer
There is a system in place to handle your second scenario. –  NullUserException อ_อ Sep 9 '11 at 21:56
Not surprised... but still glad to hear it. –  S.L. Barth Sep 9 '11 at 22:00
add comment

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