Shouldn't users start with zero rep? Shouldn't every single point be earned?
What is the reasoning behind starting off every user with a little rep, then making sure that they can't ever go below that?
-
4Starting at 0 would still be starting at '1' ;)– iglvzxCommented Nov 29, 2011 at 4:06
-
? I don't understand what you mean?– wizlogCommented Nov 29, 2011 at 4:08
-
1Zero-based indexing. Jokes aside, I figured starting at 1 reputation point was based on tradition. Many sites start off new users with 1 point.– iglvzxCommented Nov 29, 2011 at 4:19
-
@iglvzx Heehee... SE is large and important enough to set the standard, not just follow it.– wizlogCommented Nov 29, 2011 at 4:20
-
3We could also see this as receiving a rep point for joining ;)– Simon VerbekeCommented Nov 30, 2011 at 19:56
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
It's explained here.
The StackOverflow team believes that everybody's special in their own way and doesn't deserve to have a negative self-esteem (aka reputation).
A rep of zero or negative seemed cruel. Plus, everyone starts out as "a one" instead of "a zero".
answered Nov 29, 2011 at 5:49
-
1
-
1Could someone explain to me that last sentence? The German term for zero ("Null", and it didn't make learning to program easier) can also be used to refer to a person, then meaning loser, but I don't think that's what Jeff is referring to.– Daniel Beck ModCommented Dec 2, 2011 at 6:28
-
1@DanielBeck Telling someone he's zero indeed means that, my understanding anyway.– Sathyajith Bhat ModCommented Dec 2, 2011 at 6:36